Sitting of 11 December 1995

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

    Regulations (Cost-benefit Analyses)
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made in preparing the cost-benefit analyses of regulations. [3300]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): When making new regulatory proposals that affect business, Ministers now need to certify that the benefits clearly exceed the costs. Revised booklets on carrying out benefits assessment and compliance cost assessment are currently being prepared for distribution within Government.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if Britain is to remain the enterprise economy of Europe, we must look at the cost-benefit analyses of all rules and regulations that affect business—whether they come from Brussels or from Westminster? We must also examine the interpretation of those rules and regulations so that they are not made worse by Whitehall or town hall. Does my right hon. Friend agree further that, if the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats were to come to power, Britain would change from the flourishing enterprise economy of Europe into the bureaucratic clipboard centre of Europe?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; I believe that his analysis is correct. For a number of years, the European Union has attempted to assess the costs of implementing new directives. However, I am bound to say that that system has not worked well. I hope that, by the end of this calendar year, the Commission will adopt new procedures, which will involve a much more rigorous assessment of the costs of introducing new directives, and introduce the new principle of proportionality. We want directives to be relevant and proportionate to the problems that they seek to solve.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister assure the House that the use of cost-benefit analyses in relation to regulations arising from legislation originating in this Parliament does not underpin the report that appeared in the Financial Times of 30 November? The report said that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary are seeking to abolish national quangos in Wales which deal with bodies such as the Welsh Development Agency, the Wales tourist board and those with education functions. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that there is no truth whatsoever in that suggestion? We in Wales want those
    680
    quangos to be more answerable: we do not want to see them eliminated or collapsed into United Kingdom quangos.
    Mr. Freeman: Where he has responsibility, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues shall continue to drive down the number of quangos. I am pleased to inform the House that we have reduced the number of quangos by about 100 in this calendar year. [Interruption.] Those are the facts—even though hon. Gentlemen do not like to hear them. As to the hon. Gentleman's specific question, the abolition of individual quangos is, and will remain, the responsibility of individual Ministers.

    Regional Policy (Competitiveness)
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to make regional policy more sensitive to the objective of competitiveness. [3280]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" described a wide range of regional initiatives to promote competitiveness, and I recently held a seminar with the regional directors of the Government offices to review developments. The Government intend to report progress in a further competitiveness White Paper next year.
    Mr. Clapham: I hear what the Deputy Prime Minister has said, but does he agree that it would be much better to direct regional selective assistance towards investment in research and development and possibly product innovation? That would help to secure industries in particular regions and at the same time be a structural initiative which would strengthen competitiveness more effectively.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that regional selective assistance is a major engine that has attracted the very remarkable success in inward investment that we are now achieving in this country. Some 40 per cent. of all inward investment in Europe is coming here.
    I believe that the very exciting announcement made today about the success of regional challenge is a further example of the success of Government policies. Some £160 million of European money has been put up for competition, and has produced 34 winners. That has attracted an additional £351 million of private sector money to add to the already substantial investment that the public sector is making in the regions.
    Mr. Harris: I very much welcome the news of £6 million that is coming to west country tourism as a result of regional challenge. That is particularly welcome in the light of my right hon. Friend's speech on tourism in the south-west recently. Will he nevertheless kindly consider what many of us still regard as the major disadvantage that the south-west faces in attracting industry—the offers that Wales is able to make? That ability gives the Welsh a tremendous advantage over the south-west. Many of us think that that is a very unfair advantage.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is a doughty fighter for the causes of the south-west. I have been pleased by the response from the south-west to the

    681
    speech that I made recently during a visit there. There is a determination in the south-west to enhance its competitiveness and to continue to attract an increasing flow of inward investment. I intend to take an early opportunity, with the agreement of the editor of the Western Morning News, to return to the subject because the Government are determined to give every possible support.
    Mr. Caborn: The House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] Thank you. The House will be very pleased to know that there has been a meeting of the integrated regional officers. That is to be welcomed. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us when the officers will produce their regional strategies, which were requested by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry some six or seven months ago? Can he tell us when those integrated regional officers will be accountable to the House for co-ordinating the spending of £6 billion, which makes the figures that were mentioned earlier pale into insignificance? Those officers are important civil servants—when will they be accountable to the House?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Any time the hon. Gentleman wants to table a question.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would not the competitiveness of that most important region of the United Kingdom, Scotland, be put in jeopardy were it to have an Assembly? Politicians at such an Assembly would spend much of their time inventing new regulations that would damage the competitiveness of Scotland.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As always, my hon. Friend is extremely perceptive. The imposition of a tartan tax would be seriously damaging to the Scottish economy, as an increasingly large number of Scottish industrialists are beginning to realise. If ever a Labour Government were elected and added the imposts of a minimum wage and the social chapter, that would bring to an end the remarkable recovery that the Scottish economy has undergone recently.

    Cabinet Committees
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what Cabinet Committee meetings he chairs.[3281]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I chair the Cabinet Committees on Competitiveness, on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy, on the Environment and on Local Government.
    Mr. MacShane: Four Committees. That is some work for a grown man, and it helps to explain why the rest of the country now considers that the Deputy Prime Minister, with the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), is now working principally on party political work at taxpayers' expense.
    Can the Deputy Prime Minister, as chairman of the Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy, explain to the House why a draft of a Cabinet document by Lord Mackay was erroneously briefed to The Daily Telegraph, thus forcing a humiliating public retraction from the Lord Chancellor?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Member knows that that is a very considerable misrepresentation of what actually happened. He will also know that the Leader of
    682
    the Opposition has unleashed on this country the most sophisticated misrepresentation of Government policy by people who have learnt transatlantic techniques of media manipulation and are paid by the Labour party day after day to misdirect and misinform the British public.
    Mr. Jenkin: Has my right hon. Friend ever changed his mind about nuclear weapons, or about the need for standards and testing in education, or about nationalisation—
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker—
    Madam Speaker: I shall take points of order after Question Time; but perhaps the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) will now come to the point that he is making.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does not my right hon. Friend's record make him worth a million Labour party members on any Cabinet Committee?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question, but I differ in one respect. It is not Opposition Members who have changed their minds; it is the leader of the Labour party who has changed his mind. As anyone who sits in the House knows, the only issues that ever excite the Opposition parties are the same ones as have always excited them: those that fundamentally attack the prosperity of the enterprise economy, those that increase the trade unions' ability to wreck our economy and those that pander to the worst excesses of an envious society.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Deputy Prime Minister do a little better now than he did when answering the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)? Will he answer the question instead of just having a go at the Opposition? Will he tell the House—this is, after all, a matter of public concern—what he is doing to find out how a draft speech was released before authorisation by a senior Cabinet Minister? What inquiry is being held? What responsibility does the right hon. Gentleman have for the actions of the Lord Chancellor or of the chairman of the Tory party in the Cabinet?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that the chairman of the Conservative party is a valued and upright member of this Conservative Administration. He is quite able to explain for himself, as he has often done in the past—as has the Lord Chancellor. There is no point in my adding to explanations already clearly put in the public domain.
    Mr. Prescott: Did the right hon. Gentleman authorise the Tory party chairman to instruct Conservative central office to brief The Daily Telegraph on Lord Mackay's speech? Will he confirm whether the Lord Chancellor ever intended to warn the judiciary not to overstep its powers? Was such a statement ever contained in a draft prepared by the Lord Chancellor? Is it not time someone made a public apology to the Lord Chancellor?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has been listening to the spin doctors of the Labour party. These matters have been fully explored by my right hon. Friends. If the hon. Gentleman wants to pursue them further, he can table specific questions to the people responsible; he will be told again what he has been

    683
    told before. The hon. Gentleman is deliberately trying to misrepresent events, in compliance with the worst excesses of his party's manipulation machinery.

    HMSO (Privatisation)
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. [3282]
    Mr. Freeman: I announced in October that the Government were commissioning advice on the possible options for HMSO with a view to privatisation. I also said that I would be consulting Parliament about securing the provision of services which HMSO currently provides. I am now considering these issues and hope to make an oral statement shortly.
    Mr. Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the proposed privatisation of HMSO could have profound and detrimental effects on services to right hon. and hon. Members? Does he also agree that major issues surrounding intellectual property rights need to be discussed when considering the matter? Finally, if the Government are determined, as they say they are, to develop open government, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that a matter of this importance should be the subject of detailed debate on the Floor of the House?
    Mr. Freeman: On the hon. Gentleman's question about the service to hon. Members, I appreciate that the services provided to Parliament, let alone to the Crown, by Her Majesty's Stationery Office are extremely important both to Parliament and to HMSO. When the matter is more fully discussed in the House at the appropriate time, I shall argue that the House's best interests will be protected through a contract. I understand that such a contract already exists in outline and I believe that the best interests of the House in terms of confidentiality, timeliness and reducing costs can be properly protected.
    The hon. Gentleman is right about intellectual property rights. I am not responsible for the copyright of documents belonging to the Houses of Parliament; I am responsible for Crown copyright. I am determined to ensure that control of the Crown copyright is retained by Ministers and I shall continue to be accountable to the House for such copyright. As a process of open government, I should like more immediate access by members of the public to Crown documents, but it is for Parliament to make a decision about its own copyright.
    Finally, as regards a debate on the Floor of the House, I shall draw that to the attention of the business managers.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the fact that many of my constituents work at Her Majesty's Stationery Office in Norwich, will hon. Friend assure me that he is consulting as far as possible everyone who represents the staff and management at HMSO to make sure that the final solution is as acceptable as possible? Will he also hear my welcome and that of my constituents and people nationally for the reduction in the price of Hansard? That is good news.
    Mr. Freeman: I share my hon. Friend's view about the recent reductions in the price of Hansard. [Interruption.] This is a serious subject.
    Mr. MacShane: Then the Minister should give us an answer.
    Mr. Freeman: I am seeking to give an answer.
    Mr. MacShane: That will make a change.
    Mr. Freeman: It will not make a change. I am consistently giving the House the correct answer.
    I am pleased about the recent reduction in the price of Hansard. I assure my hon. Friend that the privatisation of the stationery office, by allowing it to compete with business in the private sector, will secure more jobs than would otherwise have been the case. I give the House an assurance that the unions and the House will be consulted properly.
    Mr. Garrett: What guarantees can the Minister give the 900 employees of HMSO in my constituency? Will the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 apply to those workers, as they operate in a sector of rapid technological change?
    Mr. Freeman: Yes, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that whenever industries have been privatised, there has been a massive increase in development and productivity? In respect of quality of service, will he re-read the debates on the privatisation of British Telecom when the Opposition said that there would be a deterioration in quality of service? In fact, there has been a massive improvement.
    Mr. Freeman: Privatisation of the stationery office will create more jobs. If we do nothing, jobs will be lost, not only in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman but elsewhere.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Does not last Saturday's Financial Times expose a furious row between the House authorities and the Government over the Minister's dogma-driven plan to sell off HMSO? Will the Minister for open government let us all join in that row by publishing his evidence to the Finance and Services Select Committee and the Committee's reservations? Will he now delay the sale to meet the requirements of the House?
    Mr. Freeman: I have said that Parliament must not only be consulted but be satisfied with the proposed arrangements and I look forward to debating them in detail. As regards the evidence to the Finance and Services Select Committee, release of the transcript is a matter not for me but for the Select Committee. However, I have absolutely no objection to it being made public.

    Civil Servants
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many civil servants were employed by the Government or by Government agencies at the most recent count; and what was the figure in May 1979. [3283]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. David Willetts): In 1979, when we came to office, there were 735,000 civil servants. There are now 506,000—a fall of 31 per cent.
    Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend anticipate that the progress in the reduction in the number of civil servants will continue? Does he have any targets?
    Mr. Willetts: In the White Paper entitled "The Civil Service: Continuity and Change", the Government said that numbers would fall significantly below 500,000 by

    685
    1999. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said in the Budget debate, we expect to pass that milestone next year—three years ahead of schedule. Continued firm control of Departments' running costs will ensure that the drive for increased efficiency does not lose momentum.
    Mr. Hanson: Does the Minister believe that the loss of 200 civil service jobs in four locations in Wales which was announced at the weekend, coupled with the 31 per cent. decrease that he just announced, will help or hinder morale in the civil service, and therefore help or hinder the service that the public receive?
    Mr. Willetts: The civil service can take pride in delivering important services with ever-greater efficiency.

    Government Policies
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to ensure that Her Majesty's Government's policies are communicated to the general public through the broadcast media; and if he will make a statement. [3284]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. and hon. colleagues and I take every opportunity to present this Government's policies on the broadcast media. Thanks to this Government's policies on deregulation and competitiveness, there are now many more such broadcast outlets than ever before.
    Mr. Fabricant: I ask my right hon. Friend to continue putting across Government policy on important issues, including our spending commitments, and not to go down the road of the Labour party and try to compress party policy into soundbites while making no spending commitments. I ask my right hon. Friend also not to follow the example of the sinister spin doctors—such as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who tries to compress everything into five words while not expressing any Labour commitment.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I support my hon. Friend's remarks, particularly in the context of the recent Budget of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, in which we saw not only significant increases in expenditure on key services such as health, law and order and education but the beginning of a determination to lower levels of taxation.
    Mr. Grocott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that, since the Conservative party came to power, there has been a huge increase in the number of Government press officers and that the amount of money spent by the Government on propaganda by the various media outlets has also increased hugely—by as much as 600 per cent., according to some estimates? We now have an expensive additional Government position known as Deputy Prime Minister, whose holder's main function concerns Government propaganda. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that anything that is so expensive to sell must be a pretty shabby product?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been making inquiries into the records of Governments in the politicisation of the civil service. The only evidence that I can find of a Government's determination to politicise the media or press handling of government was that of the Labour Government, when Joe Haines was made a
    686
    press officer at No. 10. The relevant question is whether or not there is any truth in the statements by Alastair Campbell, who is now travelling around the lobbies of the country, that he will be made a press officer in Downing street if Labour wins. The country is entitled to receive the answer.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new proposals he has to improve the results of deregulation. [3285]
    Mr. Freeman: Some of the most recent results from the deregulation initiatives are the programme of joint working on pay as you earn and national insurance and simplification of national insurance procedures for the self-employed. The first deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 have now passed through Parliament. They are just the first of many.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Government bonfire of regulations and standards the main reason why our civil service, which has long been the least corrupt and least politicised of any in the world, is accused of leaking private information directly to the Conservative party? Is the civil service now so deregulated and so demoralised that civil servants consider themselves the servants not of the nation but of the Conservative party?
    Mr. Freeman: Civil servants are not the servants of the Conservative party, the Labour party or any political party. We have the finest, most impartial civil service in the world. The recent civil service code, which I published, protects the rights of civil servants from any interference, political or otherwise, in the discharge of their duties.
    Mr. Steen: The problem with deregulation is in curbing the deregulatory tendencies of officials. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the court throwing out the case against the Lanark blue cheese maker, officials in the Scottish Office have now published a code of conduct for specialist cheese makers? It is no good us doing anything in this place if officials continue to dream up codes of conduct and practices that undermine what the Government are trying to do with their deregulation thrust.
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend is right when he says that it is not just the regulations themselves, either European or domestic, but how they are enforced that really counts, or counts as much as the original legislation. I am pleased to say that my colleagues in other Government Departments are considering either reducing or amending the codes of practice that they issue in relation to what civil servants may or may not do. We need a much more user-friendly system of enforcement of regulations in this country.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Minister wants to ensure that civil servants are kept out of the arguments about political activities, will he guarantee that Sir Robin Butler will not be regarded as the scapegoat to carry the can for the arms to Iraq affair, as was announced in the press last weekend'?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman must not believe what he reads in the press.
    Mr. Stephen: I congratulate the Government on their efforts thus far to relieve the burden of regulation from

    687
    British business. Will my right hon. Friend accept nevertheless that businesses are still reluctant to take on new staff, due largely to the burdens and risks imposed on them by the employment destruction Act, sometimes known as the Employment Protection Act?
    Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend must be right when he says that the burdens of new regulation and social legislation can easily destroy jobs; they make businesses less profitable. Smaller businesses are clearly the engine of growth, and we must do everything possible to make their business life as easy as possible. That is what the Government are dedicated to doing.

    South Western Electricity
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of the takeover of South Western Electricity on competitiveness. [3286]
    Mr. Willetts: The takeover was completed only in September and it is too soon to assess its effects, but exposing the utilities to the full opportunities and disciplines of the marketplace has provided an enormous boost to UK competitiveness.
    Mr. Jamieson: What has the Minister to say to my constituent, Mrs. Ray, who, with thousands of others in the 1980s, bought shares in South Western Electricity, thinking that she was participating in popular capitalism? Now that Southern Electric of Atlanta, Georgia has taken over the company, she and many others have had their small shareholdings compulsorily purchased against their will. Does the hon. Gentleman understand why shareholders across the south-west are dismayed that the Government have allowed their shareholdings to be taken away and allowed this vital public monopoly utility to be taken over by a wholly foreign-owned company?
    Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to understand how takeovers operate in this country. It was perfectly clear that as soon as Southern Electric's bid received the requisite majority of support, other shareholders, sadly, would be obliged to accept its terms.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Duncan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about his tour of European capitals to discuss deregulation. [3301]
    Mr. Freeman: My discussions with other European Union partners have shown that both Ministers and business leaders recognise the need to lift the burden of European regulation on our businesses. My call for urgent action received strong support in the Internal Market Council on 23 November.
    Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that what matters with any regulation regime is equity across the single market? Will he confirm that Britain will never be put at a competitive disadvantage in the way in which regulations are implemented across the European Union?
    Mr. Freeman: It is certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that where—sometimes
    688
    by qualified majority voting—a directive is agreed, it is applied uniformly throughout all member states of the Union.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister now answer the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)? Did he or his right hon. Friend tour foreign capitals, at public expense, to flog this dogma? If so, how much did it cost? Why did those who were interested not come here at their own expense?
    Mr. Freeman: Unlike the Labour party, the Government take the issue of deregulation very seriously. I visited eight European capitals, and I propose to visit six more. I am very pleased that the results of those visits were so successful.

    Regulation and Social Legislation
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what analysis he has made of the effects of regulation and social legislation on jobs. [3303]
    Mr. Freeman: Over-burdensome regulation destroys jobs because it stifles innovation and growth, raises prices and drives companies elsewhere. Deregulation, by reducing the burden of unnecessary regulation and paperwork, is central to improving businesses' competitiveness and so helps to create new jobs. It is also a helpful feature for attracting inward investment.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the ultimate aim of socialism was for all jobs to he regulated and for people to know where they stood, the result was that no one knew where they stood, nothing really happened in industry and all vitality was lost? Is not excessive regulation such as that contained in the social chapter and similar provisions destined to fail?
    Mr. Freeman: The Conservative party is the party of deregulation; the Labour party is the party of regulation.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Southern Africa (Education)
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent aid to southern Africa is oriented towards the provision of education. [3312]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Support for education is one of the focus areas for our bilateral aid programme to South Africa, the priorities of which have been agreed with the South African Government. In 1994-95, implementation of our education projects involved expenditure of more than £6 million, some 38 per cent. of total expenditure. We plan to maintain a substantial programme in the education sector.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend share my view that, following the royal visit to South Africa and the visit made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, relations between our two countries are of the highest

    689
    order? What progress has been made following the signing of a memorandum of understanding by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Mandela?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with my hon. Friend. Relations between South Africa and the United Kingdom are excellent: we are even allowing the South Africans to draw at cricket, to avoid—of course—a defeat for them.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the memorandum of understanding signed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Mandela in relation to our bilateral aid programme. It represents some £60 million of the bilateral aid commitment over three years, and projects valued at more than £37 million have already been approved and are being implemented. Of that £37 million. just over £12 million is for natural resources, over £10 million for good governance, £6.5 million for health, £4.5 million for small-scale enterprise development and about £3 million for education.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that the moneys allocated to the South African authorities for higher education will not go to institutions that provide such education predominantly for whites?
    Mr. Hanley: Education, including higher education, is one of a number of priorities that we have assessed. We do not sub-allocate to any particular sectors in any one year. We are trying to help South Africa to reform its education policies, and ensuring that it becomes free and fair and reverses the problems and disadvantage caused by apartheid. That is part of our policy.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister assure us that, despite the 7 per cent. overall cut in the bilateral aid budget that has been announced, there will be no cut in education provision for either South Africa or southern African in general?
    Mr. Hanley: The aid budget will be maintained as the fifth biggest aid programme from the fifth biggest economy. I cannot give specific assurances about the individual items because they still have to be worked out.

    Aid Programme
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received on the overseas aid programme arising from the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" proposals. [3313]
    Mr. Hanley: We have had no formal representations, but my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has met senior representatives of the non-governmental organisations' community to discuss the broad implications of the financial statement proposals.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that organisations such as Oxfam which are much involved in overseas aid criticise the claim that Britain is the fifth biggest contributor? In relation to national wealth we are joint 13th with Italy. Is it not time that we stopped hovering at 0.31 per cent. of GNP and moved towards the 0.7 per cent. target set by the United Nations?
    Mr. Hanley: Our aid programme is extremely effective. Other G7 donors are finding that, in difficult economic circumstances, they are unable to move towards
    690
    the target. Italy's aid expenditure fell by 36 per cent. last year; Canada is reducing its aid by 20.5 per cent.; and the United States, which contributes only 0.15 per cent. of GNP to aid, is reducing its programme still further, but the Government have consciously avoided cuts of a similar magnitude. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that the United Kingdom's ODA-GNP ratio in 1994 was 0.31 per cent. That is higher than the average for all development assistance committee donors, which is 0.29 per cent. and the UK is likely to remain at or near the DAC average.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Although any reduction in our overseas aid budget must be a matter for concern, does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures should be put into perspective and that the planned expenditure for next year is only about £90 million less than the expected outturn of more than £2,150 million this year? As the expenditure outturn is always varied by the degree to which programmes have been completed, will my right hon. Friend confirm that next year's planned expenditure should in no way be inhibited by the very small reduction?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The programme for next year is still very large and the money will be extremely effectively spent. The problem that, I suppose, has given rise to some of the comments about the ODA is that our bilateral programme will shrink over the next three years compared with our multilateral programme. There is no doubt that the bilateral programme will be reduced over the survey period, but much of the reduction in 1996-97 will be accommodated by lower than previously forecast spending on multilateral programmes, especially on the European development fund, and that will help to offset the pressures on the bilateral programme.
    Miss Lestor: Will the Minister cast his mind back to what the Chancellor said in his Budget statement and not play around with figures? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that
    "the planned allocation for bilateral aid is likely to be little different from that set out in last year's departmental report."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol.267, c.1060-61.]
    Will the Minister confirm that the figures in the report show that bilateral aid was scheduled to fall anyway from £1,100 million in 1995-96 to £1,019 million in 1996-97 —a cut of 7 per cent. or £81 million, which is no mean figure at all? On that basis, will not the bilateral aid budget, far from being protected or little different, as the Chancellor implied in his statement, be cut next year, the year after and the year after that on the basis of the figures announced on 28 November?
    Mr. Hanley: I am surprised that the hon. Lady criticises the reduction in the bilateral programme, which is due almost entirely to the increase in the multilateral programme. I thought that her party was the party of Europe and that it believed in multilateral donations at the cost of national interest. To consider the bilateral aid programme alone is to be dishonest because, after all, the budget will be £2,154 million in 1996-97. Yes, that is an overall 5.4 per cent. reduction in cash terms, hut the budget is planned to rise by £47 million to £2,201 million in 1997-98 and by a further £69 million to £2,270 million in 1998-99. That is, therefore, a substantial aid budget.
    Miss Lestor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I will take it at the end: I take points of order after questions. [Interruption.] I will deal with this. All hon. Members must be treated equally in this respect.

    Know-how Funds
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the use of the know-how funds. [3315]
    Mr. Hanley: The main objective of the know-how fund, Britain's programme of bilateral technical assistance to central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, is to help countries in transition to democracy and a free-market economy by providing advice and expertise. Total expenditure in 1994-95 was £77.2 million. The annual report for 1994-95 and a list of implemented projects are in the Libraries of both Houses.
    Mr. Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for his report on the work of the know-how fund, which has been widely welcomed by the recipients. Does he agree, however, that it is even more important that we should be willing to trade with those countries, and that the European Union should adopt a less protectionist and more liberal trading philosophy when dealing with them?
    Mr. Hanley: The European Union assesses its aid priorities regularly. The know-how fund is a British institution and a British initiative.
    Mr. Battle: Although under this Government overseas aid has been redirected not only to the know-how fund, which is welcome, but to the multilateral programmes, does not the bilateral aid cut mean that the poorest sub-Saharan African countries are paying the price for that shift and for those cuts? Government cuts in the programme are not being made up for by shifts to the know-how fund or to multilateral funding.
    Mr. Hanley: In answer to an earlier question from the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), I implied that she had been dishonest in her figures. I should like to withdraw that and say that "disingenuous" may be a more accurate word. The hon. Gentleman mentions exactly the same thing. The aid budget remains large; it is still the fifth largest in the world. The bilateral programme, because of our international agreements, is shrinking, but that does not mean that the proportion of bilateral aid or our proportion of multilateral aid is such that there is a reduction in aid to the poorest countries. We are maintaining three quarters of our aid to such countries.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the great contribution of the British Council in working alongside the know-how fund? It works cost-effectively and delivers an excellent service in those eastern bloc countries and brings trade and jobs to this country.
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the British Council and all its works.

    Nigeria
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how British aid to Nigeria is being used to encourage its ruler to introduce democracy. [3316]
    Mr. Hanley: In concert with others, we have made it clear that no aid will be given in support of the Nigerian
    692
    military regime. Since 1993, our good government scheme, administered locally, has allocated about £100.000 a year for initiatives related to the rule of law, respect for human rights and sound government.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given the Minister's answer, will he explain why in mid-October the Foreign Office held a reception for the Nigerian chamber of commerce? What signal does that send to the Nigerian people and, in particular, to victims of the regime in Nigeria?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the programme of restrictions that have been introduced by the Commonwealth and, subsequently, by the European Union against Nigeria. There is not a trade ban with Nigeria, but other initiatives are being considered.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Following last week's visit to the House by Dr. Owens Wiwa, brother of Ken Saro-Wiwa, does my right hon. Friend agree that persuasion or diplomacy of any sort is not producing any results in relation to a more humanitarian regime in Nigeria? Is it not time for the British Government to consider an oil embargo, which would be universally exploited, and the freezing of Nigerian leaders' assets in Europe as they seem to have salted away about $12.3 billion of unaccounted for oil revenue?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend will know that on 4 December the European Union announced the adoption of further common positions that extended measures in three spheres: the withdrawal of all military personnel attached to diplomatic representations of EU states in Nigeria and the expulsion of military personnel attached to Nigerian diplomatic representations in member states; further visa restrictions to ensure that members of the Nigerian regime and their families in possession of long-term visas are not admitted; and an interruption of sporting contacts through the denial of visas for official delegations and national teams. That means that we are considering actions as they become appropriate.
    As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said last week, the problem is that the United States of America takes some 50 per cent. of Nigerian oil, and an oil embargo would have to be policed by naval forces. That is being considered at the moment, but no firm decision has yet been made.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that there is a difference between consideration and advocacy? Are the Government advocating the imposition of oil sanctions? Is he further aware that the freezing of bank accounts could have an even more dramatic effect?
    Mr. Hanley: As I have said, we are considering what further actions to take in the light of discussions with our allies.
    Mr. Mark Robinson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the stand taken by many developing Commonwealth countries in Africa—countries that are, of course, in receipt of aid and assistance from the British programme—in condemning the situation in Nigeria?
    Mr. Hanley: Indeed I will.

    Social and Cultural Development
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what

    693
    provision is made to help with social and cultural development in the third world; and if he will make a statement. [3319]
    Mr. Hanley: We do not set aside a predetermined provision for social and cultural development in our aid programme. We prefer to integrate this aspect into all our projects and programmes.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware of the concerns of the Council for Education in World Citizenship about how the savage cuts in overseas aid will adversely affect its work of educating young people in the third world to understand their culture, rights and responsibilities? Does the Minister understand that cuts in overseas aid will have a tremendous effect on the organisation's work? Is he going to do something to safeguard the interests of the young people who depend on assistance from the Government to help them understand their culture, responsibilities and rights?
    Mr. Hanley: The central objective of the aid programme—I have already mentioned how substantial that programme is—is to improve the quality of life of people in poorer countries. That objective includes social and cultural developments and certainly includes helping to rectify the disadvantage suffered by many young people who are forced to work when they should not be doing so. It also includes improving the condition of young people such as street children who exist in far too many countries. That work will not cease; it continues because of our substantial aid programme.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: I thank my right hon. Friend for the answer that he has just given. Despite the wild speculation about the recent financial settlement—a settlement that is much to be welcomed—does he agree that it is not the total cash that counts but the quality of the individual aid programmes?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is one of the reasons why the aid that we give and the way in which we give it is praised worldwide. Of course, we would all like to have more money to give, but it is also important that this country's economy remains healthy. Our aid budget of £2.23 billion is still massive and we use it extremely well. We also lead the way in promoting debt relief, which is extremely important. In addition, the United Kingdom is the third largest source of private capital, so our record is very good, not only in the provision of aid but in the way in which we deliver it.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Government Business (Co-ordination)
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on what further co-ordination of Government business he has undertaken. [3288]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I continue to contribute to the collective consideration of business, especially by chairing the relevant Cabinet Committee: the Ministerial Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy.
    Mr. Winnick: I should like to deal with the subject that was not raised in previous questions. Will the Cabinet give very clear and full consideration to the suggestion
    694
    made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, about tightening legislation on knives? Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that in view of last week's terrible tragedy—the murder of a very brave man carrying out his duties and responsibilities to his pupils—there is undoubtedly a case for strengthening the law on knives, as many of us have argued over the years? If the Cabinet were willing to respond, would not a united House of Commons response to a very important social problem be useful?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter and for the way in which he did so. I am sure that the entire House is wholly sympathetic to his concern, and deeply shocked by the appalling event to which he has referred. Although the immediate responsibility for an answer to that question must lie with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will make representations to my right hon. and learned Friend that he make that position as clear as he can as early as possible.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Unfrocked Priests
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how many priests have been taken off the payroll of the Church Commissioners as a result of being unfrocked; out of what total in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [3320]
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Commissioners do not hold this information. Clergy are added to or taken off the central payroll in response to instructions from dioceses. A clergyman may leave the payroll for a variety of reasons, such as taking a job outside the parochial ministry or overseas, and the Commissioners are not generally informed of the circumstances.
    Mr. Greenway: Do not clergy sometimes resign for sad reasons? May I pay a warm tribute to the vast majority of clergy for their wonderful and dedicated service and work? Should there not be effective safeguards against serious and devastating abuses such as those that occurred recently at the Sheffield nine o'clock service?
    Mr. Alison: These matters lie a little outside the immediate scope of my responsibilities, but I can tell my hon. Friend that a carefully maintained check-list is kept at Lambeth palace of clergy, against whose names an asterisk is placed due to some uncertainty about their performance. Those on the list are informed and may make representations if they consider that their name should be removed from the list. The list enables the sort of monitoring to take place which I know that my hon. Friend would wish.

    Income
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what proposals the Church Commissioners have to maximise the income available to them. [3321]
    Mr. Alison: The Commissioners' aim is to optimise returns over the long term from their investments. They are currently re-balancing their portfolio and investing in a spread of assets with good growth prospects, while avoiding undue risk from over-concentration in any one area.
    Mr. Banks: May I suggest that one way of maximising income would be to build congregations? I would not encourage the Church Commissioners to follow the hands-on policy of the rave vicar of Sheffield, but there are ways in which the church service could be made more interesting. A church in the United States, for example, encourages its congregation to bring their pets along to join in the service. Perhaps the best idea would be to privatise the Church of England, to get in a regulator—Ofgod, or something like that—and a few consultants, and then start marketing the Lord who is suitable to the 21st century.
    Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman must be careful of using the word "pets". It may have a connotation in Newham that is different from the one in the files of the RSPCA. The hon. Gentleman is full of bright ideas and I can think of nothing better than his arming himself with a barrow and parading up and down parish churches in the Newham district advertising his strong faith in the prospects and benefits of the Church of England.
    Mr. Alexander: May I offer my right hon. Friend another bright idea? Why do only a few cathedrals, such as Ely, charge for admission, whereas nearly all the others allow tour operators to offer their clients and visitors to this country free admission? Surely we should be maximising the potential rather than handing round the begging bowl to those who otherwise visit them?
    Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend makes a good suggestion. Again, the Commissioners do not have direct responsibility for the way in which different cathedrals are run. Among the 40 or so dioceses, there is a variety of practice and performance and there is no doubt that some are much more effective at fundraising than others.
    696
    Our aim must be to maximise performance in respect of all the historic value locked up in our marvellous cathedrals.

    Church Investments
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what new proposals the Church Commissioners have to improve the ethical content of Church investments. [3322]
    Mr. Alison: The Commissioners have always managed their investments within clinical guidelines—I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker, I meant within ethical guidelines. In recognition that ethical issues are becoming increasingly complex, we established an ethical working group in October 1994. The group is chaired by the First Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Michael Colman, with representatives from the Church Commissioners, the central board of finance, the General Synod's board of social responsibility and the Church of England's pensions board.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Church Commissioners have added greatly to their credibility by their swift action in initiating talks with Shell—because of the Church's investment of £24 million in that company—about its connection with the odious and murderous regime in Nigeria? Can he tell us the outcome of the talks?
    Mr. Alison: The holding is valued at £29 million, which shows how the portfolio has increased since the hon. Gentleman looked at the figures. We have regular contact with Shell regarding the company's Nigerian operations, and have had for the past two years. We are continuing carefully to monitor Shell's operations in Nigeria. The hon. Gentleman will know of the critical importance of oil income to the Nigerian economy. Overwhelmingly the greater part of Nigeria's earnings from foreign trade comes from oil revenues. Anything that sought to inhibit or diminish the viability and buoyancy of that trade would have catastrophic effects on millions of ordinary people outside the ranks of the Government.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have given you and the Home Secretary notice of this question and I am grateful that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is present. On the Order Paper for 6 December questions 180 to 189—10 questions that I asked—related to the Home Secretary's responsibilities. The questions were for a named day. Four related to information concerning consultations that he had had, or had not had, with various bodies, including the high commissioners for the Commonwealth, three police consultative committees relating to the federations of the police and the London consultative committees that have been established. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would answer those questions, along with others that are not relevant to this point of order, as soon as possible. Of course, those answers, and the questions, did not appear in the Official Report for that day. As hon. Members might know, if a holding answer is given, the question is not published until the holding answer becomes a substantive one, so no one would know that the questions had been asked, or that the Home Secretary had not replied to questions that fairly related to what he had or had not done up to that time.
My point of order is to ask whether our practice could be adjusted to ensure that non-printing of such questions and answers be confined only to matters that you or the Table Office reasonably regard as unanswerable at the time. Otherwise, other Ministers could fail to answer reasonable questions, as the Home Secretary has—in this case, he has failed to do so in time for a debate that is taking place today.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The questions were printed on the Order Paper. He is quite right that they did not appear in Hansard. As I know that he is careful not to abuse the system of tabling questions for answer on a named day, I have some sympathy with his point of order. Ministers will have heard this exchange. I cannot, of course, oblige them to answer in any particular case. I believe that the Home Secretary is seeking to catch my eye. Although I will not allow a debate on the matter, the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be able to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for giving me notice of the question that he proposed to raise. I have had the matter investigated. I apologise for the fact that the hon. Gentleman's questions were not answered in time for the debate. In so far as it is possible so to do, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone
698
(Miss Widdecombe), will answer them in her winding-up speech up this evening and we shall answer the remainder as soon as possible—I hope within 48 hours or so.
Mr. Harry Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is in his place on the Front Bench, may I ask whether there has been any indication that we might have a statement on the law relating to the carrying of knives, bearing in mind the murder of my constituent, Philip Lawrence, on Friday? It is of great importance to St. George's Roman Catholic school in Maida Vale, its acting headmaster, staff, pupils and teachers, that they should know that they will have proper security in and out of school. Is there any chance of a statement?
Madam Speaker: I cannot allow the Home Secretary to go on answering questions. The point of order is for me. I have not been informed that there is likely to be a statement on that issue. However, senior Cabinet Ministers are available on the Front Bench and will have heard the hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I regret that I have not had the opportunity of giving you or the Home Secretary notice of my point of order.
Clause 1 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we are about to consider, empowers
"the Secretary of State to designate by order countries where there is in general no serious risk of persecution."
That is the so-called "white list".
You will know, Madam Speaker, that I and several other hon. Members have, over the past month, been asking when the Home Secretary intends to publish the list. I have just been told by the Home Secretary's office that it is intended that the list will be contained in a statutory instrument under the negative resolution procedure. That means that the list, and the powers that flow from the Bill, will be in force before the House has an opportunity to debate or consider properly the countries on the list. As these matters are truly concerned with life-and-death issues, would you reflect on whether this procedure is appropriate for such a vital matter, bearing in mind that Second Reading takes place today? If you share my reservations about the proposed procedure, will you prevail on the Home Secretary to adopt a more appropriate procedure?
Madam Speaker: This is a case where hon. Members who oppose the procedure must persuade the Home Secretary to change it during the course of the debate. It is a normal procedure of the House. Although the hon. Gentleman has put his own connotation on it to say that the matter is more serious and important than anything that we have touched on or debated for some time, these are matters that must be discussed in exchanges across the Floor of the House today. We must now get on with the debate.

Orders of the Day

  Asylum and Immigration Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: Before I call the Home Secretary, I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party. I have had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock this evening.
  3.38 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Government are firmly committed to maintaining a tolerant society in which the diverse cultures and backgrounds of those who are lawfully present in this country are fully respected. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
  "I believe passionately in the equal rights of everyone in this country—whether they be black, brown, yellow or white. That is my firm conviction and it has always been my firm conviction. That will be this Government's policy for as long as I sit on the Front Bench."
  I wholeheartedly endorse the Prime Minister's sentiment. Our race relations are as good as—if not better than—those of any other country in Europe. Firm but fair immigration control is a necessary condition for such a society. That is the context in which this Bill should be seen.
  The Bill has three objectives: first, to strengthen our asylum procedures so that bogus claims and appeals can be dealt with more quickly; secondly, to combat immigration racketeering through stronger powers, new offences and higher penalties; and, thirdly, to reduce economic incentives, which attract people to come to this country in breach of our immigration laws. The Bill would erect a stronger defence against unauthorised employment and provide powers to restrict entitlement to housing assistance and child benefit.
  Britain has a proud record of giving refuge to those fleeing genuine persecution, but we cannot ignore the fact that our procedures are being abused. Only 4 per cent. of those claiming asylum are deemed by the Home Office to be genuine refugees and just 4 per cent. of appeals are upheld by independent adjudicators.
  Asylum applications are rising rapidly—up from 2,500 a month at the start of 1994 to more than 4,700 last month. Action is being taken to process claims more quickly. We employ seven times more case workers than in 1988. Between June 1994 and June 1995, they took 25,000 asylum decisions—10,000 more than in the preceding 12 months. In February, I announced that £37 million would be spent on extra asylum case workers and adjudicators over the next three years.
  Mr. David Alton: Does the Home Secretary accept that, despite the 4 per cent. figure that is bandied around so much, an additional 20 per cent. are accepted, even in terms of the Home Office's fairly tough criteria, as people who might be in some kind of danger, were they to return home, and are given exceptional leave to stay? Some of those cases even
  700
  include torture. So although they do not fit the 4 per cent. description, they come within a much broader category than he admits to the House today.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has a point in relation to applications, but not appeals. It is important to appreciate that none of those who comes into the category that he has identified is relevant to the consideration of appeals. Only 4 per cent. of appeals from the decision of the immigration officer to independent adjudicators actually succeed.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Could the Home Secretary assist the House in considering the Bill by providing us with two pieces of factual information? Both today and when he made his statement last month, he gave monthly figures. He is now giving the November figure whereas he previously gave the October figure. Could he give us the cumulative figure of applications for the 11 months of 1995? Secondly, could he give us the number of applications outstanding, as of the most recent date?
  Mr. Howard: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman the cumulative figure in a moment or two. I can virtually answer his question by saying that we expect the number of applications for the whole of the current year to exceed 40,000. The number awaiting determination is currently 66,000. As I was about to point out in my speech, the relentless rise in applications is outstripping our ability to deal with them. I have just told the House of the measures that we are taking to increase our capacity to deal with those applications. Many other western European countries have taken action to tighten their procedures. As a result, asylum applications are falling in the rest of western Europe—down from 500,000 in 1993 to 320,000 last year, while applications in this country rose by about 45 per cent. during the same period.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who I think was the first to get up, but I must make some progress.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is placing a great deal of emphasis on the number of applications. Can he give an assurance that he foresees no likely reduction in the number of people who are afforded asylum in this country as a result of the Act hitting the statute book? Surely he agrees that it would be outrageous if people were sent back to their deaths in countries such as Nigeria or Sri Lanka—countries where we have a special interest. That would rest very heavy on our conscience.
  Mr. Howard: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I do not foresee any diminution in the number of genuine applications that we accept in this country. 1 have always made it clear that it is no part of our intention, in making those proposals, to place any further obstacles in the way of refugees who are genuinely entitled to asylum; but we must be a haven, not a honeypot. That is the motivation behind those proposals.
  Mr. William O'Brien rose—
  Mr. Neil Gerrard rose—
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was the first to rise, so I give way to him.
  Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Home Secretary explain how great an extra work load will be placed on

  701
  employers by the legislation in the Bill which obliges them to ensure that anyone whom they employ is a bona fide accepted refugee? Does he understand that that will impose an extensive work load on employers, and what will he do about it?
  Mr. Howard: Employers will not have to do anything of the kind, but I shall come to our employer provisions in due course as I explain the provisions that are contained in the Bill.
  We need, against the background that I have explained—
  Mr. Gerrard rose—
  Mr. Howard: I must make a little progress.
  We need an effective sifting mechanism, so that manifestly unfounded claims can be dealt with more quickly. It is the unfounded claims that the measures in the Bill are designed to deal with. All other comparable western European countries have such arrangements.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: As someone who has pursued many genuine asylum claims in this country and also assisted with a case in one of our European partners, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether the provision that he has just mentioned will enhance the opportunity of genuine asylum seekers to have their cases heard speedily?
  Mr. Howard: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, and I propose to explain how that will happen in a moment or two.
  Parliament has already endorsed the principle that I have just described. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 enables certain claims to be certified as "without foundation". That triggers an accelerated appeal. If the independent adjudicator upholds the certificate, there is no further appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.
  However, case law has effectively limited the use of the special appeal procedure to cases where we intend to remove a person to a safe third country. We now need to extend that mechanism. The Bill would introduce wider criteria for its use. Clause 1 would allow an accelerated appeal if the grounds for the claim do not fall within the terms of the 1951 convention; where the grounds are manifestly untrue or fraudulent; where the grounds cited no longer apply; and where asylum is claimed only after action for removal has been initiated. The existing "frivolous or vexatious" test would be retained.
  Those criteria would, for example, enable us to certify a claim openly based on poverty rather than persecution; or fraudulent claims, such as that by the Ethiopian teenager claiming that his mother had disappeared after arrest, but whose parents turned out to be living safely at home and in well-paid state employment; or that by the large group of Pakistanis who claimed asylum because of membership of the Pakistan People's party and who appealed against refusal of their applications even though that party had since become the Government of Pakistan.
  Mr. Gerrard: Will the Minister explain who will not be subject to the fast-track appeal mechanism? According to the clause and the criteria that he has outlined so far,
  702
  it seems that virtually anyone could be subject to fast track. Will the Minister give examples of cases that will not be subject to fast-track appeal?
  Mr. Howard: Many people manifestly do not fall into the categories that I have identified. Such people include genuine asylum seekers and genuine refugees for whom this country will continue to be a haven from persecution. However, we must go further than the steps that I have identified so far.
  There are countries that generate large numbers of asylum claims but few, if any, genuine cases. Why should genuine refugees—my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raised precisely this point—from Iran or Iraq have to wait longer for a decision because we give equal time and weight to the thousands of bogus claims from countries such as Poland and India'? Clause 1 would enable the holder of my office, subject to parliamentary approval, to designate selected countries as not giving rise to a serious risk of persecution. There would be a presumption that claims from such countries were not well founded.
  However, every claim would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Applicants from those countries would have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator, but they would not have a further right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Germany, Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands already operate a system of that kind. I intend to apply three criteria to the selection of countries for designation.
  Mr. Jack Straw: The fact that other countries apply the procedure does not make it intrinsically right. Will the Secretary of State give more details about why appellants under the system will be denied the right to appeal to the tribunal on a point of law? In the absence of such an appeal, how will the adjudicators receive any direction as to the correct interpretation of the law?
  Mr. Howard: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's point because I do not see how that will arise. The purpose of the exercise is to provide a fast-track procedure which will take place against a background of a presumption of designated safe countries. Every application will be considered on a case-by-case basis and there will be an appeal to the independent adjudicator. It is not necessary to make an appeal to the immigration appellate authority to receive proper guidance on points of law.
  Mr. Straw: I must press the Secretary of State on that point. Will he confirm my interpretation of the case: the Home Office will have right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal even though the appellant will not? If that is the case, large numbers of applications for judicial review will be generated because there is no other means of allowing the courts to give directions to adjudicators about the proper interpretation of the law.
  Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertion that that is the only way in which the objective can be achieved. The Labour party failed to recognise the truth when the matters were last debated in the House and apparently it fails to recognise it now. If we are to deal with asylum claims in a way that will enable genuine applications to be dealt with quickly—as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has urged—we must

  703
  streamline the procedures. We must take action to deal with the existing interminable appeal procedures. We are prepared to grasp the nettle, but the Labour party is not.
  Mr. Paul Flynn: Will the Home Secretary explain to the House why genuine refugee status seekers will have their benefits cut on 8 January?
  Mr. Howard: I shall turn to the benefit provisions in a moment. They are important and, if the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall deal with them at the appropriate point in my speech. [Interruption.] I shall now make some progress, as I think that the hon. Gentleman will be interested in the criteria that I intend to apply. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Home Secretary.
  Mr. Howard: I intend to apply three criteria to the selection of countries for designation: that there is in general no serious risk of persecution; that they generate significant numbers of asylum claims in the United Kingdom; and that a very high proportion of claims prove to be unfounded. Contrary to the assertion in the reasoned amendment, designation will not amount to a declaration that we necessarily consider countries to be universally safe, or to have political and judicial institutions that function to western standards. We could not possibly accept an obligation to apply such standards, and no such obligation exists in international law. What we will be saying is that a country has functioning institutions, and stability and pluralism in sufficient measure to support an assessment that, in general, people living there are not at risk.
  Designation will be by order, and orders will be laid before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure. I can tell the House today that the countries that I currently propose to designate are Bulgaria, Cyprus, India, Ghana, Pakistan, Poland and Romania.
  If conditions deteriorate in a country, the Bill will allow me to make an order cancelling its designation. And it will also be possible to add other countries to the list.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Home Secretary explain on whose decision a country would be taken off the list, and on the basis of what evidence and information? Does he accept that a country might have a veneer of democratic government, but underneath it might have a brutal police force, a brutal army, or a drugs problem or other criminal activities which would make a claim for asylum just as legitimate as if the country in question had a military dictatorship?
  Mr. Howard: It would be for Parliament to decide whether a country should be added to or taken off the list, in accordance with the negative procedure that I have identified. It would be for the Home Secretary to make proposals for additions to or subtractions from the list, and he would take into account all relevant information about conditions in the country concerned, including all the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  Next, the Bill would make appeals against removal to a safe third country—such as France or Germany—exercisable only after removal. The 1951 convention on refugees does not confer a right on would-be asylum seekers to travel freely to the destination of their choice. There is an internationally accepted principle that they
  704
  should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive at. But our existing arrangements make it impossible to apply the safe third country principle effectively.
  Over 80 per cent. of third country removals are to France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. The rest are to other European and western democracies. It is absurd that removal to such countries should be delayed while applicants seek to dispute the safety of those countries.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Howard: I must complete my explanation.
  The Bill would impose a clear obligation on the Secretary of State to remove only to those third countries where the applicant would not be at risk either of persecution or of being returned to his own country contrary to the 1951 convention.
  There is nothing unusual in requiring immigration appeals to be exercised from abroad. It has long been the case, for example, that a person refused leave to enter because he does not have the necessary entry clearance can appeal only from abroad.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: Naturally enough, in giving examples of third countries to which asylum seekers might be sent, the Home Secretary chose the uncontentious examples of France and Germany. Unfortunately, that is not what the Bill says. Clause 1(2) states that asylum seekers can be removed to any country where there is something described as
  "in general no serious risk of persecution."
  What on earth is meant by that?
  Mr. Howard: I am explaining the current practice, the difficulties that we face, the problems with which those who want to take these matters seriously have to deal, and the way in which we propose to deal with them. The Bill gives us the authority to deal with them effectively.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Howard: The power given in the Bill enables action to be taken along the lines that I have mentioned. If the right hon. Gentleman has any points to make about the detailed wording of the Bill, no doubt he will be the first to join the Standing Committee. I am sure that his presence will be greatly welcomed.
  Mr. Hattersley: I would be happy to serve on the Standing Committee if the Whips allowed me to do so. I served on every other attempt that the Government have made to tighten up the regulations and I would be happy to do so again. Will the Home Secretary do the House the courtesy of answering my question? What is a state in which there is no "general" fear of persecution? It is the word general that interests me.
  Mr. Howard: I have told the House precisely what the power is designed to achieve. If the Opposition are suggesting that the we should not return people who have come to the United Kingdom through France, Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands, they should say so. The power in the Bill is designed to enable us to deal with that problem.
  Mr. Tony Banks: May I give the Home Secretary a lesson in geography. It is difficult to reach the

  705
  United Kingdom without going through Germany or France and that throws a great burden on those countries. How will the provision operate? One reason why people might not want to stop in Germany or France is that their lingua franca is English, therefore Britain is a more relevant place for them to go. Otherwise, because we are an island, we will never take anyone and the entire responsibility for refugees will fall on the continent.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have heard of the aeroplane, although a large number of asylum seekers come to the United Kingdom by other means of transport. They arrive by aeroplane and apply for asylum and we deal with their applications. In most cases, the provisions are unlikely to be of assistance in dealing with such applications, so they will not be relevant, but if the hon. Gentleman thinks that we have an overriding obligation to invite to the United Kingdom anyone fleeing persecution or claim to flee persecution who has more English than French, his approach is completely misguided and misconceived.
  There is a well-recognised principle that those in danger of persecution apply for asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive. It is generally accepted internationally. The French and the Germans accept it and so do we. The difficulty is that we take so long to deal with such cases that the French and the Germans will not accept the people back. That is why we have to streamline our procedures.
  The propaganda put out by the Opposition on precisely this aspect of our proposals is entirely characteristic of their dishonest approach. I have here a briefing note issued by the Labour party which suggests that the number of successful appeals against safe third country returns in 1994 was 30 per cent. and if that were a true figure it would be a serious matter which would need to be dealt with. Let me tell the House the truth. The number of without-foundation appeals allowed was 4 per cent. The remainder were cases returned to me for decision precisely because of the length of time that had elapsed since the arrival in the United Kingdom of the person concerned. In other words, many of those people could no doubt have been removed to a third country had their claims been dealt with promptly. They are not successful appeals; they are part of the problem which the legislation is intended to remedy. I call on the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) now to withdraw that disgraceful piece of propaganda and apologise to all those who might have the misfortune to read it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."'
  The Bill would also remove other obstacles to the effective operation of our asylum procedures. In particular, provisions in schedule 2 would ensure that a refused asylum seeker would have only one time-limited opportunity to appeal against deportation. At present, refused asylum seekers can go to ground secure in the knowledge that they still have an opportunity to appeal when the deportation order is issued. That cannot be justified. Schedule 2 also would bring dependants of asylum seekers within the scope of the power under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993 to curtail existing leave when refusing an asylum claim.
  Deterring bogus asylum applicants is only part of the story. I am equally concerned about racketeers who prey on people who are often poor and illiterate with promises
  706
  that cannot be delivered. Racketeering is a growing problem. So far this year alone, there have been 110 reported incidents, resulting in the arrest of 171 facilitators in cases involving 501 illegal entrants. Racketeers unscrupulously abuse our procedures—frequently, for example, stowing their unfortunate clients in lorries or among cargoes in dangerous and inhumane conditions.
  The existing law does not enable us to deal with all aspects of the problem. There is an offence of facilitating the entry of an illegal entrant, but that by itself has proved insufficient to deal with the scale and complexity of the current problem. We propose that in future, it will be an offence to facilitate the admission of an asylum seeker to the United Kingdom for reward. Those last words are important. It is not our intention to criminalise the activities of persons who act for altruistic reasons to help asylum seekers to enter Britain—the Bill specifically exempts them. The measure is carefully aimed at persons who seek to profit from the plight of others.
  The current legislation does not prohibit facilitating further leave by deception after entry. Persons who run, for example, bogus educational establishments and the organisers of marriage rackets are deliberately challenging the integrity of immigration control but are not committing an immigration offence at present. We need to send a clear signal of our determination to deal with those deplorable activities. The Bill makes the acquisition of leave to remain in the United Kingdom by deception a criminal offence, and it creates a corresponding offence of facilitating the acquisition of leave to remain by deception.
  The Bill will increase the powers available to immigration officers to search for documents used for travel to the United Kingdom, by giving them a power to search ships, aircraft and vehicles. It will extend the existing powers of search and arrest to include overstayers and unauthorised workers. The Bill will also increase the financial penalty on conviction for immigration offences.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: That being so, will the Home Secretary explain why the Bill does not include the promised closure of the Jackal loophole—ready access to birth certificates for the purpose of creating false personalities? The Government promised to close that loophole five years ago, in 1990, but consistently use the argument of lack of parliamentary time for not doing so. In my constituency, a person took the personality of a baby that lived for only one day in 1967. Hon. Members can imagine the trauma caused to the family concerned, and it is beyond belief for them that such a loophole is legal. The Government have done nothing to close it. Why does not the Bill include a proposal to do so?
  Mr. Howard: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's important and serious point. I looked at the possibility of including such a provision but was advised that it is outside the Bill's scope. I accept the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point, and I certainly believe that we should look at the earliest possible legislative opportunity, possibly through a private Member's Bill, to deal with that matter.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I support the intervention of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) because one of my constituents was

  707
  hugely distressed by someone using a birth certificate and other details to impersonate her. The impersonator was convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, but she was released after six weeks and cannot be deported because nobody knows her country of origin. The system is in a terrible mess and urgent action is needed.
  Mr. Howard: I entirely agree. It is desirable that we find an opportunity to legislate on that matter as soon as possible.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Howard: I give way to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), but then I must make some progress.
  Mr. Nick Ainger: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. Is it racketeering when employers have to apply for work permits, for example, to employ a nurse from a foreign country who may have trained in this country? Is it right that employers can charge for that, because, in a case that is currently before a tribunal, £1,000 was requested to obtain a work permit on behalf of a trained nurse? Has the Home Secretary included that as racketeering in the Bill? If so, would the Bill outlaw it?
  Mr. Howard: I am not responsible for work permits. If the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred is currently before an industrial tribunal, it would not be wise for me to comment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
  I now come to a proposal in the Bill that I am confident that both sides of the House will welcome: that all detained illegal entrants should be able to apply for bail. It will apply also to those who are detained but have been granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Bill would also eliminate the last remaining sexually discriminatory provision of the Immigration Act 1971 by making it possible for a man to be deported as the dependant of his wife.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any indication of the proportion of those who are currently granted bail but then abscond and do not turn up?
  Mr. Howard: No, I cannot give my hon. Friend that information, but perhaps I can allay his anxieties to the extent that the probability of absconding is a matter that the court would take carefully into account in deciding whether bail should be granted in a particular case.
  I now turn to the Bill's third objective: reducing the incentives that attract economic migrants to Britain who do not meet our immigration rules. Illegal working is a substantial problem. Although its precise scale is unknown, the immigration service detected more than 10,000 people working here illegally in 1994. In 1988, the comparable figure was fewer than 4,000. But the absence of controls acts as a strong incentive to people to come here to work illegally. Every other member state of the European Union, except the Republic of Ireland, has recognised that and done something about it. I believe that we need firm action here, too.
  Clause 8 will help to tackle the problem. It will create a criminal offence of employing a person who is not entitled to work in the United Kingdom. The maximum
  708
  penalty would be a level 5 fine, currently £5,000. Employers would have a defence, as clause 8 makes clear, if they could prove that the employee had produced one of a range of documents before their employment began. The details of the statutory offences, including the documents in question, will be set out in secondary legislation. We provided an outline of the defences proposed in the consultation document, which we made available to the House on 20 November. We will produce for the Committee a draft statutory instrument to aid consideration of the clause.
  As a Government, we are committed to reducing burdens on business wherever possible. I do not expect my proposals to impose significant new burdens on employers. The defences that we envisage will keep the demands on employers to a minimum. One of the defences that we propose would be based on national insurance numbers and on existing practices and procedures with which employers are currently familiar. But I will listen very carefully to suggestions made by employers and their organisations, in response to our consultation document, and introduce changes where necessary.
  Ms Jean Corston: Is the Home Secretary aware of the report from the Social Security Select Committee which showed that there are 20 million more national insurance numbers in circulation than there are people entitled to them? In dealing with the problem in the way in which he has outlined, is not he creating yet another avenue for fraud?
  Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Lady's conclusion. No one suggests that national insurance numbers are perfect, although they are progressively being made more efficient and effective. I think that they will be a very helpful and useful check as part of our approach to dealing with illegal employment.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Howard: Yes, but then I really must press on.
  Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I run a small business and am vice-chairman of the small business bureau. When he consults businesses, will he pay particular heed to smaller businesses and ensure that any rules and regulations that are introduced will not overly burden them?
  Mr. Howard: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's concern. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State have been paying particular attention to the views of small business organisations in the discussions that we have had on these provisions.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Howard: No, I really must make some progress now.
  I fully appreciate the need for employers to have appropriate guidance and advice about what they might need to do under the arrangements proposed in clause 8. An important part of that advice will clearly concern the avoidance of recruitment practices that are discriminatory, or might appear to he so. I shall be consulting the

  709
  Commission for Racial Equality and others to make sure that the advice that we provide gives employers any help that they may need.
  Clause 9 restricts entitlement to housing. It is unacceptable that people who are here illegally, or who have come here on the understanding that they will not rely on public funds, should have access to housing at the taxpayer's expense. At present, local housing authorities have a duty to such people if they are found to be unintentionally homeless and in priority need. That has meant that hard-pressed housing authorities have had to use scarce resources to accommodate people from abroad with no genuine claim to assistance, at the expense of local residents in housing need. That cannot be right. Those claiming asylum after entering Britain, and those whose applications have received an initial refusal, will no longer have housing entitlement.
  Clause 10 restricts entitlement to child benefit. Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has presented to the Social Security Advisory Committee a package of measures to limit further the benefit entitlement of some persons from abroad. Among the proposals are measures to prevent people given limited leave to enter the UK, on the understanding that the cost did not fall on public funds, and illegal immigrants, from claiming the non-contributory social security benefits.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Howard: No.
  The Government explained in their memorandum to the Committee that, while it is possible to limit access to most benefits through secondary legislation, primary legislation would be needed to curtail entitlement to child benefit. Clause 10 introduces a regulation-making power to make that possible. Let me make it clear that there is no question of our applying restrictions under clauses 9 and 10 to people who are settled here—in other words, those who have been given indefinite leave to enter or remain.
  Mr. Kaufman rose—
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Tony Banks rose—
  Mr. Howard: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but I shall not give way again after that.
  Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said that the conditions relating to child benefit will not apply to people who have been given indefinite leave to remain. Clause 10(2) states:
  "No immigrant within the meaning of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 shall be entitled to child benefit for any week unless he satisfies prescribed conditions."
  The definition clause, clause 12, states that
  "'immigrant' means a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given)."
  Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile what he has just said—that the entitlement of someone with indefinite leave to remain will not be removed—with
  710
  the statement in the definition clause that someone who has required leave to remain, whether he is given that leave or not, is subject to the condition?
  Mr. Howard: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. The wording of the clause mirrors wording in comparable social security legislation: the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is, in effect, a social security clause. I have no doubt that the precise wording will be scrutinised carefully in Standing Committee, but I have clearly indicated how we intend the powers to be exercised.
  Mr. Kaufman: This is an important point. What the Home Secretary says, on the Floor of the House, that he intends to do is not a substitute for what is stated in an Act of Parliament, and the future Act of Parliament that he is asking the House to approve states clearly and unequivocally, in clause 12(2), that
  "'immigrant' means a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given)."
  This is not a matter of social security legislation; it is a matter of Home Office immigration legislation. The Home Secretary must either clarify it, or give the House a commitment to amend the Bill to fulfil what he has just said from the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that a prescribed condition under clause 10 can be that the person has no restriction or condition placed on his leave to remain. That is precisely the way in which we intend to exercise this power. The right hon. Gentleman is so clearly fascinated by the detailed wording of the Bill that no doubt he will join his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on the Standing Committee. It promises to be an extremely interesting Committee.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Howard: I have already given way to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and I must make progress.
  I now come to the question of the Special Standing Committee procedure. On this matter I wholly endorse the view that has been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It has always been clear that the procedure was designed for Bills that have a degree of cross-party support. The Bills for which it has been used have been relatively technical and non-controversial. Regrettably, and not least because of the reactions of Opposition Members, from the outset this Bill has not fallen into that category and has attracted substantial controversy.
  Parliament's normal procedures are designed to subject legislation to detailed scrutiny. I have no doubt whatever, especially after what we have just heard, that the Bill will have ample scrutiny as it makes its way through our normal procedures. All hon. Members agree on the importance of preserving good race relations, and all say that they agree on the need for fair and firm but effective immigration control. That being so, it should he possible for the House to have a constructive debate on the Bill. However, for that to be possible it is essential that hon. Members in all parts of the House should he prepared to address our specific proposals. We are entitled to expect that those who disagree with them will say whether they

  711
  accept that urgent action is required to deal with the problems that I have described; and, if they do, what alternative action they propose.
  Some have suggested that this is an immoral Bill. I reject that utterly. It is not immoral to protect our asylum procedures against the current massive level of abuse. It is not immoral to declare that, in our judgment, the conditions in some countries do not give rise to a serious risk of persecution. It is not immoral to insist that people arriving from other safe countries should return to pursue their claims there. It is not immoral to seek to protect employment opportunities for those entitled to live and work here, and it is not immoral to combat racketeering.
  Our position has always been clear. This country has a proud record on good race relations. I am determined to do everything that I can to maintain that record. Firm control of immigration is vital to achieve that objective. That involves a readiness to identify abuse and to take the action necessary to deal with it. The Bill is a measured response to the problems that we face. It is necessary, it is urgently needed and it deserves to reach the statute book as soon as possible. I commend it to the House.
  4.22 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: Britain has been immeasurably enriched by the contribution that has been made to its economy and its society by successive generations of immigrants. Long before the United Nations came into being, Britain was often a beacon of liberty for those who had been forced to flee their native countries, as many in the House can testify from their own family experiences. Those of us who have so benefited have a special responsibility to remember that asylum policy is about the protection of that most basic right, the right to life.
  The appalling events in Nigeria in recent weeks remind us yet again why Britain must honour its own history and retain an asylum system that is just and humane. Race relations in Britain are much better than in many other European countries, but we have to tread carefully to ensure that they stay so. Above all, we must act in a way in which prejudice is not fanned, and people must not be led to believe that immigration is out of control. If that happens, racial tension will rise, and the whole country will be the loser.
  The Secretary of State says that immigration controls must be firm and fair. He is right, but, by that phrase, he recognises that there must be a balance between fairness and firmness, between justice and control. It is central to our case that he has failed to achieve that balance in this Bill. The Bill may not deal effectively with some of the worst abuse, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), yet it may deny refuge to entirely genuine asylum seekers, conflict with our obligations under United Nations treaties, harm the interests of many people from ethnic minorities who are lawfully settled here, and, in so doing, damage race relations.
  In his speech on the Loyal Address, the Prime Minister said:
  "While I lead it. the instincts of my party will not be to play race at any time".—[Official Report, 15 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 39.]
  The Secretary of State has offered the same commitment. He said in his statement on the Bill that he agreed with
  "the desirability of taking this issue out of party politics."—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 338.]
  712
  He went on to assert, however, that there was a "simple way" for that to be achieved—the people who have the most profound reservations about this measure should simply agree with him.
  The Secretary of State said that his Bill was "a balanced response", but he must know that such an approach—take it or leave it—is no recipe for consensus, but only for conflict. What makes his position all the more threadbare is that the House has established procedures that could achieve the consensus that he says he seeks.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Bill's provisions will apply to Poland, where the people are white, as it does to Ghana, where the people are black, and that it is the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party who are playing the race card?
  Mr. Straw: Of course I accept that: Poland is on the white list, so what the hon. Gentleman said is absolutely correct.
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said to his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary:
  "Surely there can be some mechanism whereby people can give evidence on what my right hon. and learned Friend is seeking to do, before the passage of the proposed legislation, in an attempt to make it work, and therefore to prove to all that what we are seeking to do is fair and effective, and fulfils our international obligations."—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 343.]
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe was right. That procedure is the Special Standing Committee procedure, and a motion to commit the Bill to such a Committee is on the Order Paper, backed by hon. Members from almost every Opposition party in the House.
  Mr. Marlow: With a few exceptions, all the measures that the Government bring before the House are fair, effective and not in conflict with our international obligations, and the hon. Gentleman opposes them. Will he oppose this Bill or support it?
  Mr. Straw: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has only just woken up, but of course we will oppose the Bill. If he cares to listen, he will find out why. We would much prefer the Bill to be examined on an all-party basis by a Special Standing Committee. If he had thought about it, he would have recommended that for the Maastricht Bill.
  The Secretary of State claims, as we have just heard, that the Special Standing Committee procedures are only for non-controversial legislation, but he has been unable to find a single convincing text in support of that restriction. First, on the "Today" programme, he quoted from an obscure and long-discredited White Paper on "Scotland and the Union", forgetting that the scrutiny of Bills is a responsibility of the House, not of the Government.
  When that ruse failed, the Secretary of State sought support in the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who, he said, had written to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition,
  "referring him to a finding of the Procedure Committee in the 1989-90 Session which clearly demonstrates that [the Special Standing Committee] procedure would not be appropriate for the Bill".
  I have that Procedure Committee report here. It contains no such finding. In his letter, the right hon. Member for Honiton quoted a single phrase from that report. The phrase was:

  713
  "in particular those Bills which are not controversial in party political terms".
  I am afraid, however, that he did not put that phrase into its proper context, because the Committee was highly critical of the way in which the House scrutinises legislation, and of the Government's refusal to countenance reform.
  Mr. David Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was then, and remain, a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, and that I was therefore party to the report? Although it is true that we said that, "in particular", the Bills that were not party political could be referred to a Special Standing Committee, we certainly did not work on the assumption that all measures that might be considered controversial in party political terms should not be considered by such a Committee. I am certain that, had such a Bill as this come before the Procedure Committee for consideration, we would have accepted that there was every possible justification for its going to a Special Standing Committee.
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. The words
  "in particular those Bills which are not controversial in party political terms"
  was not a finding for the House but a recommendation to the Government following the most serious criticism of the Government's refusal to make use of the Special Standing Committee procedure in almost any circumstances.
  Indeed, contrary to what the Home Secretary just claimed about the way in which Parliament can effectively scrutinise legislation, the Procedure Committee recorded at paragraph 312:
  "There is widespread dissatisfaction with the way in which the Standing Committee system operates".
  It continued:
  "We…strongly believe that the best way to harness the positive attributes of Select Committees to the scrutiny of legislation in appropriate cases is through Special Standing Committee. The necessary procedural machinery already exists in Standing Orders and we have urged on several occasions that proper use should be made of it … All that is lacking is the necessary will on the Government's part".
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is that not simply a rather long-winded way of saying that the Special Standing Committee is a fig leaf that will enable the Labour party to appear to be on both sides of the issue? Will the hon. Gentleman answer two specific questions? Does he recognise that there is a problem with the number of asylum seekers? If so, what are his proposals to deal with that problem?
  Mr. Straw: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise the danger of not subjecting the Bill to proper scrutiny—a danger which, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe pointed out, has led to the failure of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993?
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva rose—
  Mr. Straw: I must make progress.
  As Madam Speaker pointed out two weeks ago, there is no restriction on which Bills the House may commit to a Special Standing Committee. As she said, the bottom line is that it is for the House to decide.
  714
  When, in 1986, these Standing Orders were introduced, an attempt was made to restrict the circumstances in which Bills could be committed to such a Committee. Ministers sought an automatic veto over any Bill that could be remitted to a Special Standing Committee, but the House rejected that notion. There was a rebellion on both sides of the House, and the man who led it was none other than the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. He said that the right to commit Bills to such Committees should not be reserved for Ministers.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is doing what he always does when he is on a thoroughly bad point, which is to address his argument to a different point altogether. No one is disputing the fact that the House, in its wisdom, can decide, if it so wishes, to subject any Bill to any procedure, including a Special Standing Committee. That is not the argument; the argument is whether this is an appropriate Bill to be subjected to that procedure.
  The Government made their view clear in the White Paper on Scotland in 1993. My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, made clear his Committee's view in his letter. In order to avoid the issue, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) keeps talking about the completely different question of whether the House can decide to send the Bill to a Special Standing Committee. Of course the House can decide that if it so wishes, but that is not the point.
  Mr. Straw: The Home Secretary is as badly briefed today as when he appeared on the "Today" programme. It is no good quoting a White Paper, as White Papers are published by the Government. It is for the House to determine its own procedure.
  The Home Secretary mentioned the Procedure Committee. The question of the nature of the Bills to go to Special Standing Committees was debated in 1986. The issue then was whether Bills should be non-controversial and whether they should be referred only by Ministers. The House came to a different view from that which the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Procedure Committee are recommending to the House.
  Mr. Flynn: Did my hon. Friend observe that the Home Secretary failed to honour the promise he made to me in response to my intervention, and explain why genuine asylum seekers will be deprived of all benefits from 8 January? Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for a special Committee is that it would remove that injustice, which will leave thousands of families penniless in a few weeks' time?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, of course I agree with my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks that this House will not properly scrutinise the Bill, given that the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) have volunteered to serve on the Standing Committee? Why on earth will it not be properly scrutinised by Members from his side of the House as well as ours?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman shows a profound misunderstanding of the way in which Standing and Select Committees operate.
  Mr. Arnold indicated dissent.
  Mr. Straw: He asked a serious question, and I shall give him a serious answer. The value of the Special Standing Committee procedure is that it enables evidence to be taken from practitioners and others on how the Bill might work in practice. As his hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) pointed out in the House on 20 November, had that procedure been available during the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, the Act might not have turned out to be the failure it has.
  Mr. Alton: May I support the hon. Gentleman in what he is saying? Surely, if the Act has served us so badly and we are having to find new legislation only three years after it was introduced, that in itself is a justification for calling witnesses to find out why it has not worked.
  Is there not an additional argument? Do we not need a more bipartisan approach to these matters? We seem to use such matters with monotonous regularity in the immediate run-up to general elections as a chance to whip up emotion. Is that not the wrong way to go about things? Would not the right way be to look at the questions properly and concisely in the atmosphere of a Special Standing Committee that has the ability to call witnesses, so that we could reach firm conclusions that the whole of the House could back?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is no need for this measure to be controversial. There is agreement across the Floor—[Interruption.] Oh yes, there is agreement on the need to cut abuse and delays, while meeting our international obligations. The issue is how that should be achieved; how that balance between firmness and fairness should be struck.
  I shall now spell out why the Bill needs the scrutiny of a Special Standing Committee.
  Sir Peter Emery: If the hon. Gentleman has finished his diatribe about the Special Standing Committee, may I say that it would have been fair of him to point out one or two matters that, for some reason, he found it better to neglect? It was not at the suggestion of any person.
  Mr. Straw: Where is the question?
  Sir Peter Emery: I am asking you a question so that you understand what you are doing wrong. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.
  Sir Peter Emery: First, does the hon. Gentleman understand only too clearly that the letter I wrote to his leader starts with the words:
  "1 refrained from interrupting your speech"?
  It was the speech of the Leader of the Opposition that brought about the letter. It was nothing to do with the Government Front-Bench team or myself. That is quite clear.
  Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman understand that, in fact, the entire proceedings of the Committee's meetings, which I chaired on both occasions, made it absolutely clear, as I said in the letter—which again was neglected—that
  "Apart from the Handful of Bills each Session which excite great party political controversy, there are many which, though controversial in parts involve no party commitment".
  If there was ever any proof that this Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House a very long time, and he knows that interventions should last about a minute. So far, I have given him the latitude of just over two minutes. I hope that he will be winding up his intervention immediately.
  Sir Peter Emery: I understand only too well, and will do so, but I have not interrupted a number of times, although there have been many comments about what I have said.
  Will the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) understand that the majority of members of the Procedure Committee never suggested that this sort of controversial Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman took a very long time to get to the point. Given the length of that intervention, he was wise not to intervene on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have given the answer. It is in the right hon. Gentleman's report and in the Standing Orders, the change to which he moved in 1987.
  Let me explain why we need a Special Standing Committee. We need to know why the 1993 Act has failed. We need much better evidence about the scale of the problem, and why enforcement is so poor in so many areas. We need to know whether the proposed offences aimed at racketeering will be effective. We also need an examination of other measures that might be taken, such as reception centres and the registration of so-called asylum advisers, to exclude the unscrupulous self-styled advice centres that make money from other people's misery.
  The Secretary of State said in his statement three weeks ago that the 1993 Act had not worked as intended because
  "we did not anticipate at the time that that measure was enacted that the increase in the number … would be on such a scale"—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 340]
  That is simply not correct.
  The Home Secretary's predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), was explicit when he said on Third Reading:
  "we must expect that even greater numbers of people will want to come to this country".
  In virtually the same breath, he said that the 1993 Act would provide a quicker way to deal with applications and
  "a better and more sensible way"—[Official Report, 11 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 731.]
  to deal with fraud.
  An increase was anticipated—at least to the numbers now reached. The numbers were higher in 1991 than they are likely to be this year, and they fell spontaneously by 40 per cent. the following year, without any change in legislation. The previous Secretary of State promised a three-month time limit from initial application to disposal of appeal. Those time limits have been missed, not by a few weeks, but by more than a year. Three months has become 19 months.
  The Secretary of State points to an increase in resources, but while the number of staff has undoubtedly increased, the number of decisions went down from 35,000 in 1992 to 21,000 in 1994, before making some recovery this year. Could it be that the hon. Member for Broxtowe was right again, when he told the House that one of the reasons why the 1993 Act "has failed"

  717
  —his words—was because the suggestions of practitioners who offered evidence were "not taken into account" by Ministers when framing this Bill?
  With the Home Secretary's refusal to allow effective scrutiny of this Bill, is there not every likelihood of another piece of badly drafted legislation ending up on the statute book?
  Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman now do his bit for effective scrutiny of the Bill by withdrawing the disgracefully misleading claim in the document that he put out for the parliamentary Labour party, that, in 1994, 30 per cent. of appeals under the fast-track mechanism were successful? He must now know that that is a complete distortion of the truth.
  Mr. Straw: The reference came directly from a brief provided by Amnesty International. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."' Contrary to the mockery from the Conservative Benches, that organisation has a high reputation for accuracy. If the information is wrong, I will be delighted to withdraw it.
  The House and the country deserve a much better analysis of why numbers have risen. Ministers insinuate that, because applications for asylum have risen from 4,000 in 1988 to around 40,000 now, while acceptances have fallen, bogus applicants must account for almost all the increase. Of course there are bogus asylum seekers, but that is not sufficient explanation for the increase.
  The end of the cold war was of huge importance in reducing the prospect of thermo-nuclear conflict, but since its end, the world has in many ways become a much more dangerous place. Let us look at the areas of internal disruption and civil war, and consider the trend in the figures. Look at Algeria, the Sudan, Somalia, the former Yugoslavia and, of course, Nigeria. As conflicts develop, so the number of applications for asylum shoots up.
  Mr. Stephen rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have already given way enough.
  Let us look at those areas in which some semblance of peace has been restored, and where applications have generally fallen. Applications from the Lebanon have fallen by 90 per cent. since 1990, and there were half the number of applications from Iran last year as compared with 1986. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees commented:
  "in our view, the rise in asylum claims may be more rationally seen as a consequence of the unprecedented scale of global conflict which produces refugee flows".
  Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, which was forced through the House? The fines that resulted from that Act were uprated in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Does he concede that that Act in itself makes it much more difficult for people to flee persecution and in effect gives rise to an illegal trade? It gives racketeers a market opportunity to smuggle people into this country who ought legitimately to be able to board a plane and travel without the airlines acting as bogus immigration officers.
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Evidence should be taken by the Special Standing Committee on exactly those issues, before, not after, judgments are made.
  Mr. John Carlisle rose—
  Mr. Straw: I have already given way sufficiently to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends.
  The Home Secretary never ceases to repeat his mantra that the number of asylum seekers in continental Europe is falling, while the number in Britain is rising. The fact that the numbers shot up in other European countries in 1992 while they fell here by 40 per cent. did not stop Ministers rushing forward with the ill-drafted and incompetent 1993 Act.
  The huge increase in refugees that Germany faced in the early 1990s was in the most part due to immigration across its land borders because of the disintegration of former communist bloc states. Numbers in Germany have fallen, but last year they were still treble the United Kingdom level, while in the Netherlands they rose 40 per cent. in a year from 1993 to 1994.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his thesis is entirely wrong? Numbers did not fall spontaneously, as he put it, between 1991 and 1992. The fall was due to the fact that screening was introduced, and because the 1991 figures contained a large number of multiple applications. Does he further accept that the screening procedures introduced in 1991 were reinforced by fingerprinting in the 1993 Act? Does he think that that had any effect, or was it all somehow spontaneous?
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Lady looks at the figures country by country, she will see that my point is made. As a conflict develops, numbers rise, and as a conflict is settled, they fall. In any event, there is much anecdotal evidence to suggest that, with the tightening of the asylum regime in continental Europe but the weakening of border controls, many would-be asylum seekers have simply gone underground.
  At the end of last month, the Secretary of State deferred agreement on plans for a European Union directive against racism. He did so on the grounds that Britain has
  "better race relations than almost any other country … and more comprehensive legislation".
  He is right about our record on legislation, but the Conservative party can take little credit. After all, the Conservatives voted in this House to block the Race Relations Acts 1965 and 1968.
  Race relations have indeed been better in this country than in other European countries. That is not only due to our race relations legislation, but because our system of immigration control has generally been fairer, less arbitrary and less capricious. That is one reason, among many, why Labour is determined that policies relating to immigration, border controls and asylum are for the UK Government and Parliament to decide and not Brussels.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I have already given way quite sufficiently.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must recognise that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is not giving way at this point.
  Mr. Straw: Our obligations under the United Nations convention require that each application should be

  719
  considered individually, but the proposed white list would treat applicants from the countries on the list in bulk unless an individual could meet what could, even in well-founded cases, be an almost impossible burden of proof.
  If the Home Secretary wants to rely on other countries' experience, why does he not look to that of the United States? The State Department in the United States of America actively considered a white list in the 1980s, but rejected the idea both because of the adverse consequences for relations with countries omitted or dropped from the list, and because it felt that such a list would be an open encouragement to asylum seekers from the countries that were on it.
  Ministers must also recognise that there is huge anxiety about the justice of the current arrangements, even without a white list. The whole world now knows about the brutality of the Nigerian regime, but there is much more to be told about the corruption of that regime and the involvement of the military junta in all sorts of international rackets, such as drugs, social security benefits and illegal immigration—rackets that could endanger those who dare to speak out against the regime. While that is all known to our Government, they have consistently played down the threat to human rights in Nigeria.
  Is it not incredible that, of 1,495 applications for asylum from Nigeria last year, only two were accepted? It is incredible, until we learn that, as late as September this year, while Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight colleagues were awaiting trial for their lives, the Home Office was still advising its staff:
  "there is no evidence to suggest that Ogonis … face persecution from the Nigerian authorities"
  for membership of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People—the very organisation that Ken Saro-Wiwa led, and in respect of which he lost his life.
  What a mockery of justice will be created by the new regime for so-called "safe" third-country appeals. Asylum seekers who enter the United Kingdom via a transit country—typically, another European country—will be returned to that country, from where they could, in turn, be bounced back to a fourth or fifth country.
  Under these new, Kafkaesque rules, asylum seekers, as we heard from the Home Secretary, have a right of appeal, but they cannot appeal as to whether they are genuine refugees, or even as to whether the countries to which they are to be dispatched are safe for them. The only right of appeal they have is as to whether the Secretary of State has acted unreasonably in asserting that that country would be safe. The final injustice is that the application can be made only from outside the United Kingdom—from the very country that the applicant believes to be unsafe.
  In interventions, the Home Secretary tried to justify the extraordinary provision in the Bill under which there will no further appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. One of the problems with the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 is that, in attempting to produce fast procedures, it over-complicated its procedures in such a way that a large number of cases have ended up before the High Court for judicial review. If the right of appeal on a point of law to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is taken away in such cases, the Home Secretary will only encourage more expensive, complicated and time-consuming appeals to the divisional court.
  720
  The rights of appeal for safe third-country cases are so elusive that they will almost certainly put Britain in breach of its international obligations, as the executive of the UNHCR has categorically claimed.
  The Home Secretary again prays Europe in aid on employer checks. He said that Britain and Ireland are the only EU states that do not have such checks, but where is the evidence that they work and are fair? It certainly does not come from Italy, which has a huge problem of illegal migrant workers; certainly not from Germany, where the Government have just reported that there are an estimated 500,000 illegally employed immigrant workers in the construction industry alone.
  The employer checks will be neither firm nor fair. They have been questioned by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment herself. In a letter of September this year, she said that she believed that they could result in "racial discrimination". She is right. The checks have been criticised by all the main employer organisations. Mr. Tim Melville-Ross of the Institute of Directors has said that the proposals are "unacceptable" and have clear and adverse "racial implications"
  Mr. Howard: May I reassure the hon. Gentleman about his anxieties on that point? I have today received a letter from Mr. Tim Melville-Ross, who says:
  "I wrote to you in October expressing concern about aspects of proposed legislation on this subject as reported in the press. I have now received the Consultation Document dated 20 November. Whilst we have yet to prepare a detailed reply, I am bound to say that the concerns we raised do seem in large measure to have been met. I thought I should write to you at this stage to express my appreciation that our views have been taken on board, in particular since I shall be making a statement to this effect to the Press."
  I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman about the Institute of Directors.
  Mr. Straw: It does not provide any reassurance at all. Four days after the Secretary of State published his consultative document, Mr. Tim Melville-Ross, in the Financial Times, said of the proposals that it was too much to expect businesses to act in such a policeman's capacity, and that they had plain "racial implications".
  With 20 million spare national insurance numbers, the checks will not deter those intent on fraud. They will deter the small and medium-sized employer, who will be scared away from taking any risk with the employment of applicants with black or brown skins or foreign-sounding names.
  The 1951 convention places Britain under a clear obligation to provide social security to "refugees lawfully staying" in the contracting state. Until now, that obligation has been interpreted as including those whose application for refugee status is under consideration. The Home Secretary complains that the benefit bill for asylum seekers has increased to £200 million a year. The reason for that increase is not so much because the number of asylum seekers in Britain has risen as because of the time they stay while their applications and appeals are being considered.
  If the 1993 deadlines had been kept to, the benefit bill would be not £200 million but £40 million. How typical of the Government that, instead of seeking to cut delays, they cut people's benefit. Under the proposals, there will be no benefit: not for those in severe hardship or ill-health; nothing for babies, infants or children; not a

  721
  penny for pregnant women; none for the victims of torture. To mock the plight of those people even more, Ministers say that these asylum seekers can apply for a social fund crisis loan, when they know that no such applications can be accepted because the asylum seeker will have no benefit from which to pay back the loan.
  What is saved on benefit may have to be spent elsewhere, because many of the refugee children made destitute by these changes will become the responsibility of local authorities under the Children Act 1989, to be taken into care, at a cost of £870 a week, to save benefits of around £100 a week.
  Of all the measures in the Bill, the one which most cries out for proper scrutiny by a Special Standing Committee, and which meanwhile has raised the gravest doubts about the Government's motives, is that relating to child benefit. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) quoted from clauses 10 and 12. Clause 10 plainly states:
  "No immigrant within the meaning of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 shall be entitled to child benefit for any week unless he satisfies prescribed conditions."
  Clause 12 defines an immigrant in the widest possible terms, and states:
  "'immigrant' means a person who under the 1971 Act requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (whether or not such leave has been given)."
  In the interview in the Independent, the Prime Minister said that he did not want to deal with the problem of immigration and asylum seekers in a way
  "which may unsettle people who do not deserve to be unsettled".
  If that is his view, what on earth was he doing allowing the Secretary of State to proceed with this appallingly wide provision?
  The new and derogatory definition of an immigrant is so wide that it provides the power to remove child benefit from anyone who has been here for more than 10 or 20 years, made Britain his home and paid his taxes like anyone else, but who does not have an EU or UK passport. Such people can only be "unsettled" by this provision. [Interruption.] The Minister of State is babbling. If she does not intend to use the power as widely as it is drawn, why take it in the first place?
  Miss Widdecombe: The power that we have taken is clearly restricted in the Bill by the words "prescribed conditions". If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand the words "prescribed conditions", I suggest that he takes a reading course.
  Mr. Straw: I am glad that I allowed the Minister to intervene, because she makes my point entirely: Ministers are taking a power to prescribe the condition. Although they now say that they will remove child benefit only from those with limited leave to remain, the Bill empowers them to remove child benefit from people with indefinite leave to remain. If Ministers do not want to use that power, why do they want to take it?
  Mr. Kaufman: The Minister's silly and illiterate intervention fails in every way to take account of the Bill. The stupid Minister does not understand her own vicious Bill. It is not a question of "prescribed conditions" letting somebody out; nobody defined as an immigrant under
  722
  clause 12 qualifies without having to undergo the prescribed conditions. They make black and brown people separate from white people.
  Mr. Straw: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We look forward to the Minister's wind-up speech, when she can explain, after long notice and a bit of thought, why Ministers are taking a power potentially to remove child benefit from a million people who are lawfully resident here, without limited leave to remain, but who do not have EU or UK passports.
  The Prime Minister said that he strongly believes in racial tolerance, and I believe him. The problem for him, however, is that his party has long been split on the issue of race. We may trust the Prime Minister, but bitter experience has shown that his party can rarely be trusted to follow his lead.
  Recently, Mr. John Taylor, the Conservative candidate for Cheltenham at the last election, complained about the Tories. He said:
  "They alienate ethnic minorities by pandering to xenophobic voters with promises of crack-downs on immigration."
  The more desperate the Tories get, the more unscrupulous their tactics become. The line between public and party interest breaks down. Last week, we had the extraordinary spectacle of Ms Sheila Gunn, a press officer from Conservative Central Office, touting detailed personal information about asylum seekers to any journalist who would take it. I am not surprised that the Minister is embarrassed by that. It is wholly unprecedented for the Home Office to use Conservative Central Office as a spin doctor for giving out such information.
  Mr. Howard: The Minister of State and I have nothing to be embarrassed about. As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, the information given out by Central Office was already in the public domain. Asylum applications are treated in confidence, unless and until an applicant or his representative chooses to put in the public domain a thoroughly misleading account of the facts. We then reserve the right to tell the truth.
  Mr. Straw: All that I can say is that, if the Secretary of State is not embarrassed about what Conservative Central Office did, he has no shame. It was disgraceful, and it is high time he managed to distinguish between his public duties as holder of his office and the political, partisan interest of Conservative Central Office.
  As the Prime Minister said, huge numbers—especially of Asian and Afro-Caribbean British citizens and residents—are bound to feel "unsettled" by this measure—by its gratuitous breadth and by the extravagance of its powers. Like the Churches, community relations organisations and employers, who are all ranged against this Bill, they feel "unsettled" because they doubt the Government's motives for introducing the Bill and then refusing to commit it to proper scrutiny.
  Those doubts have been fanned by the now notorious advice from Mr. Andrew Lansley, then head of research in Conservative Central Office but today an official candidate for the Conservative party. He said that immigration was an issue that the Conservatives raised successfully in 1992 and again in 1994. He said:
  "It played particularly well in the tabloids, where it has more potential to hurt."

  723
  The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been asked three times to repudiate those chilling words; they have refused three times to do so.
  It is little wonder, therefore, that The Times has condemned the proposals for their "covert racism". The words of Mr. Lansley are not those of a party committed to good race relations and fair and firm immigration controls; they are those of a party ready to stir up racial tension in a desperate effort to garner votes.
  The Bill has been rushed before the House less than three years after Ministers told Parliament that they had found the answer to the problem of asylum abuse in the 1993 Act. This enabling, blank-cheque Bill gives the Secretary of State wide and ill-defined powers to use in regulations. It cries out for proper scrutiny and, so long as Ministers resist that, suspicions will be raised about the real motives behind it.
  We oppose the Bill because it is inconsistent with our obligations under international law; it will damage race relations; and it will be neither firm in its effect nor fair in its intent. We shall vote against it tonight.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Although I am speaking before seven o'clock, I shall do my best to keep my speech within 10 minutes.
  The burning of straw has, latterly and perhaps happily, been outlawed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. After the quietude of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) sought to set the House alight. He will forgive me if I remark that what resulted from his endeavour was largely smoke. A casual bystander might wonder why smoke was so important in setting out the Opposition's stance on the Bill.
  As I remarked in a previous debate on another subject, we all bring to the House the impedimenta of our pasts, and mine includes having been chairman of the Camden committee of community relations. We were a predictably all-party, multi-ethnic body, yet I do not recall anyone on the committee disagreeing with my view, as chairman, that while such a committee should be concerned with immigrants' rights, good race relations nevertheless require a sense in the host community that the law of reason is being applied to the level of immigration and the degree of assimilation or integration that is thus required. Good race relations will be determined at street level, not by fiat from on high.
  I was therefore distressed at the Opposition's reaction to the Prime Minister during the Queen's Speech when they implied that the Bill was racist. The cause of good race relations is not assisted by racist taunts. By their votes in the House, Opposition Members have demonstrated their support for, and sympathy with, immigrant issues, which some Conservative Members might feel is disproportionate but which are just as amenable to the law of reason.
  I would never dream of applying the word "racist" to the Opposition or to individual members of it because they had adopted that stance, but they can readily see how ill the cause of race relations would be served if the charge were thrown at them.
  Anyone opposing the Bill must demonstrate that it is unnecessary. Simple but sheer statistics, as quoted
  724
  by my right hon. and learned Friend, demonstrate that new legislation is required, and I support my right hon. and learned Friend in introducing the Bill.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brooke: Of course, but I did say that I would take 10 minutes, so the hon. Gentleman must be quick.
  Mr. Spearing: Some amendment to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 may be necessary—the right hon. Gentleman has said that it may be, and it may be—but the key thing about the debate and everything that has happened is that the Home Secretary is insisting on this solution, whereas Opposition Members say that there might be other solutions, especially if evidence from committees, such as that of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, is able to be fed into the legislative process. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with what I have just said.
  Mr. Brooke: The question came rather late in the statement that the hon. Gentleman—who is an old friend—made. I support the principle of the Bill that my right hon. and learned Friend has introduced.
  To be charitable, perhaps the reaction to the Bill is coloured by the parallel regulations of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has published a draft. Some of the people who have written to me have perhaps not been aware that "draft" means draft, that my right hon. Friend has consulted the Social Security Advisory Committee and that the committee's consultation period ended a month ago, although of course that date does not represent the conclusion of the committee's recommendations.
  The fact that the recommendations are not public, and that my right hon. Friend has not yet laid the final regulations, are testimony to the seriousness of the consultation. It would be a mistake to allow the shadow of the regulations to colour today's debate before the regulations have finally been laid.
  That said, even a charitable bystander might say that there appears to be evidence of inadequate interdepartmental consultation before the original announcements. We are now potentially in the Lewis Carroll position that local authorities. under other legislation, will have to provide, at a heavy and sometimes interim cost, the services that the regulations threaten to deny to a majority of asylum seekers. I acknowledge, as do the Government, that that is primarily a Greater London problem, but that simply exacerbates the problem for the local authorities concerned.
  The issues, as Ministers would be the first to agree, are very complex because of the way in which people present themselves. As 70 per cent. of the cases in an average surgery of mine, in an inner-city seat, are asylum seekers or other immigrants, I can endorse that. However, whether a person is genuine or not genuine, the duties placed on local authorities by other statutes oblige them to pick up the burden as long as other legislation remains unamended.
  It is difficult to quantify the financial effects on a central London authority, not least because those who have placed themselves in accommodation are a relatively unquantifiable variable, but present best estimates,

  725
  conservatively stated, are that, especially before enactment of the Bill, the cost to Westminster city council might run at £8 million a year.
  There was already some backlash in Westminster before the 1993 Act, when 220 asylum families lies a year were being afforded permanent housing, with a necessary effect on home housing cases. The Hou can imagine the effect on race relations in the indigenous community if that extra charge of £8 million fell on council tax payers. I fear that, in purely practical terms, local services may prove unable to cope.
  I would add, at the level of a footnote, outside the issue of interdepartmental consultation, that the Home Office would make it much easier for local authorities to stay on top of some of those subjects if it kept local authorities better informed on the progress of individual asylum seekers' cases.
  I want to illustrate the mild incoherence of government, in the proper sense of that word, by the case of unaccompanied refugee children, who are not covered by the Bill but who, ironically, by local authority action, illustrate my support for the Bill.
  Half a dozen central London authorities are especially affected by unaccompanied refugee children. Once those children have passed through immigration controls, they throw themselves on local authorities, under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The Bill will not affect them or that.
  The number of such children in Westminster has jumped from 44 to 71 in the past six months. They frequently come in family groups and are thus not suitable for fostering. In residential care, they now cost £2.5 million a year, which is in addition to the £8 million that I earlier quoted, and it is a long-term cost. There was a special Government grant when the numbers were smaller, in 1993-94, but none in either of the two successive years.
  The Home Office is responsible for control of entry, the Department of Health for the administration of the 1989 Act, the Overseas Development Administration for relations with some of the countries from which the children come and the Department of the Environment for grant settlement.
  I realise that there is strength in numbers, but central Government should take a concerted lead in deciding how the problem should be solved, as its council tax implications, with their consequences for race relations, are clear. Obviously, the children have no prior connection with the local authorities to which they go.
  I said that treatment of that issue by local authorities reflects back to the Bill and its origins. I understand that Camden borough council, of whose committee of community relations I was chairman, now takes a much tougher line in the interpretation of its duties under the 1989 Act, with consequences of the children then presenting themselves elsewhere.
  I would not remotely suggest that Camden borough council is being racist in its decisions, but it is imposing transferred burdens on other central London local authorities, just as the tightening of asylum laws in other EC countries has exercised pressure on Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Bill in the interests of good relations in this country. I reiterate my earlier support for it.
  5.16 pm
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: This is a deplorable little Bill, made all the more squalid by the fact that it is generally unnecessary.
  I could, were Ito take up more of the House's time, make the case for the fact that the Bill is not needed at all. Even those who believe that not to be so will be hard put to explain, if the Government's only intention is to deter bogus asylum seekers from applying and speedily remove them from this country if they have applied to come here, why it is necessary to include the housing clause, the employment clause and the social security clause.
  Let us have no doubt about what the social security clauses mean. I have no doubt that, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will discuss that aspect of the Bill—clauses 10 and 12—in some detail, but let it be said at the outset that, as those clauses now stand, everyone who is in the country with leave to remain, be it permanent or temporary, is disqualified from the receipt of benefit.
  The Secretary of State may promulgate regulations that then include those people in the benefit provisions, but it will be done by his grace and favour. If the House had any real understanding of the needs of democracy, it would always vote against a Bill about which the Minister virtually says, "What is written in it may be deplorable, but trust me—I will make it less deplorable by administrative means." If I may say so, if I had to trust a Minister to make a Bill less deplorable than the words suggest, the Home Secretary would be the last member of the Government whom I would expect to move in that direction.
  I have no doubt that the Government's intentions are political. The peroration, if that is how it should be described, in the Home Secretary's speech, not to mention the interventions of some Conservative Back Benchers, show that the Bill is supposed to improve morale in the Tory party and, as was said by Conservative party briefers, challenge the Labour party and, in so doing, embarrass it.
  Let me make my position clear beyond doubt. I should have been embarrassed only if the Labour party had not met the Bill head on, described its inadequacies and stated that it will vote against it at 10 o'clock tonight, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) on doing just that.
  I have only one criticism to make of my hon. Friend's speech. He announced, as though it were a surprise to the House, that the Home Secretary was shameless. I should have thought that that was the most established fact in current political understanding. Were that not so, he would not have blandly replied to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and me that we should join the Committee—which I am happy to do—to understand the Bill, because he was unwilling or unable to describe its individual provisions.
  I wish specifically to address the Bill's employment provisions. They concern me as, in many ways, they will hear hardest on the black and Asian British—such as my constituents—who are not asylum seekers but who are as British as the Home Secretary and I. Before I turn to that issue, I have two questions about the legislation that I hope the Minister of State will condescend to answer when she replies to the debate.

  727
  The first concerns a point that I put to the Home Secretary and which he demonstrated he did not understand in the slightest. Clause 1(2) enables the Home Secretary to remove applicants through the fast-track procedure and to send them to what I shall call a third country so long as there is
  "in general no serious risk of persecution"
  in that country. The Home Secretary gave us the examples of France and Germany, and I think that we all agree that there is no serious or general risk of persecution in those countries.
  But what is meant by the words "no serious risk of persecution"? If a country persecutes only one small tribe does it qualify as a country in which there is general persecution? If a leader of a political party has been assassinated but none of his followers has been killed, does that amount to a serious risk of persecution in a country? It seems as though the Bill has been cobbled together in something like a hurry.
  New sub-paragraph (3) states that certain things shall be legal so long as they are done in a way that appears to the Home Secretary—"to him"—to be proper. If ever a clause were designed to save a Minister who is constantly contradicted by judges, it is one that contains the words "appears to him". Anyone who has had anything to do with drafting legislation knows full well that "appears to him" means that the Secretary of State can do whatever he wants and, if he gets it wrong, he cannot be held to account.
  I ask the Minister of State a second question, which I hope she will answer when she replies to the debate. Clause 4 makes entry into the United Kingdom by deception a criminal offence. There are no exceptions. Does the Minister not understand that, by the nature of their dilemma, asylum seekers do not go to embassies and high commissions, queue to apply for visas and then write in the appropriate box, "I am applying for entry to the United Kingdom because I am being persecuted by the Government of this country"? If that is to be the invariable rule, many genuine asylum seekers will be prevented from entering this country.
  Miss Widdecombe: Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that people who are obliged to leave their countries by deception can be completely honest and say what they are about when they arrive at our ports. In that way, they would enter our country on a clear understanding.
  Mr. Hattersley: That is not what the Bill says. I am hypothesising about a person who may arrive at a port with a visa to which he or she is not entitled. The hon. Lady says that such an applicant could then demonstrate that the visa was obtained deceitfully for a good reason, but she should write that into the Bill because it does not say it at the moment.
  In 1934 Mr. Willy Brandt left Germany with a visa to visit Oslo as a student, although he had no place at any educational institution in Norway. The Government of that country—being more progressive than this Government—realised on his arrival that he was a fraudulent applicant, but fortunately they allowed him to remain and to avoid Nazi persecution. In a similar situation, under the terms of the Bill as it now stands, Mr. Willy Brandt or anyone else would not be allowed to enter this country.
  Mr. Max Madden: Is it not also true that if the sort of people to whom my right hon. Friend
  728
  refers were to spend a few minutes in a country that the Home Office designates as a safe third country their applications would be refused and they would be returned to that safe country?
  Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is quite right. It is disturbing to note that Labour Members obviously understand the implications of the Bill far better than Ministers do—or are prepared to say that they do. The Bill does not say that an asylum seeker who deceives the authorities with good reason will gain entry to this country. The hon. Lady must face that fact.
  Mr. Stephen: With respect, it appears that the right hon. Gentleman has not understood the Minister of State's intervention. Clause 4 makes it an offence
  "if, by deception, he obtains or seeks to obtain leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom".
  If a person forges some documents—we all accept that he might have to do that in order to get out of his country—arrives at Heathrow and then says, "These documents are bogus but they had to be forged in order for me to get out; I am a genuine refugee and I seek asylum in this country", how can it be said that that person seeks to enter this country by deception?
  Mr. Hattersley: That is what should occur, but the Bill does not say that. If the hon. Gentleman and I serve on the Committee that considers the Bill, we may move an amendment to the clause to ensure that it does.
  Ms Diane Abbott rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way once more, but I wish to limit my remarks to about 10 minutes as other hon. Members have done.
  Ms Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the comments of Conservative Members reveal that, unlike Labour Members, they have not dealt with immigration cases and the personal problems that arise from them day in and day out? It is that lack of knowledge—or it is malice—that characterises the legislation.
  Mr. Hattersley: My final and main point illustrates precisely that. I remind the House and the Home Secretary of the undoubted adverse effect that the Bill's employment clause will have on black and Asian British citizens who are not asylum seekers and who were born here or who became British by registration.
  Mr. Deva: We need this Bill now in order to support and engender good race relations in this country.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am more pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman than I first thought as his intervention allows me to make another point. I grow sick of hearing people say that repressive legislation is necessary for good race relations in this country. The constant reiteration of the idea that every immigrant is a problem or a threat is bad for race relations. That is what Bills such as this pretend and that is the impression that they create.
  I return to the main point of my speech: the Bill's effect on black and Asian British citizens. The consultation document, which addresses how an employer shall decide whether an applicant is entitled to seek and obtain work, begins by being ambiguous about whether national

  729
  insurance numbers are sufficient to prove that point. I hope that the Minister will tell us categorically whether the simple presentation of a national insurance number constitutes proof. Eight other ways in which an employer may determine whether an applicant is genuine or bogus have been suggested. The consultation document states that, having obtained some sort of written information, it is the employer's duty to be convinced that the information is prima facie honest and genuine.
  To the Secretary of State, with his vast industrial experience, that may not seem like an immense burden on an employer—and it will not be a burden on employers such as ICI or a nationalised industry. However, black and Asian British people live mostly in areas where there are many small employers. Most of the employers in my constituency run two-man businesses that employ six or eight other men and women. There is now 40 per cent. male unemployment in the northern ward of my constituency—and the figure will be higher among the black and Asian British. Half of the black and Asian British people in the northern ward of my constituency are unemployed. When a small employer places an advertisement in the local newspaper for a couple of labourers, 100 or 200 people apply for the positions. An example may be an engineering, tool-making or metal-bashing firm whose books are probably kept by the wife of the boss. It is the type of firm that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister are always saying is oppressed by bureaucratic regulation, that tries to get rid of form filling and is worried about authority. That firm will be told, if the Bill becomes law, that it must ensure that the new man or woman whom it takes on is not a bogus asylum seeker or an illegal immigrant.
  The boss of the firm will immediately cross out from the list of applicants all the people whom he or she thinks might possibly be bogus asylum seekers or illegal immigrants. The people crossed out will not be called Howard and Hattersley: they will be called Khan and Patel. I do not suggest for a second that in doing so that employer would be intentionally racist. However, he would be doing what so often happens in this country. Without wishing to and almost without knowing, he would be discriminating against one section of the population.
  My primary, overwhelming objection to the Bill is that time after time it forces the British public, British authority and, especially, small British employers to discriminate. I hope that when the Minister of State replies she will tell us—
  Miss Widdecombe indicated assent.
  Mr. Hattersley: She says that she will. That is something to look forward to. I hope that she will tell us whether the scenario that I have described is a figment of my imagination, of the imagination of the trade unions, of the employers' federations, of the Confederation of British Industry and of the chambers of commerce. My fear is that she knows it to be true and does not care, because the object of the Bill is not to improve race relations or to prevent bogus asylum seekers entering the country but to put the Labour party on the spot. Thank heavens we are not on the spot, because we are doing what is right and we are resisting the Bill.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: The speech of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) did not make it clear whether he agrees that there is a problem with bogus asylum seekers in this country. He never said so. Nor was it clear from his speech whether the hon. Gentleman has proposals to deal with the problem—if there is one—because he never said so. I am not sure whether he wants everyone who comes from any country which has internal trouble to be allowed to settle in the United Kingdom or not. He did not make that clear either. Anyone wanting to know what the Labour party thinks about the rise in numbers of asylum seekers—about the abuse of the system, about illegal employment, about the drain on taxation, about the burden on housing, and about slowing down the queue of genuine asylum seekers—would be bitterly disappointed after hearing the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  The only positive suggestion that the hon. Gentleman made was for a Special Standing Committee to consider the Bill. I would have some interest in a Special Standing Committee as it would comprise the Home Affairs Select Committee—I think that that is what is envisaged by the procedure.
  Mr. Spearing: No, it is not.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Whether that is so or not, it would be the type of Committee on which the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee might wish to sit, so I can safely say that I have some interest in the suggestion.
  Mr. Spearing: Just for the record, is not the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that a Special Standing Committee is a Standing Committee selected to consider the Bill in the normal way under a Chairman from the Chairmen's Panel, but which is allowed to have three sessions of oral evidence to consider matters relating to the Bill? Does he agree from his judicial and court experience that that would enable the Standing Committee that followed to be better focused, and to produce better discussion and even better legislation?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I served on a Special Standing Committee many years ago, so I doubt whether that would be the end achieved. We considered the Criminal Attempts Bill. The general conclusion was that the Special Standing Committee was a total disaster. As a result of that experience, the Government have set up very few Special Standing Committees.
  There was no cross-party conflict about that Bill or its terms. The proposals had received much academic consideration and thought in that Committee, and the Government and the Opposition agreed that some changes needed to be made. It was thought perfectly sensible and desirable that opinion should be tested by the Home Office and representatives from all parties. That was the justification and the reason for that procedure. I cannot claim that in the end we had a much better Bill, and the procedure caused much confusion both in the Special Standing Committee and in what we achieved. One only has to look at a number of the decisions by the Court of Appeal to see how misguided some parts of that legislation had become by the end of the thorough Special Standing Committee procedure.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the 1981 Criminal Attempts Bill. His

  731
  experience differs from that of the Minister who served on that Committee and who is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. and learned Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew). He gave evidence to the Procedure Committee in 1986 recommending the extension of the Special Standing Committee procedure. Based on his experience, the Secretary of State said:
  "I had the very salutary experience of cross-examining two of the leading authorities on criminal law … as to the likely effect of a Bill about whose provisions I was already experiencing a sinking feeling … At the end of the final sitting of the Special Standing Committee, the draughtsman informed me that not only did the Bill not do what it was supposed to do but that it could not be made to do it."
  The right hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said in May 1986 that every Minister who had given evidence to the Procedure Committee about his experience of Special Standing Committees said that they had greatly improved the Bills that were brought before the House.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I beg to differ. There is no virtue in prolonging this discussion.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: You have lost the point.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I have not lost the point. I stand by my view that that Committee was a total, utter and complete waste of time. If that conflicts with the conclusions reached by any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am sorry. I am entitled to give my opinion and conclusions in the House, and I hope that no Member of the Opposition would want to stop me.
  We must ask what a Special Standing Committee would contribute to the problem that we face. Would it tell us any more than we would otherwise learn as the Bill makes its leisurely way through the House? The Bill will have a Committee stage that can last weeks; it will be referred to the House of Lords, where there will be a Second Reading debate and a Committee stage; and it will come back to this House for consideration on Report. The whole procedure will take many weeks and months.
  Is it seriously suggested that those who do not like the Bill—because of their membership of a group or lobby or their representative experience—will not be able to make their views known to hon. Members and those in the other place during that time? Will we not know what their objections are to the legislation, on what statistics they will rely, what their individual cases and experiences of hardship may be, what they are prepared to do, how strongly they feel, and how racist they will brand every attempt that is made to curb immigration? What is it that we shall not learn about the fabric, the detail and the intentions of this Bill from the ordinary proceedings of this place? The answer is nothing—as Opposition Members, especially, know. We know from our experience of this place that any section of the community wishing to express a view will not only be able to write to us but will do so. We shall be deluged with material from all sorts of people. There will be nothing to be gained from a Special Standing Committee, except one thing.
  Ms Corston: As Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the hon. and learned Gentleman rightly makes it clear that members of that Committee should form cross-party judgments on the basis of the evidence, not of dogma. What is so different about this Bill?
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: But that would be a reason for putting every Bill into a Special Standing Committee,
  732
  so no legislation, however necessary, would ever be passed by any Government. The hon. Lady makes a fatuous suggestion. However imperfect the process may have been in its initial stages, I am not against the idea that some Bills might benefit from the sensible consideration of more of the evidence—but not a Bill as contentious or as urgent as this one. It is perfectly clear that everyone with an interest in it can make their opinions known to the House one way or the other.
  Mr. Madden rose—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I would rather not perpetually answer questions. Like everyone else, I am trying to confine my remarks to 10 minutes, although I am not obliged to do so.
  The only real reason for a Special Standing Committee is to delay the Bill so that it cannot reach the statute book in this Session of Parliament. The Opposition spokesman earlier made it clear that the Bill will be fought at every stage of the parliamentary process, both here and in the other place, so it is unlikely to reach the statute book before spring at the earliest, even without a Special Standing Committee.
  That being so, a Special Standing Committee would serve only to slow down the legislative process, and perhaps to stop the Bill altogether. That prompts the question: should the legislation be stopped? How urgent is it? I do not know whether Opposition Members believe that there is no abuse of asylum even though there has been a massive increase in the numbers applying for it, at the same time as a massive reduction in the numbers applying for asylum in other European countries. Those countries have tougher rules and do not act as magnets to asylum seekers. Here there is massive expenditure of public money on income support and housing benefit, and sometimes even on jobs—
  Mr. Bernie Grant rose—
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will catch the Chair's eye at some stage.
  I am explaining why the subject is urgent. The statistics prove that there is a great deal of abuse; that is why something must be done about it. In the coming year there may be as many as 70,000 bogus asylum seekers. We know that most of them are bogus because once the tests have been applied only 4 per cent. of them are found to be genuine. I am not going just on the statistics of the independent assessors and adjudicators who have to consider these matters long before they reach Ministers. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary detailed some of the more outlandish cases which Members of Parliament who have to deal with these matters know present themselves every day. Something has to be done about the problem, and quickly, or ever more people will seek to come here and genuine asylum seekers will be kept waiting, not knowing their fate, which is an injustice as great as any injustice that will he discussed here today.
  We know that it is not necessary to allow people continually to come here from third countries when the rules state that they should stay in the country where they first arrive. We also know that it is ridiculous that students should be able to complete their courses and then claim to be asylum seekers when they are due to go home. That is a disgrace. Others come as visitors and do not claim

  733
  asylum while they are visiting, but when the time arrives for them to go home at the end of six months, they suddenly claim asylum. People in the great world outside may not realise that all a person has to do is say "asylum", whereupon the whole contraption of welfare support and assistance comes into play immediately, just as it does for genuine asylum seekers.
  Apart from anything else, that is not fair to the many people waiting for housing in London, or to the people complaining about the inadequacy of their social security payments. A great deal of money is being wasted on people who do not deserve it, do not need it and have no right to it. Action must therefore be taken—and it will certainly not be taken if we set up a Special Standing Committee.
  Is the Labour party really keen to do something about bogus asylum seekers? I believe that the party is split. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has always branded all legislation to do with home affairs and immigration as "squalid", though he uses the word so frequently that it loses its meaning. There are some like him, however, who honestly believe that this legislation should not be passed—and thus that bogus asylum seekers should continue freely to come to this country, and that illegal immigrants should be able to come and work and take jobs away from those who are not illegal immigrants.
  There are also hon. Members among the Opposition parties who, like the overwhelming majority of the British people, think it a matter of common sense that this country has for far too long acted as a magnet to people with no right to come here, although we ought of course always to remain—and under this Government we always will remain—a haven for those genuinely seeking to get away from torture and persecution. The Labour party is therefore torn down the middle. Instead of resolving the matter by an act of positive decision, it proposes to kick the whole issue into touch: "Let's have a Special Standing Committee—let's not ask too closely what we will gain from it; let's just take the saucepan off the boil, put it on the back-burner and talk about other things."
  The Labour party is thus not genuinely asking for closer examination of the matter; it is trying to resolve its own internal problems. There is no reason why Opposition Members should go along with such an imperative, and there is certainly no reason why Conservative Members should pander to the Opposition's desire to pretend to appeal to the great British public at the same time as opposing what we are doing. We must do what is right and the Bill demonstrates our determination to do just that.
  We are determined to stand up for those who are genuinely and honestly seeking asylum because of persecution and fear of torture. But we must continue to have no truck with people who come here just because they want to improve their lives, and who in so doing drag down the genuine refugees and the lives of those who need jobs, housing, more money to be spent on them and the concern of British people and the British Parliament.
  I support the legislation because it is sensible. I thoroughly reject everything that we have heard from the Opposition in the House, on television and on the radio. The House would be senseless if it did not take the opportunity to address a problem that is growing every day.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. David Alton: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  That this House, while recognising the need to prevent fraudulent claims for asylum, declines to give the Asylum and Immigration Bill a Second Reading because the Bill will adversely affect genuine asylum seekers; believes that designating countries as safe by order is contrary to the law and spirit of international human rights; and further condemns the removal by order of social security provision for asylum seekers, noting that social security spending on asylum seekers amounts to only 0.25 per cent. of the total social security budget, as this will result in the widespread destitution of asylum seekers awaiting the result of appeals against refusal.
  I support the amendment standing in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends precisely because, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) put it, I care about the reputation of my country and the House. However, it would have been right for the Bill to have been considered by a Special Standing Committee.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that a range of matters needed to be considered in greater detail. If that is true, surely the less adversarial and combative atmosphere of a Special Standing Committee that could consider the evidence and hear the witnesses would be preferable. Instead, we are now embarked on an exercise which, as the Chairman of the Conservative party put it, has more to do with smoking out opponents than examining issues. Yet again, we are embarked on the legislative process of introducing another Bill, just three years after the 1993 Act and at enormous cost to our reputation, not to mention time and money. It is better to be smoked out as caring about asylum seekers and refugees than to use them as a smokescreen behind which to hide. I fear that the Bill seeks to do just that.
  It would have been better to have reviewed the 1993 Act, found a common approach with our European neighbours and accepted the proposal for a Special Standing Committee that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has placed before us again this evening, and on which I hope there will be a vote.
  I want to examine the necessity for and nature of the Bill and to refer briefly to what others have said about it. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) rightly rebutted the charge that it is racist. I agree with him, and I do not believe that the Home Secretary or the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), are racist, but the distinction was well made by Paul Goodman in the Daily Telegraph on 26 October:
  "Mr. Howard's proposals are not racist since they will not apply only to ethnic minorities."
  He wrote:
  "Mr. Howard is certainly playing, to use that most dog-eared of metaphors, the race card … Mr. Howard is playing low politics for high stakes, and proposals to curtail the benefits of asylum seekers, through the responsibility of the Department of Social Security, are essentially part of his package."
  The Economist agreed with that and said of the legislation:
  "What difference will it make? It may win a few votes for the Tories. It will make a few people suffer. It will make Britain look mean. And it will erode the liberal anti-authoritarian tradition that sets Britain apart from much of the rest of Europe—which is an odd thing for Britain's nationalist tendency to want to do.".

  735
  The Times, in an editorial on 26 October, referred to the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees and said that the Government, in introducing the legislation,
  "could put Britain in breach of that legal obligation … They could also sour race relations in this country.".
  That bears out the point made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). It continued:
  "Britain is anything but a 'soft touch' for would-be refugees … the way to cut these costs is not to pauperise innocent refugees, and their children, along with illegal immigrants; it is to speed up Britain's sluggish asylum procedures."—
  to which I shall refer in just a moment.
  My last reference to the opinion of people outside the House is from the Catholic bishops' conference and states:
  "the effect of such a decision would be punitive and de facto will mean the denial of the right of appeal to the very poorest of this vulnerable and disadvantaged group. It is tragic that only two years after giving the right to appeal to asylum seekers, an opportunity to exercise that right is being rendered meaningless. We call on the Government to withdraw these proposals and allocate adequate resources for cases to be decided on efficiently and fairly in keeping with our obligations to the 1951 United Nations convention on the Status of Refugees."
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to tell us what other people say and think, but can he answer the question that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) conspicuously avoided? Do he and his party recognise that there is a problem and, if so, what are his remedies for doing something about it?
  Mr. Alton: I shall deal with those points later in my speech. The reasoned amendment on the Order Paper on which there will be a vote this evening sets out my party's position, and I intend to say more about it. First, I want to put the debate into perspective.
  Justice, not numbers, should be the issue. All the evidence points not to bogus applications, but to bogus refusals and unjust determinations. The overwhelming number of lengthy delays are caused not by the applicants themselves, as Conservative Members have implied, but by the Home Office. The Bill seeks simply to camouflage the Government's failure to deal with applications efficiently and to provide adequate resources.
  The facts that the Government may wish to ignore are undisputable. Prior to the 1993 Act, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), in a speech issued by the Home Office and another issued by the Conservative party central office, quoted a figure mentioned at the Vienna conference. He said that some 7 million Russians would seek to come here. Before the last general election, he said that some 7 million Russians would wash up on our shores and those of every country in Europe and deluge us. According to the statistical memorandum published by the Home Office in June this year, since 1991 just 1,500 applications have been received from the former USSR and just 10 of those potential 7 million people were accepted as refugees.
  If those figures do not impress, the House should consider that between 1986 and 1994, just 30 people were accepted as refugees from the former Yugoslavia. Since General Abacha's coup in 1993, there have been 9,000 asylum applications from Nigeria. Just four of those applicants have been given refugee status and 15 have
  736
  been given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. Those facts put the matter into perspective and entitle us to some gentle scepticism when we listen to the repetition of the same scaremongering canards when such Bills are introduced.
  It is an incontrovertible fact that Britain receives fewer applications for asylum than many other countries. Germany receives 10 times more than the United Kingdom per million of population. We receive 380 asylum applications per million of our population.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to give the wrong impression. The reason why so few asylum seekers from the former Yugoslavia have been granted asylum is that thousands of them have been allowed to settle temporarily in Britain pending the conclusion of the war.
  Mr. Alton: Thousands is a gross exaggeration. The figure is below 2,000. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to make such interventions, he should give the House the facts. Last year, more people left the United Kingdom than arrived in it, with 215,000 people emigrating and 210,000 people immigrating, of whom 90,000 were British citizens. Just 825 were allowed here as refugees and 3,660 were given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period. Only a handful of cases have been deemed to be without foundation, as frivolous or vexatious under the terms of the 1993 Act. Nevertheless, based on that experience, five new categories are being introduced under the without foundation procedures. One is where any evidence submitted in support of an application is clearly false. Anyone who has seen "Schindler's List" knows that refugees have always fled using false papers. In Hollywood, that is worth an Oscar—in this country, it will be worth seven years in prison.
  Another awkward fact is that far from making unreasonable demands on our national social security budget, last year asylum seekers accounted for one quarter of 1 per cent. of claimants. Let us view the matter in perspective. Many of those cases would, by definition, have been genuine.
  Some individuals will undoubtedly seek to abuse any system, but the greatest reason for unnecessary payments has been Home Office delays. That is an uncontrovertible fact. The Minister of State, who is in her place, has provided me with the information that 3,333 people have waited for five years or more for their applications to be processed—more than 13,000 since 1991, 23,000 since 1993 and 49,000 for more than 11 months. At 31 October this year, 66,000 applications were still awaiting an initial decision.
  As the system fails the refugee and the asylum seeker, instead of devoting more resources to tackling the backlog we make a molehill into a legislative mountain. The Minister also informed me that the Bill will require 8,000 hours of civil servants' time and will cost the Home Office—and other Departments will be involved—more than £210,000 to promote. Think how many asylum cases could be processed or refugees helped with that time and those resources.
  Many other hon. Members will try to disentangle myth from reality, as I have tried to do, but time does not permit me to do so in more detail. Instead, I shall address the Bill's practical effects and the white list. The Government

  737
  have said repeatedly that all claims will be considered individually and on their merits, but that no longer can that be the case if there is a white list. Little account will be taken of changes in Governments, the risks of real unfairness and the idiosyncrasies of some Governments. Sri Lanka and India, which the Home Secretary mentioned, are likely to be listed—but regional variations, minority questions and local discrepancies make the white list approach wholly undesirable.
  The Government point to international experience. They always mention Germany, but fail to mention that countries that do not operate a white list include Italy, Spain, France and Austria. Belgium introduced a designated list but abolished it in 1993. In Germany since 1993, appellants have been given the opportunity to show that, despite the general situation, they are subject to political persecution. The German constitutional court is considering whether that procedure is unconstitutional. A judgment will not be produced until February and use of the procedure has been abandoned in the meantime, yet the House is being offered that procedure today.
  The Bill allows the Home Secretary to draw up a white list where it appears to him that
  "there is in general no serious risk of persecution."
  The fast track is expected to take 10 days, reducing the time available to prepare a challenge. The House should examine that provision closely. The words
  "in general no serious risk"
  could be interpreted as meaning that, as most of the general population do not claim to have been persecuted, there is no risk of anyone being persecuted. That is nonsense. That provision directly contradicts the 1951 convention.
  The Bill uses the term "serious risk of persecution". The 1951 convention only requires the asylum seeker to have a
  "well-founded fear of persecution"—
  a rather less onerous yardstick. The Government, who have been the casualty in so many judicial reviews, will live to regret the day that they included those words in the Bill. The 1951 convention is being used as a trap, which it was never designed to be, and that use of it is completely against the spirit of the convention.
  Today, we have been given the names of countries on the white list on which we have not had a chance to reflect. We have simply been told about them in the course of debate. The Minister recently informed me that designation orders would be laid before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure and that the list of designated countries would be subject to amendment by the same procedure: that is, without debate other than in rare instances—and that could take months, by the time that we have prayed against, tabled motions and the orders have been discussed in Committee. Rarely will they be debated on the Floor of the House. We should jealously guard our privileges and the right to speak out for people for whom nobody else will speak.
  In addition to the white list's practical effects, the restriction on the right to appeal, removal of asylum seekers to third countries, denial of any right of appeal while in the United Kingdom, introduction of new immigration offences, employee sanctions that will
  738
  endanger good community relations, the driving on to the streets of destitute, frightened people—causing incalculable hardship—is a deeply immoral measure. I use that word in response to the Home Secretary's earlier claim that the Bill is a moral measure. It is deeply immoral to place people on the streets, without any concern about what will happen to them. We all know that the burden will fall on local authorities and charities, which are already sufficiently hard-pressed.
  Of all the issues on which the Home Office might seek legislation—the availability of knives, age of criminal responsibility, exploitation and degradation of women through computer pornography, prosecution of British nationals involved in international child abuse or any of the other pressing problems of law and order, policing, prison reform and drug abuse—why has the Home Office chosen refugees and asylum seekers yet again? We last considered the matter in 1993. How many letters have Back Benchers received on the subject? I have received not one letter urging action from any of my constituents, but over the past month I have sent the Home Office hundreds of letters from constituents about policing levels in Merseyside. Britain would do better to take a more proactive role in asserting to despotic regimes the importance of human rights.
  The United Kingdom values its place in the Security Council and its role as a leading Commonwealth country. The Prime Minister talks about Britain being at the heart of Europe. When the UK fails to give a moral lead, that debases British currency and encourages others to do likewise. At home, law also creates climate. It conditions public opinion—if it is legal, it must be right. Law and public morality are closely aligned. It is time that we recognised and affirmed the contribution that many migrants make to our country.
  The Secretary of State and the Minister know well the Torah. In the Book of Exodus, God speaks to Moses about how Israel should live. In the same discourse that contains the 10 commandments, God says:
  "Do not ill-treat an alien or oppress him, for you were aliens in Egypt."
  If we expect mercy, we must show mercy. Deuteronomy goes further:
  "Cursed is the man who withholds justice from the alien."
  Under the terms of the Bill, the Secretary of State would have sent his own family back to Romania.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is not true.
  Mr. Alton: It is absolutely true.
  The recipients of mercy have a special duty to show it to others. The House should recall the last war, when a boatload of young children were repatriated to Vichy France, then sent to Auschwitz because of our failure to allow them to come to this country.
  I will conclude with the story of a young, middle eastern couple with no visible means of support, who would have been caught by the terms of the Bill. The young woman was pregnant, and the parentage of the child was controversial. The penalty for alleged adultery was likely to he brutal. The couple were living temporarily in a hovel. The civil authorities were said to abide by a judicial system based on upholding the law, and no doubt would qualify to go on the Government's white list. The local despot was indifferent to such

  739
  niceties and ran a ruthless, coercive population policy of eliminating children of one gender. He butchered his way to power. The fearful young couple fled with their child. They made it to a safe haven in a foreign land. A home was secured. They worked, and an income was obtained. They stayed until the danger was past. In common with most refugees, they returned home as soon as it was safe to do so. When the boy became a man, he would one day ask this question:
  "When I was without shelter did you give me a roof, when I was without food did you give me food?"
  The Bill should be judged against those Judaeo-Christian principles, which were designed for the whole of humanity. It fails to uphold an ancient duty that stretches back 3,500 years. It looks tawdry and disreputable. It deserves not to succeed. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will be in the Lobby tonight to vote against the Bill and in favour of the amendment.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: The speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), for whom I have a high regard, leads me to conclude that the passion that he has generally has blinded him entirely: first to the facts as to the need of the Bill; and, secondly, to what the Bill contains, about which I hope to say a little more in a moment.
  It is to my intense regret that I am not playing the part that I had hoped to play in introducing the Bill, but I am grateful for the opportunity to welcome it from the Back Benches. It was a privilege to serve in a minor capacity with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. No one seriously interested in law and order in Britain could do other than admire the consistent, energetic, fair and determined way in which he has pursued the promotion of crime prevention; the encouragement of communities to play their part; and the modernising of the police, prison and punishment systems during his term of office. I feel privileged to have been a partner in that endeavour.
  I also take this opportunity to say what a privilege it was to work with the civil servants in the Home Office. They served their office well, and none more so than the private office that served me and which now serves my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), the Under-Secretary of State. My resignation was reluctant, but my support for the Prime Minister and the Government is whole-hearted.
  I shall briefly address the question of why the Bill is necessary. Immigration—we heard this echoed in some of the comments this evening—is an area where far too few people, even in this place, are prepared to look realistically at the world as it is rather than as we would like it to be. Let me clear out of the way some outdated and, frankly, silly political nonsense: the suggestion made by old Labour—in which, perhaps, until this debate I had included the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and others, including his side kick the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—that this is a racist measure and that there is a race card to be played by its introduction. Such a suggestion is an insult to the British people. In regurgitating that soundbite of the 1960s, the Labour party demonstrates that it is quite out of touch and unfit to govern.
  The truth is quite the reverse. People in Britain who are unaffected by immigration. such as my constituents, believe that good race and community relations and firm
  740
  and fair immigration control are essential, and they will vote for a party that works for both of those. I strongly believe that firm and fair immigration controls are essential to good race relations and that any threat to our system of controls today is also a threat to the good race relations that we fortunately enjoy. In fact, I believe that taking no action on these matters, as many Opposition Members, I fancy, favour, would indeed be an encouragement to racism and would damage our race relations.
  I hope that I will be pardoned for saying a little about the good state of race and community relations in Britain today. Thanks to the tolerance, good sense and patience of the white majority and the ethnic minority communities, we are singularly blessed. We can cheer that state of affairs, but we have no right or justification to be complacent in any sense. A great deal of important work is being done to keep our communities together, to ensure that ethnic minorities are encouraged to see and take the opportunities that being British offers. My right hon. and learned Friend is a strong advocate of that approach. Positive work is being done by the Commission for Racial Equality. Opening up the talent of ethnic minorities to the opportunities, for example, in business today is much to be commended, as are the realistic and pragmatic policies that are pursued by Herman Ouseley, chairman of the CRE.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall proceed—
  Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman is scared to face me.
  Mr. Baker: I may he scared, but I do not want to detain the House longer than I should.
  Differences in race and colour matter a great deal less in Britain than they did, but numbers matter very much indeed. They matter regardless of race and colour; they matter because this is a relatively crowded island; they matter because of the pressure on the British taxpayer; they matter because of the importance of keeping our communities, diverse as they are, together as Britons. Changes in population put a strain on that task. There is no escaping the fact that those strains threaten good race relations. Any responsible politician who cares about our country and our people—of all ethnic groups—must accept that numbers have to be restrained, and firm and fair immigration controls are essential. Leaders of ethnic minorities understand that and, privately, say so.
  I urge Opposition Members to look for a moment at what is happening to the world beyond our shores. More and more people are on the move, because they want to improve their standard of living. The democracy and prosperity that we enjoy in this country are far from universal. Governments in the third world who observe what we would regard as minimum standards of competence and democratic accountability are a minority. Opposition Members may like to pretend that that is not so, but they are deluding themselves. As means of communication, travel and information spread, more people seek to go to countries where there is stability, prosperity and the rule of law.
  In September, I visited four countries in Africa to discuss mutual problems in that field, and met considerable and welcome co-operation. One of the

  741
  problems was that of unaccompanied children, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) referred. The Governments there pointed out to me, sharply, that to their citizens—often the most enterprising or determined ones—the raft of social security benefits and jobs available in Britain today constitute a powerful magnet to come to the developed world. Further, when would-be immigrants use the asylum-seeking method, it has to be part of their case that they face persecution in their own country. Thus, by what we offer, we are enticing some good people away from their country whom their country does not wish to lose, and in the process they are giving their country, in the majority of cases where the claims are bogus, an undeserved bad reputation. That can affect the attitude of aid donor countries and investors. The complaints of countries in that position, as represented to me, are understandable.
  No one looking at the number of asylum seekers coming to Britain today could be other than very concerned. From 4,000 in 1988, the figure, as we have heard, is approaching the 1991 peak of 45,000, and there is a growing backlog of 66,000 or more. The present system of control, administration and appeals is in danger of being overwhelmed, despite considerably increased resources being applied. I was not impressed by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill, who asked for more resources and then complained about the very resources that are being applied in the Bill to strengthen the controls that we need.
  The Government would be irresponsible not to address these issues and tackle the magnetic package of social security benefits, housing and jobs which is exerting a strong pull today on economic migrants from countries in east Europe, Africa and elsewhere in the third world. Failure to act would have serious consequences for race relations in Britain. There would be a further consequence of such failure. At present, Britain abides strictly to its commitment to the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees. Nothing in the Government's current proposals or the Bill would affect that commitment. But the 95 per cent. of current asylum seekers whose claims are found to be bogus not only threaten our control system and the taxpayer but crowd out the genuine refugees. Those of us who want Britain's commitment to the 1951 convention to be maintained must be concerned about the consequences of failure to reduce the flow. Those consequences might require a review of our commitment, which my hon. Friends and I do not want.
  Parts of the Bill address the little-known but growing trade of racketeering, and are particularly welcome. I am delighted that facilitation of the entry of an asylum claimant for reward and acquisition of leave to remain by deception are to be criminal offences. Some of the poorest people in the world are being exploited by that evil trade, which operates internationally.
  Racketeering operates at different levels. In one set of cases, sharp-eyed immigration officers noticed that a number of unrelated asylum applicants were giving precise details of the torture and other treatment of their relations, which, although they related to cases apparently many miles apart, were exactly the same. It emerged that their cases featured no similarities, and that they were singing from hymn sheets provided by racketeers.
  742
  When I visited Ethiopia recently, I was presented with a document. I have it here. It is a genuine Somali passport which was obtained in the market place for the equivalent of £10—part of a consignment of genuine Somali passports that had been stolen and given to would-be illegal immigrants. At Campsfield house I met Chinese peasants from a village not far from Beijing, who were existing in relative comfort and good order. They were furious with the racketeers who had relieved them of their life savings in return for a clear passage to this country and jobs at the end of it—an expectation in which they had been deceived.
  In China, Asia and Africa, racketeers are promoting the trade of misleading poor people about their prospects in Europe, relieving them of their life savings and arranging transport and advice on how to break our controls. Others in Britain and on the continent are participating in the rackets. It is good to know of our increasing success in catching racketeers, and of provisions in the Bill that will be of great assistance in preventing exploitation and circumvention of our controls.
  Racketeers exploit the poor, and prejudice the genuine refugees to whom we are committed. They should be pursued vigorously, and punished. Greater international co-operation will be required to tackle the problem, and the "good governance" condition of the provision of aid for third-world countries should include co-operation on the part of their Governments.
  I hope that the Bill will give a clear signal that abuse of our asylum procedures will be checked. Coupled with other measures—including benefits restrictions—it will make it clear that Britain is not a soft option, and cannot provide housing, education and jobs for those who are moving for economic reasons. Our commitment to genuine refugees, however, will remain.
  I support my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to firm and fair immigration controls. I hope that, if further action becomes necessary, he will consider it in due course; meanwhile, the protection of our frontiers, the preservation of good race and community relations and the interests of our ethnic minorities in particular require that commitment to be maintained.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker) paid tribute to race relations in this country, and praised the patience of white people. But good race relations does not mean whites tolerating blacks; good race relations means people of all ethnic origins co-operating to create a harmonious society. What is wrong with the Bill—and the reason why I shall vote against it—is that it will damage race relations, and will make ethnic minorities the objects of discrimination and scrutiny that I, as a Jew, would not tolerate or accept.
  Let me say immediately that I do not believe that bogus asylum applicants should be allowed to remain in this country. Not only should illegal immigrants be given no work in this country; they should not he allowed to be here.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: Let me proceed for a moment or two.
  The Government, however, have provided no evidence that the Bill will deal with those problems. In his statement in the House last month and his speech this

  743
  afternoon, the Home Secretary presented carefully manipulated figures relating to both illegal immigration and asylum seekers that bear no serious scrutiny. He says that the number of known illegal immigrants has risen: he talks of a figure of 10,000 now, compared with 4,000 a short time ago. That does not mean that the number of illegal immigrants has risen; it merely means an increase in the number who are known about.
  The Home Secretary said himself this afternoon that the precise number of illegal immigrants was unknown. The Bill will not reduce the number of such immigrants; what it will do—as I shall illustrate, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) pointed out—is place people who have every legal right to be here under intolerable pressure.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to a time when he was certainly in Parliament, although he may not have been a Minister? The then Labour Government granted an amnesty to illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. Did the right hon. Gentleman support that policy? He has just told us that he is opposed to people remaining here illegally, and to the bogus asylum seekers whom he is trying to expose.
  Mr. Kaufman: That Labour Government were dealing with a backlog dating from a time when there had been extreme discrimination against immigration applications. I think that it was Mr. Roy Jenkins who, as Home Secretary, cleared the board. As one who represents many thousands of members of ethnic minorities, let me make it clear that I am against illegal immigration into this country. The Bill, however, does not establish that there is now more illegal immigration than there was. It does not quantify illegal immigration, and nor do the Government; they simply give the figures they know.
  As for the Government's statistics relating to asylum seekers, they are as bogus as any bogus asylum seeker. In his statement foreshadowing the Bill, the Home Secretary boasted about the number of additional places provided for Yugoslav asylum seekers. Today's Daily Telegraph, however, points out that this country has accepted 7,000 Yugoslavs since the beginning of the civil war in the former Yugoslavia, while Germany has accepted 350,000. The Government do not seem to have anything to be proud of, and it struck me as bizarre that the Home Secretary should boast about the matter.
  Mr. Deva: Is it not a fact that Germany took a large number of Croatian refugees because it had had a close relationship with that country for many years?
  Mr. Kaufman: Of course there is a good reason why Germany has taken more refugees. I am saying that it ill becomes the Government to boast of having taken 7,000, as though that were an achievement. Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman, in every good spirit, that he reminds me of the Germans in the late 1930s who believed that racial discrimination would never hit them. We are all together in this. As a reasonably prosperous Member of the House of Commons, the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is all right. He is like the German Jews in Berlin who thought that they were all right, but in the end they came for all the Jews, and in the end they will come for everybody in ethnic minorities.
  The Home Secretary spoke about the trend in this country being different from that in the rest of western Europe, but that depends upon which parts of western
  744
  Europe we choose. The Daily Telegraph published figures today which show that, last year in Holland, there were 52,576 applications for asylum 52,576, compared with 32,800 in this country. That was a rise of 50 per cent. in Holland. The Home Secretary says that, in some countries, there has been a big fall in the number of applications. There has been a big fall in Germany, but it is to 127,000 applications, compared with 32,800 in this country.
  The Home Secretary said that the number of applications here has grown from 2,000 a month at the start of 1994 to 4,500 in October, and he gave a higher figure for November. But monthly figures are meaningless. He says that this year's applications are expected to top 40,000 but in 1991 there were 44,840 applicants. There is nothing exceptional about this year.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for North Dorset is in the Chamber. He compared the number of applications last year—32,830—with only 3,998 in 1988. He did not say that the number of acceptances in 1994 was 825, and that in 1988 it was 628. The issue is not the scale of the applications but the number of acceptances, which have fallen. Last year, 825 refugees were accepted, a lower number than in all but one of the previous five years. Exceptional leave to remain was granted to 3,660 last year, which is far lower than in 1992 and 1993, and lower than in three of the past five years.
  Today's issue of The Daily Telegraph states that 4 per cent. of applications are accepted, compared with 8 per cent. in Germany and 28 per cent. in France. Therefore, this country is not being flooded with refugees. The number of people admitted, either as refugees or as persons given exceptional leave to remain, is small. The Government are policing asylum seekers quite effectively. Let us look at the question of applications, because that is what we are being scared about—people clamouring to come here. But hardly any are allowed to remain.
  At the end of last year, there were 55,255 outstanding applications. In response to my intervention, the Home Secretary said that there are now 60,000. In 1991, there were 72,070 and there are not many more now than there were in 1992 or 1993. A tiny number of people are granted asylum or given leave to remain. The Home Secretary told us in a statement last month that applications will be processed far more effectively. On 20 November, he said that he was allocating an extra£37 million to the processing of applications.
  The problem is not the number of people who are being given asylum or exceptional leave, because hardly any are. It is not the processing of outstanding applications, because they have not risen, especially compared with recent years, and more money is being made available to deal with them anyway.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Madden: The hon. and learned Gentleman would not give way to anybody during his speech.
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to him.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: If the right hon. Gentleman is right, why on earth does he support a Special Standing Committee'?
  Mr. Kaufman: I support it because it would he quite useful for hon. Members to he able to interrogate the

  745
  Home Secretary, so that the Home Secretary and his Minister of State, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Ms Widdecombe), who is winding up, cannot engage in obfuscatory flannel. In a Select Committee, people can be interrogated and forced to answer, but the Home Secretary and his Minister of State do not want to be forced to answer, because they cannot answer questions about the Bill's clauses. As I shall later show, the Government seem totally unaware of the implications of those clauses.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I mentioned him. After that, I shall not give way, so that other hon. Members may participate in the debate.
  Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman quoted me, although not absolutely accurately. However, he was broadly right. Does he accept that the asylum figures emanate from a system that is independent of the Government, and that the number is therefore determined independently? Secondly, the figures he quoted show that the number of bogus applicants has risen dramatically, thereby showing the need for the Bill.
  Mr. Kaufman: No. Bogus applicants are turned down, and do not somehow get in in another way. The Bill will not improve that situation at all: it will remove benefit and access to housing and so on, but it will not reduce the numbers. Conservative Members seem obsessed with the number of black and brown faces in this country.
  Mr. Deva: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No. I have given way to the hon. Member for North Dorset, and I should like to proceed.
  What measures are being taken? The Government document on the compliance cost assessment shows an admission by the Government that employers' costs will he absolutely enormous. There will be an initial cost and a continuing cost. The initial cost will be £13,524,000, and, according to the Government, every year there will be a cost of £11,451,000.
  The way in which the Government quantify those costs would make Monty Python envious, because they deal with the notional costs of photocopying for those who own photocopiers, and notional costs for those who do not. The document has been compiled by a berserk infant, but let us accept the figures. Employers will simply not accept such costs, or the burdens that will be imposed upon them of looking at all kinds of documents, passports, photocopies, naturalisation and birth certificates and so on.
  Employers will say, "We are not going to be bothered with all this." The more than 1 million small employers whom the Government cannot even quantify, and the number of which they are guessing at because they do not even know those figures, will say, "We are not going to do this." If they receive an application through the post, and the applicant involved has an easily discernible Asian name, that applicant will never be seen. Employers will not subject themselves to that.
  If an applicant has a name such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), he might get as far as walking through the door for the interview,
  746
  but, once employers find that they must go through all the procedures laid down in the Bill, they will not do it. The Government are therefore building in to this whole procedure a prejudice against the possibility of employing either black or Asian people.
  There is discrimination in relation to benefit. The Minister of State, Home Office has told us that we can rely on her good will and charm. If that were the case, I would emigrate myself. I ask her to respond specifically to the points that I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) have made about clauses 10 and 12. I and my Asian constituents are not looking for her good will, because, as I said, they are sensible. We are looking for her explanation of how a Bill that says that no immigrant
  "shall be entitled to child benefit"
  is tolerable.
  Miss Widdecombe: Such people must satisfy prescribed conditions.
  Mr. Kaufman: The Minister keeps babbling away and talking about the escape clause of satisfying prescribed conditions, but one must satisfy the conditions: the Bill says that one is not eligible for child benefit unless one satisfies the conditions. All the rest of the population are eligible for child benefit without having to satisfy the conditions. Only black and Asian people must satisfy conditions before they are eligible for child benefit.
  The Bill has racial prejudice built right into it. There is discrimination in child benefit, there is discrimination in treatment of applicants, there is discrimination in considering documents, and there is discrimination in interviewing procedures.
  I fear that, by participating in the debate at all, I too am joining in the worst discrimination of all. Millions of our fellow citizens are being talked about as though they cannot hear. Our Asian and black constituents are being talked about as potential invaders of our country, and as potential bogus applicants for housing benefit and for social security benefit. They are being talked about as though they cannot hear what we are saying, and as separate, different and inferior. I find that absolutely intolerable on behalf of my constituents.
  I as a Jew find it utterly intolerable that anyone should introduce legislation that does not affect me now, but that would have affected my parents and the parents of Conservative Members, and they would not like to be talked about as though they were not there either. The Bill's implicitly racist condescension is even more despicable than the intentions of the Bill itself.
  In a letter that I received today, the Bishop of Manchester said about the Bill:
  "The ultimate concern is that we find ways of honouring and valuing one another as sons and daughters of God, brothers and sisters in one human family. That is not to say that this country should have entirely open borders"—
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah.") I started by saying that myself. The Bishop continues:
  "but it is to say that we need to find ways of establishing goodwill rather than enmity and insecurity"—
  which the Bill establishes. The Bishop goes on:
  "So the character of our legislation and regulations is important; and the way in which we talk about this subject, the language and tone that we adopt, is crucial."

  747
  The language and tone of Conservative Members explain why the Bill has been introduced. The problem is not illegal immigrants, although I condemn illegal immigration. The problem is not bogus asylum seekers, although I condemn the people who make bogus asylum applications. The problem is that the Government are 30 per cent. behind in the opinion polls, in the last full Session before the general election. They have run out of cards to play, so, as usual, the Tory party is playing the race card. It thinks that we are going to run away from it. Thank God the Labour party is not running away from it, and I will be honoured to vote against the Bill tonight.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) may fancy his skill with a pen, but his grasp of simple mathematics is not much to talk about. The whole point about the numbers that he has toured through is that the number of genuine Geneva convention cases has not increased, but the number of bogus asylum seekers has, and that is what the Bill deals with. I and, I am sure, many people in the House will resent the politically correct pressure that he applies in seeking to ensure that this subject cannot be debated openly and without undue emotion.
  I support the Bill but, in doing so, I shall urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to ensure that their proposals are seen to be fully workable, and that existing legislation is made to work effectively as well. Nothing in what the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said justifies the need for a Special Standing Committee procedure, and nothing that he and his colleagues have said justifies the claim that the Bill is a racist measure.
  The great majority of people in this country, regardless of ethnic origin, recognise that illegal immigration is a serious and growing problem that costs the taxpayer dear. That alone bothers fair-minded people, who are neither racist nor unwelcoming to the millions of visitors that the United Kingdom receives each year, nor resentful of the small number of genuine refugees who need our support and help.
  Nowhere is the problem more obvious than in the rapidly growing number of bogus asylum seekers with which the Bill deals. Although the number of genuine Geneva convention cases turns out to be fairly constant, and the number of cases with exceptional leave to remain has been constrained, I am pleased to say, since 1993, the total number of applications has rocketed because more and more bogus claimants join the queue, as a way of staying on, courtesy of the British taxpayer. As a number of hon. Members have said, it takes far too long to process cases. Genuine applicants, suffering the trauma of recent persecution, can be held up in that queue without the help that they need and deserve, while, perversely, the attractions of making a bogus claim grow as the queue takes ever longer to process.
  On 20 November, the Home Secretary told the House that 75,000 asylum applicants cost more than £200 million in benefit. I suspect that that figure errs massively on the side of caution. When the full range of social security still available to asylum seekers is added to the cost of local authority accommodation, school places and health care, the real cost of the asylum queue must be much closer to £500 million a year or more. Add to that the benefits,
  748
  housing, jobs and school places taken up by unknown numbers of illegal immigrants and overstayers—here without so much as a "by your leave"—and the overall costs are, without a shadow of doubt, substantial. There is, therefore, good reason to consider fresh immigration controls, provided that they can be made to work and to deliver practical results, and provided that the new policy ideas do not divert attention from the key operational priority of making the existing legislation work as it should. New policies by themselves do not help the immigration service tighten its grip on offenders. That is achieved by the hard slog of middle-ranking officials away from the public eye who pursue case after case, asking only in return for sufficient resources, backing for their judgment with minimum interference and a consistent set of rules to apply.
  Where the rules can be improved to extend the powers of the immigration officers, it must he done practically. Most practitioners in the Home Office's middle ranks would, I think, tell senior officials and the Ministers whom they advise that to process the queue of 75,000 asylum applicants will take additional resources, manpower and facilities—within the asylum division and the appellate section of the Lord Chancellor's Department—of substantially more than the £37 million announced by the Home Secretary.
  I told the Home Secretary two years ago that as in business, so in Government, if one wants to remove large chunks of overhead, one sometimes has to spend first in order to realise savings. My estimate is that it will probably take £150 million a year for two years, including set-up and temporary redeployment costs, to reduce the queue to a manageable work-in-progress level of three months. That is an incremental outlay of £300 million to realise savings of much more than that amount year in, year out. To a public expenditure hawk like me, that must make good sense. Once the queue is removed, the very attraction of the bogus application is destroyed. If the Home Secretary can make headway in this respect, he will be hailed as a hero, but if the policy statements and debates subside into administrative inertia, doubts about the Government's competence will grow in the mind of the electorate who urgently want the problem resolved.
  I deal now with specific aspects of the Bill, beginning with clause 1. There is no reason why there should not be a fast-track procedure for applicants from manifestly safe third countries. It has long been the practice of the asylum division to gather up-to-date information on conditions in other countries using a variety of sources, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, international bodies and, where appropriate, other friendly Governments. It must be reasonable that applicants from obviously safe countries should expect their cases to be heard under such a fast-track procedure.
  The House may wish to recall that the terms of the relevant convention are necessarily narrow. People who are hounded in one region of their home country but who can live safely in another part of it do not qualify as Geneva convention refugees. In that regard, I should tell the House about my visit to Sri Lanka in, I think, 1992. While there, I came across clear evidence that some people had come to this country, applied for asylum and been placed in the queue but who had obtained a second Sri Lankan passport. They left Britain with it and travelled to India, down to southern India and across to Sri Lanka to holiday with their families before returning here on that second passport to resume their place in the asylum queue.

  749
  Despite all the terrible problems that we have witnessed in Nigeria, the question that must be asked in Geneva convention terms is whether there is any part of that country to which it would be safe for an asylum seeker to return.
  I deal now with clause 5. Another welcome provision is the penalties against asylum racketeers.
  Mr. Bernie Grant rose—
  Mr. Wardle: I shall not give way although the temptation to do so is considerable. I sometimes miss the energetic exchanges that I had with the hon. Gentleman in Committee and on the Floor of the House, but, for the moment, discretion must be the better part of valour.
  I was referring to racketeers, the shadowy gang bosses who manipulate and mistreat hapless would-be immigrants. Frequently, these racketeers fleece a whole village community in some far-flung country. The community subscribes to the plane ticket and protection fee for one would-be entrant. They put the new arrival to anonymous sweated labour here and collect his social security benefits. That is not acceptable, and we should do something about it. Indeed, the Bill deals with that problem.
  The tightening of housing benefit and social security rules in clauses 9 and 10 is long overdue, but I suspect that town halls and Benefits Agency offices will need a great deal of encouragement to make the new provision work. It will be easier said than done but these changes are nevertheless urgently needed.
  I am less confident about clause 8. The principle is fine, hut, in practice, I suspect that we shall face problems. Clause 8 places a new responsibility on employers not to hire people who have no entitlement to work in this country. That is fair provided that the Government make available to employers a foolproof and unbureaucratic method of identifying those with a right to work.
  Frankly, the Home Secretary has yet to convince me that the use of national insurance numbers for that purpose will do the trick for stronger immigration control. I suspect that it is likely to lead to endless legal wrangles and charges of prejudice in employment, some of which will be borne out unless a better system is put in place. I fear that employers will regard it—there is already some evidence to this effect—as a complete reversal of the Government's deregulation mode. Clause 8 will be in danger of having as little effect as the existing, long-standing but little used penalty for harbouring an illegal immigrant. While the idea behind clause 8 is a thoroughly good one, I believe that it will have real force only if it is accompanied by the use of identity cards. That is the way to tackle that important problem.
  Employers and the electorate as a whole will also want to see that the Government are playing their part in immigration control by making sure that Britain's perimeter fence—our border controls—is secure. That is relevant to every piece of immigration legislation. The European Commission must not be allowed to have its way and dismantle our borders with the rest of the European Union.
  While the Prime Minister's recent very public pledge that our frontier checks are not negotiable is most welcome, it does not sit easily with his repeated claim, or
  750
  that of the Home Secretary, that the general declaration concocted by Margaret Thatcher at the 1985 Luxembourg intergovernmental conference will somehow protect the United Kingdom from the unequivocal objective of article 7A of the treaty with all that that implies for immigration in this country. It will do nothing of the kind, as Baroness Thatcher has now admitted. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), who was Home Secretary during the Maastricht negotiations, has also admitted as much. I believe that the House was effectively misled in that regard when it ratified the legislation leading to a single market.
  Officials and legal advisers have been consistent in their warnings that Britain is on a collision course with Europe over frontiers and that the British public will not tolerate that. Still the Government appear to waver, presumably hoping that the problem will not surface until the next Parliament, instead of tackling it, as they should, on the next IGC agenda.
  In the words of two recently retired grade 2 Home Office officials,
  "The inevitable collision with Europe over frontiers"
  will undermine the provisions of the Bill and all existing immigration law. It will mean a major redeployment of the immigration service and it will impose new burdens on the police which have not even been planned. To avoid that catastrophe and to make sense of the Bill, the Government must make clear their determination to amend EU law.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House of Madam Speaker's ruling that there is to he a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: While listening to the debate, I have had two overwhelming feelings. The first is that I have been here before and the second is that the general election cannot be very far away. In fact, we have been here seven times before because, since 1979, this Conservative Administration have introduced seven Bills relating to immigration, asylum and nationality. Coincidentally, the most recent two were introduced before the 1987 and 1992 general elections. Not only were those Acts viewed by many as wholly unnecessary—indeed, they still are viewed as such—hut the Government bolted on to them some measures that became extremely unpopular and unworkable. Bolted on to the previous Bill concerning asylum was the abolition of appeal rights for those refused a visitor's visa, which, as many hon. Members know, has resulted in widespread disappointment and misery for many people who have been denied opportunities to visit this country.
  Recently, a Foreign Office Minister and officials at the Department admitted to me that processing the 7,000 representations made every year by Members on behalf of people who had been denied visit visas costs more than the right of appeal used to cost.
  Bolted on to this Bill is a scheme to penalise employers who are found to he employing illegal entrants, and other measures that will cause extreme difficulty, especially the denial of child benefit to many who have been settled here

  751
  for many years. That includes overseas students who are the parents of children and have previously been entitled to child benefit.
  Mr. Stephen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Madden: No, I shall be making a very short speech and I wish to make some further remarks.
  The House must also realise the extraordinary difficulty that will be caused to thousands of asylum seekers, as well as thousands of children belonging to those asylum seekers, by the denial of benefit in the period between the refusal to grant asylum and the outcome of an appeal. That delay can now take up to two years. Is this House seriously asking the country to accept that thousands upon thousands of families will have no income at all for a period of up to two years?
  We must question the necessity for the Bill. It is widely seen outside the House as extremely bad. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association says:
  "Even on a cursory reading this bill is poorly drafted, ambiguous, uncertain in its ambit and draconian in scope. It is likely to result in extensive and costly litigation. A number of its provisions will be unworkable in practice and expensive to administer."
  I was very pleased to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle)—the previous Minister but three responsible for immigration. Most of us would regard his speech as not exactly that of a full-hearted supporter of the Bill. Indeed, I was interested to note that, as recently as March, the hon. Gentleman said:
  "It is important to ensure that the Asylum Act of 1993, which has only been in place two years, works before we rush through a future piece of legislation."
  He has said much the same today. He pointed to what needs to be done. We do not need more legislation, we need sufficient resources to ensure that those who are seeking asylum are dealt with efficiently, promptly, expeditiously and according to natural laws of justice. That can be done by administrative action. It does not need further legislation.
  In his statement, the Home Secretary said:
  "We also need to do more to speed up asylum appeals. A consultancy report last year found evidence of deliberate time wasting."—[Official Report, 20 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 337.]
  I understand that that report, by KPMG Peat Marwick, said:
  "there is little incentive for appellants and their representatives to co-operate with the Home Office and the Immigration Appellate Authority in moving appeals briskly through the system."
  However, KPMG said that it found no significant evidence of the appellants and/or their representatives deliberately seeking to delay the process.
  In its briefing to Members before this debate, Amnesty International United Kingdom said—I apologise for the length of the quotation but it is most important:
  "These figures indicate that most of the delay in resolving asylum applications is caused by the Home Office itself: of the 18.4 months it takes, on average, to fully resolve an asylum application. 12.8 months—or 70 per cent.—is taken up by the Home Office's initial determination (8.7 months) and its processing of the appeal (4.1 months). And there is little if anything that applicants and their advisers can do to prolong the Home Office's processing of the appeal, as it is simply a case of waiting for the Asylum Division to prepare its response to the appeal and send the appeal papers to the IAA. Accordingly, until the appeal is listed by the IAA, applicants and their advisers have no means of delaying the appeal process,
  752
  even if they wanted to. Moreover, the Home Office has failed to produce any significant evidence of appellants and or their representatives delaying appeals listed by the IAA."
  That could have been said by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. Clearly, as a Minister who was on the front line for several years, he knows where the problem lies: in the bureaucracy of the Home Office and its failure to process claims in an expeditious, fair and just way.
  The designated third country—the so-called white list—will give rise to more and more problems. On the radio on Friday, I heard the Minister, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), commenting on a Nigerian who was seeking to campaign against deportation back to Nigeria. The hon. Lady said that the issue was not that he came from a country which had a nasty regime, but that the applicant must prove that he would face persecution if he were returned to that country.
  Miss Widdecombe: Of course.
  Mr. Madden: One wonders what the hon. Lady requires to be able to ensure an offer of asylum or a refugee place in this country. Even if that person were to offer a personally signed letter from General Abacha saying that he was not well disposed towards the person, the automatic response of the Home Office, and indeed the Foreign Office, would be to question the authenticity of the document. How many of us have faced time after time in case after case allegations that the documents offered by applicants were false and therefore should not have any heed paid to them?
  The Minister is rapidly acquiring a reputation, which she began gaining at the Department of Social Security, as the Madame Defarge of the Home Office. She makes much of her Christian beliefs, but we do not see much evidence of Christian charity or compassion surging through her veins. Still less do we see such charity and compassion flowing through the veins of the Home Secretary. I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that there is one certainty: if the Bill had been law when the Home Secretary's father sought refuge in this country, he would have undoubtedly been refused. That cannot be denied by any hon. Member.
  I shall quote briefly from an editorial in The Guardian on 18 November, under the heading,
  "The exodus of the refugees
  Another Nigerian may be deported without pr per reason".
  The editorial described the case of a person who was seeking a judicial review, and it said:
  "But the judicial review can only look at whether officials went through the correct procedures—not whether they reached the right conclusion."
  It concludes:
  "The question remains: what does it take to win refugee status in the UK today?"
  That is the question that hangs over this debate.
  The more that I listen to the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers, the less convinced I am on this seventh occasion that this miserable legislation is required. What is required is a determination to deliver the resources to ensure that processing can be done fairly, expeditiously and in accordance with natural justice.
  The alternatives proposed by the Bill will cost millions in additional public expenditure. What will he the cost of bed-and-breakfast accommodation for all those people

  753
  denied benefit? What will be the cost of taking thousands of children into care? What will be the cost of stripping child benefit and other benefit entitlements from people who have lived in this country for a score of years? The Government should think of the difficulties that they are storing up by pandering to the hysteria for something to be done about a threat that does not exist.
  7.10 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: A thread of realism has run through all the words that we have heard so far. It was evident in the speeches of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and it concerns the procedures necessary to implement existing legislation as well as the Bill.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for quoting me so much. Everything that I have said on the subject I have said because I feel strongly that race relations and asylum are important elements in our society. Everything that I have said and tried to do has been an effort to get it right this time. It has been said that, in 1993, many people could point to deficiencies in the legislation and the fact that it could not solve the problem. One is anxious that we do not fall into the same trap this time round.
  I have much experience with refugees because I have been chairman of the Africa committee of the British Refugee Council for more than 12 years and have travelled widely in countries in which one has seen the disruption, concern and horror with which people are confronted. My concern is that the perception of the Bill will not be as helpful as many of us would like.
  While I have been involved with the problem, the figures and the countries from which people have come have varied from year to year because asylum seekers, as opposed to economic migrants, tend to come from different countries for different reasons. Recently, an element of confusion has arisen from economic migrants using asylum as a mechanism. The truth is that most asylum seekers come from different countries for different purposes at different times.
  In one sense it is understandable that we are seeking to introduce rules and regulations to prevent the system from being abused. We have heard a great deal about genuine asylum seekers, but I am concerned that the rules will be used to their detriment.
  The 1951 convention is tight enough—Britain had a great part to play in it. Who could have imagined the events that the world community has seen since then? During the cold war, refugees were encouraged. They were subsidised in West Germany, if they were brave enough to cross the Berlin wall. Client states in Africa were subsidised by different countries to support one of the two major powers.
  We have seen outbreaks of internal conflict, ethnic cleansing, civil wars and mass migration. Since 1951, there has also been two-way vision. People tend to forget that, while we watch the terrible events in Rwanda on television, the Rwandans can watch us and see our standards and way of life. With easier travel it is not surprising that there is pressure for people who seek a better way of life to come to this country.
  754
  In the past, we had the safeguard of exceptional leave to remain, which is an understandable and humane concept. All hon. Members must have had constituency experience of that. With a major university in my constituency, I have had to deal with many cases of people who would not have qualified under the 1951 convention. One's heart goes out to people in such tragic situations and one can give them exceptional leave to remain. Of those seeking asylum, 4 per cent. qualify and 20 per cent. are granted exceptional leave to remain.
  The 1951 convention cannot define all the different human situations that people have to face. I was concerned to hear my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker)—an ex-Minister—say that we should look at that convention. It is tight enough already and it should certainly not be made any tighter.
  I am worried about the overall impression that we are giving through measures that will deny support to people who are still using the legal right that we gave them in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Which people will be most affected? It will be those from Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Ghana. Although one has no intention of involving race, inevitably the perception will be that those are the people whose benefit will be withdrawn. As my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said, it will be perceived that they are causing the problem and it is a London, not a Nottingham, problem. My real fear is that, for the first time in this country, we will create a sub-culture of totally dispossessed people, who will have no mechanism and no rights. In other countries, they talk of "illegals". We have not had that system here.
  A further concern is that we are acting—or so we arc told—to implement various European Community rules. One document—I have no way of proving whether it is true—concludes that
  "the Bill imports the restrictions of the EU resolutions agreed to by the UK, without importing all of the safeguards or qualifications."
  I should like the Minister to clear up that matter. Anyone with any concern for human rights and refugee groups would want to know that we have done both—that, if we have imported one part, we have certainly also imported the balance.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned employment. Again, it is the perception of the Bill that will cause the problems. It has already been proven that people with passports with exceptional leave to remain have been asked by employers to check with the Home Office and let them know that they are cleared. Because of the time that has taken, employers have said, "Thank you very much, but we don't want you any longer", even though the person concerned has an absolute right to work.
  I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister will clear up the questions over clauses 9 and 10. I suspect that the way in which the Immigration Act 1971 has been subsumed into this Bill will cause much concern among many people who are here legitimately and who work here and pay taxes. We need to clear up now exactly where they stand.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn quoted exactly what I said when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary introduced the legislation. I asked whether a mechanism could be found and I did so because I thought that the Special Standing Committee proposal placed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in an unfair position.

  755
  I accept the word of the hon. Member for Blackburn that the Opposition did not intend to bounce the Prime Minister, but raising such an issue on the Queen's Speech without any prior warning was not the way to lower political tension and to take matters forward in a sensible and balanced way.
  I still hope that a mechanism can be found by which all those who have a long tradition of involvement with refugees and immigration issues can test the Bill during its passage and ensure that it is right.
  I am especially concerned about whether the Bill fulfils our international legal obligations. The sort of people about whom we are concerned—whom I have met and known through the years—have no voice here except for the voices of those of us who are speaking now. They have no spokesman to defend their rights other than the international agreements and the obligations that we freely enter into and observe. There is some doubt that the processes of the Bill fulfil those international obligations. It is essential that we clarify beyond reasonable doubt both the letter and spirit of the international obligations.
  I am a troubled Back Bencher—not for the first time. This is an issue about which I am greatly concerned; it is one of the few issues that keeps me awake at night, and that is saying something. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and Ministers will accept that there is a lot to play for. I would deplore, and I know that the Prime Minister—I honour everything that he believes—deplores, this issue being used in any way at all that damaged race relations and the genuine interests of asylum seekers. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, we have had a proud record of being a haven for those who genuinely seek help—and that we should maintain at all costs.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Bernie Grant: The contribution of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) is welcome and in the spirit in which we had hoped the debate could be conducted in the Special Standing Committee. Alas, the Government have not agreed to that.
  We are back once again debating asylum measures. As recently as 1993 the Government introduced substantial legislation on immigration and asylum. They have returned to the subject for two main reasons, apart from the fact that the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 was hastily put together and the holes in it are becoming apparent to all concerned.
  The first major reason for the Government's return to the subject is, at the prompting of the European Union, to bring Britain into line with the most backward, racist and xenophobic elements in the EU. Secondly, they want to play the race card in the run-up to the general election, relying on racism and xenophobia to gain the Government votes at the expense of black and minority ethnic people and of asylum seekers.
  One example of Britain slavishly following European Union diktats is the white-listing of countries, the so-called safe countries of origin criteria, under which the Home Secretary, without parliamentary debate, can designate certain safe countries. Applicants for asylum from those countries will have their applications dealt with quickly and without close scrutiny. That arrangement is lifted directly from the European Union. As the Home
  756
  Secretary said, Austria, Germany, Holland, Denmark, France, Spain, Finland and Switzerland already have such procedures. Britain is following the worst possible practice in the European Union.
  Anyone who thinks that Nigeria is a safe country—which is the clear implication when Britain sends people who are opposed to the Nigerian Government back to Nigeria—needs to speak to Chief Abiola or Chief Obasanjo, who are currently in gaol in Nigeria, or, if they could, to the graves of Ken Saro-Wiwa and the eight others who fought against that Government.
  The European Union also changed the definition of who qualifies as being in fear of persecution to mean only those persecuted by Governments. That rules out being persecuted by opposition movements, cartels and so on. It follows that, if there is no Government to persecute, as in Somalia recently, asylum seekers from such a country could not apply for admittance to Britain. Perhaps the Minister could take that up later.
  The Government are also playing the race card by refusing to set up the Special Standing Committee. I want to deal with the Bill's effect on race relations and stress the damage that it will do to them. The Bill comes at a time when racism is on the increase, so the dangers of its measures are multiplied many times.
  The Commission for Racial Equality has expressed grave concern about clause 7, which deals with the power of arrest and search warrants. The Bill proposes to give the police new powers of entry and search in relation to offences under the Immigration Act. The most significant new power is that which would enable a warrant to be issued in respect of a person suspected of working without leave. That would authorise the police, using reasonable force, to enter the premises of a person's family members, employers, friends, college or social clubs to search for evidence.
  The Commission for Racial Equality draws attention to the fact that at the time of the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Parliament was satisfied that the homes and offices of persons who were not suspected of any offence should be entered and searched only where the offence under investigation was very serious, such as treason, murder, rape or kidnapping, or where the consequences of the offence would be very grave, such as serious harm to the security of the state, death or serious injury. The Bill proposes to extend that special power to offences under the Immigration Act. It is a measure of the Government's thinking that they can put overstaying in Britain in the same category as murder, rape kidnapping and treasonable offences.
  Experience suggests that the use of the new powers may result in conflict. There is concern that fishing raids to detect illegal immigrants have not produced the desired results. We are aware of a number of raids conducted under existing powers in the past two years with the purpose of detecting illegal immigrants. The most publicised raid in terms of press coverage was code-named Operation Elgar, in which more than 100 homes were raided in April 1994 by police and immigration officers after extensive research.
  The Home Office said at the time that 24 of those who had been detained were alleged illegal immigrants. The Voice of 17 May 1994 stated:
  "During the operation, scores of wrong addresses were raided, and of the 70 people originally heralded as detained by the Home Office, only two were deported."

  757
  It should also be noted that an extension of such powers creates a climate of fear. On 27 April 1994, Kwanele Siziba died after falling from the 12th floor of her block of flats. She had thought that the police had come to her home to arrest her for immigration reasons and had previously told her sister that she feared receiving the same treatment that Joy Gardner had received during attempts to deport her. In fact, the police were accompanying a bailiff and were not there for immigration reasons. In any case, Kwanele climbed on to the balcony to avoid the police and fell.
  Another death said to have resulted from fear of immigration controls is that of Joseph Nnalue, who fell from a building while hiding from police and immigration officers. The coroner at the inquest into the death called for a review of immigration procedures. Mrs. Nnalue, the wife of the deceased, said:
  "Great fear is being created in the black and ethnic minority communities."
  It is no good the Minister or the Home Secretary saying the measures are not racist. The fact is that fear is being created.
  On 3 March this year, The Independent ran a story about two women from Latvia who were thought to have committed suicide because of fears of deportation. Those examples highlight the possible dangers to and effects on ethnic minorities of being caught up in such raids and subjected to harassment.
  The potential harm that the exercise of the increased powers is likely to cause to good race relations and co-operation between the police and black and ethnic minority communities heavily outweighs any benefit to law enforcement that they might offer.
  Clause 8 deals with prevention of illegal working. The consultation document "Prevention of Illegal Working", issued by the Home Office, highlights the importance the Government allegedly attach to maintaining good race relations. It discusses that at great length.
  The chief executive of the Industrial Society voiced concern in a letter to the Financial Times of 23 November this year. He said that the proposals
  "will deter organisations from employing people who look or sound as if they may be new to the country".
  That concern will be shared by many, not least those in Britain's black and minority ethnic communities. The danger also exists that, initially, some employers may be over-cautious and may make mistakes resulting in applicants having offers of employment withdrawn.
  That point is adequately illustrated by a case that is yet to be heard by an industrial tribunal. It involves an African who was offered a post in a finance department. The day after he started work, he was asked to produce a work permit. By the time the Home Office got round to issuing what amounted to a reason for him—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I call Mr. John Carlisle.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said that we had been down this road before. That feeling was echoed by the
  758
  hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). Of course we have, and we shall no doubt go down it again because of the increasing problems of immigration and asylum that severely trouble many of our constituents, be they of ethnic origin, as 20 per cent. of my constituents are, or from the indigenous white population. It is right that the House should debate these matters and the enormous problem that has arisen since the 1993 Act.
  We have also been down this road before in that, yet again tonight, we have seen old Labour. We have heard shouts of "racist", "squalid" and "extremist". The hon. Member for Tottenham made his usual attack on the police, which echoed his comments after the Broadwater Farm riot several years ago, before he came to this place.
  The House should dismiss any cant from the Opposition, especially by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who came up with no solutions whatever to this problem. If, God forbid, Labour were ever in government and he became Home Secretary, the only solution that he would suggest would be yet another amnesty for all those illegals who shelter in this country. Such people number several thousand and they must welcome the thought of a Labour Government coming back to power. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) did not accept my challenge when I asked whether he supported an amnesty for illegal immigrants. I have no doubt that that is what Labour's policy would include.
  If I had any doubts about the Bill, they were abandoned this morning when I heard on the 8 o'clock news that the Bishop of Liverpool and other churchmen were against it. That immediately gave me a greater incentive to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and try to make a few comments. A letter in The Times said that they were worried about the effect that the Bill would have on race relations. What absolute nonsense. I speak with some experience on this matter. Those who live in this country are privileged, as we do not have the race relations problems faced by other countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker) said, that is because of the tolerance of the indigenous white population as well as that of people who have chosen to live here.
  To use a Luton phrase, one thing that gets up the noses of people who have gone through the tortuous immigration procedures is when people come here illegally. Many hon. Members will know about the immigration process because they have dealt with those cases over the years. Many people enter this country illegally or overstay their welcome and take benefits to which they are not entitled.
  In the time available to me, I wish to express my support for three clauses in the Bill. The first is clause 10, which deals with social security. The hon. Member for Blackburn said that it was "unfair" to withdraw social security from people who are on these shores illegally. But it costs about £100 a week in social security for each such person. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said that it costs considerably more than that. Unfair? It is not fair to low wage earners in my constituency who, sadly, still pay tax after the recent Budget, some of which goes towards keeping those people in some sort of comfort, albeit minimal, when they should not be here in the first place. Nor is it fair on newly married couples in my constituency who have negative equity. Luton has more negative equity than any other

  759
  part of the country. Why should they pay part of their hard-earned money to keep people who should not be here in the first place?
  It is even more unfair to the immigrants who have gone through the process of staying here legitimately. Having been granted UK passports, they see others waltzing in on an illegal ticket, overstaying their welcome and staying here for many years. Some of them know full well that, because of the long process of appeals, they will not be sent back home on the first plane and can stay here for some time. Perhaps the thought that a Labour Government would introduce an amnesty also encourages them.
  I also fully support clause 8, which deals with employers and illegal immigrants. It is extraordinary to say that the clause places a great burden on employers by asking them to check, as they check other references in many cases, whether an applicant for a job is a legitimate citizen of this country. As one Opposition Member said, it may be a difficult task in view of the number of national insurance numbers in circulation, but we must take every measure that we can to ensure that jobs go to people who are allowed to remain in this country legally.
  In my constituency, much illegal labour is used, particularly in lower-paid jobs. That must stop. I would say exactly the same whether those illegal workers were black Nigerians or, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), white South Africans. If people are not legitimate citizens of this country, it is not right that they should have jobs. We are therefore right to ask employers to check before accepting applicants. I see no discrimination in that.
  The third and final clause that I wish briefly to deal with is clause 5, which seeks to come down hard on those who facilitate entry. Those right hon. and hon. Members who, like me, have experience of immigration cases—I have considerable experience—will know of the bitterness and anger caused by people who come here illegally. We all know of marriages of convenience. I dealt with one such case only a few days ago. An aggrieved wife was trying to get the Home Office to remove a husband who had married her solely for immigration purposes. That girl is going through enormous heartache. We all know of the anger and bitterness caused by overstayers and racketeers. Additional measures are obviously needed, and any measures that we can take to try to stop their trade are to be welcomed.
  Opposition Members have no special prerogative for saying that they represent the ethnic communities. Every time a Conservative Member says that he or she represents an ethnic community, we are shouted down with all sorts of insults. Let me tell Opposition Members a little story in the short time that I have left. Hon. Members will recall that my party did not do particularly well during last May's local elections. In Luton, we finished up with just two Conservative seats. During the count, which I attended, there was a large group of Labour supporters, all wearing large red rosettes and all members of the ethnic community. I talked to them as they went by and they said, "John, don't worry about what has happened tonight. Although we have won, you will definitely get back because we admire you for how you stand up for our rights." I say that in absolute honesty]—[interruption]—and I can tell the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who is laughing, that since 1979 my majority has gone up with
  760
  great regularity. Members of the ethnic community admire the fact that I do not patronise them as the hon. Lady and some other Opposition Members do.
  That is why the Bill is first class. Heaven knows, it is probably a bit late, and we should have passed it through Parliament some time ago. I very much hope that it receives a thumping majority in the Division tonight.
  7.39 pm
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I hope to be very brief.
  It is most instructive that any Bill of the type before us introduced by the Government never appears to start with any delineation of the rights of the individuals who will be affected by it. That exposes the moral vacuum at the heart of so much of what the Government are about. Nowhere in the British constitution are rights ever defined. That is why it is possible for proposals to be made which are as thoroughly disgraceful as those in the Bill.
  I find almost the entire Bill objectionable, but I shall restrict my remarks to clauses 9 and 10. However, before doing so, I shall respond to one or two of the arguments of Conservative Members, especially about clause 4. They tried to tug on our heart-strings, describing the awful prospect and sight of the poor people—I think one phrase was "Chinese peasants"—who had been so awfully defrauded and the promises that they were given, before they were sent to this country, by people who took their money and documents from them.
  As most other Members of the House must have done, I have received a briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which says that currently:
  "It is a matter of law that entry by deception can include deception by third parties of which the entrant is entirely innocent"
  and that clause 4, as it stands, introduces strict liability for that criminal offence, which is to say that there would be no normal requirement of any criminal intention unless there is some further definition or defence that we know nothing about. In those circumstances, Conservative Members should realise that those poor Chinese peasants about whom they are so worried are likely to be prosecuted for the fraud that is perpetrated on them by other people. That is a disgrace.
  Clauses 9 and 10, regarding the restrictions on housing assistance and child benefit, need to be considered against a background of the recent proposed changes to social security entitlement of asylum seekers. Many hon. Members will also have received briefings about that.
  I understand that the proposals will mean that from 8 January 1996, the regulations will remove the right to benefits from all those people who apply for asylum after their entry to the United Kingdom, and will remove the right to benefits from asylum seekers who exercise their right of appeal against a decision that has gone against them.
  It is true that, currently, only about 30 per cent. of those people seeking asylum make an application at their point of entry, but it is equally true that the vast majority of the remainder apply within only one week of their entry, and an overwhelming number of asylum seekers arriving in the United Kingdom arrive with the precise intention of seeking asylum.

  761
  There may be many reasons why people do not immediately apply, not least of which must be confusion in their minds. How on earth are people in that position expected to know the UK requirements in advance? Perhaps we shall be reassured that information is helpfully handed out to potential asylum seekers in their country of origin, but I suspect not. It is outrageous to suggest that those people who do not apply at the point of entry are, by definition, not genuine. That cannot be decided until an application is processed.
  I draw attention to the fact that it has been known for circumstances in a person's home country to change while they are in this country, perfectly legitimately, as students. I well remember being at university with Cambodian students who started their degree course in the full expectation of being able to return home at the end of it and with every wish to do so, but who were prevented from doing so by the unfortunate activities of the Khmer Rouge and ultimately had to seek asylum elsewhere. That type of thing can happen and needs to be taken into account, but the Bill does not provide for it.
  At present, there is a wait of about eight months for an asylum decision to be made, and I understand that permission to work is not given until six months after the application is made. However, there is no guarantee of work, and work will be even less likely if clause 8 becomes law. That has been mentioned especially by Opposition Members.
  As at 8 January 1996, about 13,000 asylum seekers plus families will lose all benefits. Then, presumably, many of them will lose their homes. The Refugee Council has warned of that and of the subsequent pressure on local authorities. As I understand it, the Scottish Refugee Council has been thrown into complete disarray, trying to to cope with the confusion that that will create and the difficulties that it will cause for that organisation. Destitution will be the result of clauses 9 and 10 added to the regulations that have already been passed but have yet to be brought into force.
  The only relevant status for housing assistance should be the housing status of the individual, not their immigrant designation or other such status.
  On the face of it, I find clause 10 especially invidious as it may well result in the removal of child benefit from immigrants, affecting British-born children of immigrants, because it is their parents who have to apply.
  Mr. Deva: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Cunningham: I am sorry, but time is so short that I will not give way.
  Clauses 9 and 10 are vague and, in spite of the assurances of Conservative Members, they are widely seen to be vague. Most people who have read the briefings will know that those are the two clauses which cannot be briefed on in any detail because of their vagueness, and which therefore give rise to enormous concern. Neither the Refugee Council nor immigration lawyers specialising in that type of work find those clauses especially clear.
  The potential powers are wide ranging and potentially exclude whole groups of people already settled in the United Kingdom. In effect, it appears that the Government intend to starve people out of the country. Those are
  762
  disgraceful measures, directed not only at the most vulnerable group of new asylum seekers, but at very many others, leading to incalculable insecurity and, most of all, financial insecurity.
  In his letter of 20 November 1995, the Home Secretary said:
  "We face very real problems. The proposals outlined in this letter are a measured response to those problems."
  Hon. Members might be forgiven for receiving the impression that the problems to which the Home Secretary refers have far less to do with illegal immigration and bogus asylum seekers and everything to do with the problems likely to be experienced by Conservatives at the next general election.
  The use of legislation such as this Bill for purely political reasons draws attention to the desperate need for a written constitution and a Bill of Rights in this country, which may be used as a starting point and a benchmark. Right now we are creating groups of people with no apparent rights. In effect, we shall create a category of non-person.
  I shall make some more general remarks about the things that the Bill represents, some of which were mentioned by Opposition Members. To me, "immigrant" is not a dirty word; it simply means someone who has moved from one part of the world to another. However, the Government's attitude and the rhetoric of some of their supporters are having the effect that the word "immigrant" is on the way to being regarded and used as an insult. That is most unfortunate.
  I spent 16 years as an immigrant in Australia and I am a descendant of immigrants in a previous wave of immigration to this country. I and other Members of the House who are in a similar position would he appalled to hear that word, which historically has been used with a certain pride, treated in that fashion and to hear people using it in the pejorative sense in which it is used. I know that some Ministers are in the same position, although perhaps that is not an especially good advertisement for immigration.
  People from this country have been welcomed elsewhere when they went in search of a better life and better economic circumstances. We should in turn welcome those from elsewhere, because immigrants help a culture to grow and change, and without growth and change a culture will die.
  That anti-immigrant attitude is especially unfortunate. People in the House may be interested to know that in the by-election campaign which resulted in my being here I was attacked openly by Members of the Conservative party because my fitness to stand for election as a Member of Parliament in this country was brought into question as a result of my having spent my time between the ages of 8 and 25 in Australia.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is right to paraphrase Pastor Niemoller and say that once one starts that ball rolling, it does not stop. I was on the receiving end of it in Perth and Kinross. and I am certain that the experiences of many other people in this country would have been far worse than that.
  It is a mean-minded attitude. and it is exemplified in the legislation before us. The Bill is redolent of the narrow-minded provincialism that colours so much of what the Government are about. It is deplorable that they

  763
  should go along with the nasty attacks on asylum seekers and refugees. The Scottish National party strongly opposes that attitude, and I hope that all right-thinking people will do the same.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. James Couchman: I begin my short contribution to the debate by stating my unequivocal support for my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals to close loopholes in, and to speed up the implementation of, the law as it relates to asylum. It must be right to seek to investigate the claims of asylum applicants, and, where appropriate, to allow the appeal procedure to operate as speedily as possible. It is not acceptable that people should be locked up for many months in Rochester prison, which is situated just outside my constituency. Those people have committed no crime, but a purely bureaucratic process keeps them incarcerated.
  However, the delay and obfuscation tactics employed by many who are patently economic migrants must come to an end. If it takes the withdrawal of our generous social security benefits and special housing treatment to encourage migrants not to seek to frustrate the process, so be it. Our European Union partners in France, Belgium, Holland and Germany have adopted a much tougher regime, and their rates of asylum seekers are falling fast, while ours are rocketing. The number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom has risen from 28,000 in 1993 to 32,800 in 1994, and we have a staggering estimate of 40,000 this year.
  I was astonished to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that some 70 per cent.—or 28,000 people this year—of asylum seekers do not apply at a port of entry. Many of them are students, those whose entry clearances have expired and are therefore overstayers, or they are simply illegal immigrants whose presence has been detected by the immigration service. Almost none of those people can have any claim to deserving political asylum under the 1951 United Nations convention. In short, they are making a mockery of this country's generous welcome to people who have come to the United Kingdom to escape persecution—from the Huguenots to the Jews and the Ugandan Asians, to give just three examples.
  Almost the only reasons why the status of students or visitors may change to entitle them to consideration for asylum is a major upheaval or revolution in their country, or if they have indulged in political or terrorist activity that is hostile to the Government of their country which might render them liable to prosecution and conviction upon their return to that country.
  I must express my concern at that point, because I do not believe that it is appropriate for visitors to our shores to abuse our welcome by indulging in acts which, if committed overseas by one of our citizens, would render him or her liable to the rigour of the law upon his or her return to the United Kingdom. It seems to me that preaching sedition or insurrection against one's country while enjoying the protection of our freedoms is an abuse of our hospitality.
  I cite in that regard the Saudi dissident Mohammed Masari. His criticism of the Saudi Administration has so infuriated his country's Government that our major defence contractors are likely to lose a major export package. He should be left in no doubt that he is abusing the sanctuary that has been granted to him.
  Mr. Corbyn: So guns come first.
  Mr. Couchman: No, jobs.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech comes first.
  Mr. Couchman: Even more alarming is the recent news of the two Islamic terrorists who are being allowed long-term asylum here, when there is ample evidence that they have planned terrorist attacks in other countries. During his five-year postgraduate course at Durham university, Ramadan Shallah, the new head of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, was clearly actively involved with Islamic fundamentalist groups planning terror in the Middle East.
  It is also clear that the Algerian Abdelkader Benouif, who was granted political asylum in the United Kingdom, and who French authorities believe is responsible for bomb outrages in Paris, is abusing our hospitality by his terrorist activities. However, owing to a weakness in the law, he cannot be prosecuted so long as he commits no crime here.
  I am persuaded by those two examples—I do not doubt that there are others—that the Bill should include a clause requiring that foreigners resident in Britain, regardless of whether they are political refugees, should not take part in activity that is detrimental to this country's economic interests or its political and diplomatic relations with other countries. Asylum provides a priceless sanctuary from persecution, but abuse of that sanctuary can only make the host more sceptical of the claims of other supplicants.
  The Bill consists of two quite distinct and disparate parts. I have mentioned the major section that deals with asylum—which, incidentally, I believe should be uncontroversial in all parts of the House. The second part of the Bill deals with illegal immigrants, and specifically the onus that my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to place on employers not to employ illegal immigrants.
  During his recent statement to the House, I expressed a concern on behalf of small employers who may have difficulty conforming to my right hon. and learned Friend's new expectations. I asked then—and I repeat my request today—that my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to issue clear guidance to all employers directly, perhaps through the Inland Revenue or Department of Social Security mailing list, about the responsibilities that they are to assume in future.
  I wish to probe my right hon. and learned Friend's intentions a little further. While I believe that there is a general recognition that some employers in particular employment sectors exploit illegal immigrants by employing them at low wages and under threat of exposure, many employers have little knowledge of their responsibilities now, let alone in the future.
  In the catering and hotel trades, which I know well, staff are nomadic, moving frequently from job to job. Many are visitors to our shores. Whether they are Asian or Australian, Canadian or Caribbean, Filipino or French, they frequently arrive without a national insurance number. National insurance numbers are issued very slowly and often after the applicant has moved on. P45s are by no means the universal passport that they should be.
  Therefore, in future, employers will have to become expert at reading birth certificates and passports which may not be written in English. I hope that, when my

  765
  right hon. and learned Friend's officials undertake an investigation of alleged illegal immigrants, they will seek to guide or counsel rather than automatically prosecute an employer who may have unwittingly taken on someone who should not be working.
  Perhaps, as with a customs and excise value added tax default, there should be a warning to an employer the first time that he falls down in his new responsibility. I am also concerned that the arrival of a new brand of official, presumably with rights of entry and inspection of employment records, will not be welcomed by the long-suffering employer, a disproportionate amount of whose time is spent dealing with the bureaucracy of Government.
  The fact that my right hon. and learned Friend's consultation document stresses that all new and potential employees should be asked to provide proof of their right to be employed lends credence to his claim that the new duty will not lead to discrimination against ethnic minorities. Therefore, I am prepared to accept that it is not racist in any way. That is important for our race relations, which, while not perfect, are tolerably good, and must not be allowed to deteriorate.
  I believe that some of the comments that we have heard about the Bill from what is broadly called the race relations industry have been very wide of the mark. Notwithstanding what my right hon. and learned Friend said on 20 November, some spokesmen for immigrant organisations continue to peddle—as they did this very morning—the suggestion that Nigeria will be among the countries on the so-called "white list".
  Undoubtedly the operation of good race relations involves rooting out fraudulent asylum applicants and detecting and deporting illegal immigrants. The indigenous population are concerned that employment and the allocation of housing and social security resources are prejudiced by discrimination in favour of ethnic minority immigrants. Nothing feeds that concern more than less than firm treatment of those who should not be here.
  The leaders of our ethnic minority communities understand that fact very well. They know that, if bogus asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are tolerated—and even encouraged—race relations will be jeopardised, and their communities will suffer. Far from endangering our good race relations, I believe that the Bill will tackle abuse of our immigration rules, which is itself the greater danger. I shall support the Bill.
  7.58 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: I am glad to oppose this Bill, for three reasons. First, it is based on a wholly unquantified, exaggerated and apocalyptic notion of the threat that so-called bogus asylum seekers present to the British way of life. Secondly, the provisions of this Bill and of related legislation will inevitably affect tens of thousands of British nationals purely on the basis that they are a different colour. Finally, the effect of the Bill will be cruel and inhumane, and out of all proportion to the so-called problem with which it is designed to deal.
  766
  Conservative Members have risen to their feet one after another to talk about this so-called problem. But given Britain's size, our prosperity and our relations with many third-world countries, it is true to say that we have taken relatively few asylum seekers.
  Mr. Deva rose—
  Ms Abbott: I have no time.
  In 1994, we took in about 42,000 refugees and asylum seekers; that compares with Germany, which took in 127,000. So how can Conservative Members jump up and claim that Britain is in danger of being flooded with refugees and asylum seekers?
  Conservative Members insist on talking as if these people leave their homes thousands of miles away on a whim, perhaps in search of benefits and a damp council flat in Hackney. On the contrary, they leave because they believe that they have no option in the face of prevailing political and—yes—economic circumstances. In the past, refugees and immigrants have come to this country not just for political reasons that fall within the terms of the law but also for reasons of serious economic instability, from places such as east Africa, Turkey and Sri Lanka.
  Conservative Members speak sneeringly of bogus asylum seekers who want to better themselves. Is it so wrong of people to want to better themselves? Many Members of this House would not be here today if their parents and grandparents had not wanted to better themselves.
  I do not seek to extend the terms of the law governing refugees, but I think it cruel of Conservative Members to sneer at people as if they came here merely for benefits, and were not genuinely running away from economic instability and from the growing economic gap between the first and third worlds. It is the growing gap between north and south that has led to surges of economic refugees across the world. I would respect Conservative Members more if they dealt with the underlying economic issues: debt, the prices of raw materials, GATT and trade.
  People come here because they are driven by poverty and economic instability of a sort which, fortunately, no one in this country has to face. So let us take the issues seriously and not sneer at people for short-term political advantage.
  If there is indeed a problem of people seeking refugee or asylum status to which they know they are not entitled, much of it is caused by the interminable delays. If the Government took administrative action to clear the 50,000 backlog and made sure that applications were dealt with quickly and efficiently, much of the incentive for unfounded claims would he removed. It is therefore wrong to pursue this legislation when there are administrative remedies to hand which the Government have not explored.
  The facts do not bear out the apocalyptic notion that the country is in danger of being swamped by millions of these people. This Bill, and the debates centering on it, which will inevitably drag on into next year, can only poison the atmosphere around race relations.
  We all know that politicians speak in code. If we say "wet" in this House, people know we are referring to the left of the Conservative party. If we say "new Labour", people know that we arc referring to the right of the

  767
  Labour party. People in the United States who talk about civil rights or confederacy or "the south will rise again" are clearly talking about race.
  In Britain in 1995, if the issue of immigration is raised, people know that race is what is really being talked about. It is dishonest of Conservative Members to pretend, when supporting this legislation, that their only motivation is to clear up a few administrative processes. They know full well, just I have known all my life, that, whenever politicians raise the issue of immigration in public debate, it is always entangled with issues of race. So Conservative Members know that they are raising race as an electoral issue.
  We have heard a great deal of unpleasant rhetoric from Conservative Members. They speak of dragging the country down, of taking jobs away from honest British citizens, of taking benefits and public resources that would otherwise go to honest British citizens, and so on. Such rhetoric can only poison people's attitudes to refugees and immigrants.
  Some Conservative Members try to establish a wholly tendentious distinction between legals and illegals. The rhetoric, the sneering, and the assumption that people come here only to drain this country of benefits, will stick even to the genuine refugees and asylum seekers who are fully entitled to be here. They will be frightened to go and claim the benefits and enjoy the rights to which they are entitled.
  This legislation will promote an atmosphere of fear, and will affect not just refugees and asylum seekers but anyone who is coloured. I am not alone in thinking that; the Secretary of State for Education and Employment wrote to the Home Secretary earlier this year as follows:
  "There is a danger that employers will concentrate checks on prospective employees whom they see as a risk, if not simply exclude them from consideration for the job. Either way there shall be racial discrimination".
  If that Secretary of State realises that racial discrimination is implicit in the legislation, why has that fact eluded other Conservative Members?
  If employers have to check, if benefits staff have to check, if those who run schools and colleges have to check, the legal status of applicants, what will be the first check they will make? As people walk through the door, they will look to see what colour they are. That will not affect most Conservative Members, but it will affect my friends and their children, and my constituents. The legislation will inevitably have consequences for how British citizens of colour are treated from now on. That is why I am proud to oppose it.
  I turn finally to the related aspects—to the benefit cuts and the cuts in income support and child benefit due to take place in January. Conservative Members may smile, but my constituency has traditionally been a haven for refugees—first the Huguenots, then people from eastern Europe, and latterly people from Africa and the Caribbean. From January onwards, thousands of my constituents will have no means of support. Why? Is illegal immigration some terrible threat to this country'? No, it is because this 16-year-old Administration, having run out of friends and alibis, are willing to scrape the gutter for votes.
  My party is united in opposing the legislation, and we shall oppose it tonight. It has nothing to do with the real administrative problems relating to illegal immigration. It
  768
  is about making race an issue in the coming election campaign. Conservative Members whose parents came here as economic refugees should be ashamed to go through the Lobby in support of such legislation.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Nirj Joseph Deva: I am pleased to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She made an honest speech on behalf of the old Labour party—a speech that reflected the true spirit of the Labour party, whatever the new Labour party might want. I am also delighted to follow the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman).
  I speak as an immigrant myself: I am proud to be one. I am now proud to be British as well. Good race relations are paramount, not only to people who have recently settled here but to everyone in the wider community. In the recent past it was clear that the French lacked firm and fair immigration controls; that resulted in Mr. Le Pen and the fascist right gaining such ascendancy in that country. I do not want that to happen here, which is why it is so important that fair and firm immigration controls be effectively applied and be seen to be so. That is why the Bill is so timely.
  The Bill protects the interests of one particular group about whom we have heard not a word from Labour Members—those who are genuine asylum seekers. Genuine asylum seekers are stuck in a huge queue of people who are not genuine asylum seekers. They are in a state of limbo. They are left hanging around and no consideration is given to their prosperity or their prospects. That is the Bill's first consideration. Its second consideration is to support and assist those who are settled here, whether they are British citizens or people who are entitled to stay here, and to maximise their potential and that of their children. That is why the Bill is timely.
  The processing of asylum application is not as it should be. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has produced a Bill simply and effectively to make the backlog disappear so that genuine asylum seekers can be settled here happily and bogus ones returned.
  It is clear that our procedures are being abused. It does not require a genius to work out that if only 4 per cent. of applications are upheld by independent adjudicators, 96 per cent. of applicants are abusing the system. My mathematics failed me when the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) complained that the figure had gone down from 8 per cent. to 4 per cent. He failed to observe that the number of applications has increased, therefore the percentage has reduced.
  As Labour Members are aware, applications are rising rapidly from 2,400 a month a year ago to 4,300 last month. When that happens, who suffers? Of course it is the genuine applicant, who is left wondering about his status as increasing numbers of applications are processed with seven times more case workers taking 25,000 decisions involving an additional £37 million in expenditure.
  Mr. John Austin-Walker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deva: I am sorry, but I have no time. Nobody had time to give way to me.

  769
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that the relentless rise in applications is outstripping our ability to deal with them. That is why the Bill is necessary to protect the interests of the genuine applicant.
  Labour Members appear not to care a jot about the genuine applicant, or if they do, they should tell us so. Clause 1 would allow an accelerated appeal provided that the grounds do not fall within the terms of the 1951 convention as being untrue or fraudulent, or if they no longer apply. However, the Bill recognises that that provision alone would not be enough to accelerate the procedure.
  Some countries such as Poland, Romania, Cyprus, Bulgaria, India and Pakistan generate a large number of applicants. The Home Secretary has published a list of designated countries that do not carry a serious risk of persecution. He has given an assurance in the Bill that applicants from those countries would still have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator. That is an important safeguard.
  Last year, there were 2,030 applicants from India. Five were granted asylum by independent adjudicators and 30 were given exceptional leave to remain. There were 1,810 applicants from Pakistan, of whom five were granted asylum and 25 were given exceptional leave to remain. Although 97 per cent. of applicants from India were refused, in contrast to 99 per cent. of applicants from Poland, that does not mean that there have been no problems in India or Pakistan in the past few years.
  There have been problems in the Punjab since 1984 but recently circumstances have improved immeasurably. Elections have been held and the Punjab is quietly settling down. There are still problems in Kashmir, but India is a vast country and it is difficult to designate a country as unsafe when one small province is experiencing political or human rights problems.
  At this point I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the House. The world is becoming increasingly unstable. Ethnic and regional conflicts are increasing exponentially in the former Soviet Union, south Asia and Africa. Human rights are abused and political dissention abounds. Even as we speak, people are being killed in Karachi and Sri Lanka and abuses continue in Iraq, Iran, Eritrea and Somalia. That is because the Governments of those countries are inept, corrupt or worse.
  I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office and the Foreign Office to be firmer with those Governments. We must insist that they follow good governance criteria to establish the rule of law and protect constitutional and human rights. We must use our influence to ensure that we are not left to solve the problems that are generated by their mismanagement.
  It is not enough, however, to recognise that we live in an interdependent world. We must also recognise that we are part of a community. Some of my constituents have relatives in south Asia and Sri Lanka, as I do. They all have their own problems, but we must look closely at our dealings with those countries. The Foreign Office and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary must be firmer with those so-called friendly Governments and ask them to protect the constitutional liberties and rights of their citizens.
  770
  Finally, I welcome the proposal to criminalise racketeers. I would like to go further. I would like all immigration advisers in the United Kingdom to be licensed or at least self-regulated. I deal with case after case of people who have been exploited and ripped off by so-called immigration advisers. The Bill is timely; it is effective, it is humane and it is imperative.
  8.16 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): I oppose the Bill as a dreadful piece of legislation guided by xenophobia and appealing to some backward populism which the Conservatives think will win them an election in 15 months' time. It smacks of the classic Conservative approach—if there is a problem, blame the victim. The Bill blames people for seeking asylum in Britain.
  I ask those Ministers who say that the Bill has nothing to do with fear and racism to consider that a fortnight ago immigration officials arrived at a block of flats in my constituency in search of a Romanian who had applied for political asylum and had been refused. Officials battered on the door and when he did not open it, they kicked it down, cut the phone wires and rushed in to take the man away.
  Their victim is a deeply disturbed person. He is disturbed as a result of his experiences in Romania and now by his experiences at the hands of the immigration officials. He ran out of the flat and on to the balcony intending to jump 10 floors down to his death in the car park outside. He was on that balcony for some seven hours until skilled police officers managed to talk him in and take him to a place of safety. The immigration officials agreed to defer his forced removal from the country. A big crowd gathered outside. The fire brigade, ambulances and television cameras arrived.
  Do we want such scenes repeated time after time all over the country? That incident occurred less than a mile away from where Joy Gardiner died. We should also recall the deaths of Kwanda Siziba in 1994 and, more recently, Joseph Nnule. Those people were all told that they were illegally resident in Britain and would he forcibly removed. There have been deaths, suicides and attempted suicides. Those are the consequences of the xenophobic legislation and action by the Government. Ministers think that it has nothing to do with them. However, the way in which the removals take place has everything to do with them.
  Every time legislation dealing with immigration, nationality or asylum arrives in the House, the Government say that it is necessary to control some problem or other. I remember the introduction of the visa regime in 1984 precisely because large numbers of Tamils from Sri Lanka were seeking asylum in Britain. The solution appeared to be to make it more difficult for people to come in.
  The Government thought that would solve the problem. Members of Parliament were prevented by the 1986 change from putting an automatic stop on somebody's removal. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 sought to make airline companies the controllers of migration to this country, which resulted in the growth of racketeers and overpriced fares.
  The Government say that they will make collective presumptions of the likelihood of acceptance or rejection of asylum. As my hon. Friend the Member for

  771
  Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) pointed out when questioning the Home Secretary, collective presumptions are contrary to the terms of the 1951 convention. I have serious questions about the countries on the presumption against list, including India. The Minister of State must admit that people from India have been granted asylum because of the situation in Kashmir and the Punjab.
  Miss Widdecombe: They will still be granted asylum.
  Mr. Corbyn: I am glad to hear that. If that is so, why is there a presumption against people from India applying for political asylum in this country? I believe that the Government would like to include a number of other countries. I found to my astonishment that Austria has Iran on its list of presumptions against asylum, on the ground that Iran is a democratic and free society. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), who has left the Chamber—I will not say, sadly—apparently thinks that it is more important to sell guns, tanks and aircraft to the Saudi Arabian Government so that they may overarm themselves once more, than to consider the serious plight of people who have stood up against that autocratic regime and genuinely seek asylum in this country. If people like the hon. Member for Gillingham are to be in charge of the fate of people who have stood out against oppression, that is truly frightening.
  Conservative Members ask why so many people seek asylum here. They continually draw a distinction between economic and political asylum seekers, but that distinction is difficult to draw in many cases. Anyone who stands up against a regime that imposes a structural adjustment programme that means cutting education, health, social services and rural development in favour of export-led growth automatically becomes a target for political oppression by that regime and is often forced to seek asylum.
  Last week, I met the Minister in a television studio, but she was reluctant to discuss directly with me the case of Abdul Onibiyo. He first came to this country in 1972 but was forcibly returned to Nigeria by the Minister's officials more than six weeks ago. He was last seek talking to an immigration official at a Nigerian airport and has not been seen or heard of since. The British Government have washed their hands of the matter, saying "It is nothing to do with us. He is Nigerian, and whatever he is up to is his business." No member of Mr. Onibiyo's family has been able to find him. Friends gave him money before he was deported, to make sure that, if nothing else, he could get word back to his beloved family in this country that he was safe and well. Not one word has been heard from him.
  The Minister, having put Mr. Onibiyo's son into detention, then tried to deport him. Over the weekend, the Minister has delivered a letter to Mr. Onibiyo's wife and others saying that they will he threatened with deportation. Joyce Onibiyo, in a moving statement at a press conference that I wish the Minister had attended, said that the actions of the immigration service were like breaking the fingers of her family one by one, as her children were thrown out of this country to suffer an unknown fate at the hands of the Nigerian Government, who have executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight others and put under arrest the victors of election campaigns. An appalling scenario faces people who are deported to Nigeria, as to other countries.
  772
  The Bill is the product of the xenophobia that surrounds Europe, which knows full well the consequences of the economic policies that it is imposing on many countries but pretends that the result has nothing to do with Europe. We are in danger of living in a Europe surrounded by barbed wire, having the most draconian anti-asylum laws in each country as one group after another is hounded out.
  Under the social security legislation implicit in the Bill and the draft regulations considered by the Select Committee, from 8 January 13,000 people will have no means of support. They will be thrown on the streets by private landlords, who are already refusing to accept asylum seekers as tenants, on the ground that their applications may be refused and they will be unable to obtain housing benefit. In that case, the landlord would have to go to court to secure eviction. That is a disgraceful scenario. That is precisely the sub-culture to which hon. Members have referred. Thousands of people will be trying desperately to make ends meet, to continue their battle to gain recognition of their right to asylum.
  Local government will be responsible, under the Children Act 1989, for putting the children of those asylum seekers in a place of safety. That will put local authorities under a great burden, for which central Government will not compensate them in any way. The cost to central London local authorities will run into millions of pounds. The housing legislation will create similar problems.
  The Government are forcing a horrifying spectacle upon us. The Bill will do nothing to improve race relations but will make them much worse. The Bill does nothing to enhance the reputation of this country as a place that is prepared to provide a safe haven for people fleeing from oppression. The Bill merely creates a climate of horror and fear. The Bill is the product of the Government's racism and xenophobia. I hope that opposition to the Bill, which is already considerable, will grow and grow to the extent that it will be repealed in the future—I doubt, with regret, that it will be defeated—so that a sane, sensible approach will be taken to asylum. We must recognises the causes of people seeking asylum and address them, as well as dealing humanely with people who flee to this country in seeking a place of safety under the 1951 convention—which this country is obliged to support.
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Mark Wolfson: I give the Bill a firm welcome. Changes to the law to deal more effectively with illegal immigration and asylum seekers have been necessary for some time. It astonished me today that the Opposition's contribution has not addressed the problem. They have given no clear picture of what they would do. Opposition speakers have focused mainly on the difficulties of individual would-be asylum seekers and immigrants, paying little attention to the real concerns of the British public.
  The sharp rise in asylum applications since 1993 makes the case for the Bill. There were 22,000 applications in 1993 and 33,000 in 1994, and they are likely to number more than 40,000 this year. Other countries in western Europe are seeing a significant fall in asylum applications. They have already tightened their regulations, and it is essential that we do the same.

  773
  Illegal immigrants and bogus asylum seekers do nothing to foster positive race relations or the proper provision of asylum for people who really need it. The public—and this is where I totally disagree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn)—want people who are granted entry to Britain as immigrants or asylum seekers to do so on proper grounds. The public want the rules of entry to be sensible, fair and strictly observed. Such laws need to work properly if they are to carry credibility.
  Following the enactment of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, progress was made with the time taken to reach decisions, but the relentless rise in applications outstrips the ability to process them. Although some of my hon. Friends have argued that greater resources are necessary, unless the rising tide of applicants—many of which are bogus—is constrained, the problem will not be solved and persons who are genuinely seeking asylum will be delayed even longer than at present. Not only is that a heavy cost to the taxpayer, but growing delays lead to more bogus claims. Action is badly needed across the board to strengthen the legislation, to streamline decision making and the appeals process, and to deter bogus applications at their source. Because the Bill tackles those issues, I support it.
  There can be little doubt that one of the reasons for the dramatic rise in applications to enter the UK, while elsewhere in western Europe applications are falling, is the social security benefits that are available to asylum seekers here. The arrangements require urgent review, and I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is doing just that and that his new proposals will come into force in the new year. It is surely right that individuals who have been allowed entry into this country on the undertaking that they will support themselves should be held to that undertaking, but I welcome the fact that the Bill contains an exception clause, and rightly so, for the Home Secretary to allow social security support where circumstances in the asylum seeker's country have undergone significant change since his or her arrival here. Again, it is my view that the public, who are traditionally fair-minded on these matters, are prepared to see genuine asylum seekers allowed to claim benefits while their claim is being decided. However, once a decision has been reached, and if the application is rejected, it is not unreasonable that those benefits, paid for by the taxpayer, should cease. If the benefits continue while the appeal is under review, it is an open invitation to use the appeal procedure as a form of delay. That would be an abuse of the appeals system, and it must be right to curtail it.
  I want to deal briefly with illegal employment. As the immigration service caught more than 10,000 people working in this country illegally last year, there is clearly a problem that needs to be dealt with. Some employers take on immigrants to pay them less if their position here is illegal. Other European Union countries have experienced the same problems and acted accordingly. Until now, only the UK and Ireland had no controls in play. Initially, as we have heard, there was understandable unease among many well-respected employers and small businesses that the Bill might impose unreasonable requirements on companies, causing them to act in the role of immigration officers or—almost—policemen.
  774
  The Confederation of British Industry, as the representative of many firms, and the Industrial Society, which is well known for promoting good employment practices, were just two of the organisations speaking up on behalf of their members. They both aired initial unease on two counts: first, that additional burdens would be placed on business; and, secondly, that the aim of stopping illegal immigrants working, though laudable in itself, could work against the provision of equal opportunities in the workplace. The latter is an area where business has made considerable progress in recent years. It is important that that good work should not be undone. As I understand it, the CBI, after recent consultation with the Home Office, is very much happier with the planned proposals. When the Home Secretary opened the debate, he demonstrated how the concerns of the Institute of Directors on the matter had also now largely eased.
  Concern has been aired in the debate about spare national insurance numbers in Britain. Nevertheless, using the national insurance number as the first gateway into employment can in no way be regarded as racist. I commend that approach. Greater action needs to be taken to get rid of unaccounted-for numbers if employers are to have real confidence in the system. Asking employers to look at the national insurance number is not a unreal burden. If they require further documentation—passports or birth certificates—when a national insurance number is not provided, we must ensure that any legislation that is introduced does not place unnecessary burdens on industry, get in the way of its efficiency or increase its costs.
  We know already that, all too often, legislation that starts with the best intentions and which is said, euphemistically, to have "a light touch" ends up imposing time-consuming work on business. It works against proper objectives, costs businesses money and militates against efficiency. My plea is that that must not happen in this case.
  My last point is on equal opportunities at work. We are dealing here with matters of culture rather than regulation; of judgment rather than of fact. As I see it, there is no intention in the Bill to single out any group for particular or special scrutiny when they are being considered for employment. The use of the national insurance number as the key entry to work is already a general requirement for employment. It is also worth emphasising here—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
  8.36 pm
  Ms Jean Corston: A week ago today, on 4 December, I attended the launch of the Bristol campaign against the Asylum and Immigration Bill. It was attended by representatives from many institutions and organisations. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Clifton spoke out against the Bill, and there were representatives from the Methodist Church and the Church of England. There were also representatives from, among others, the Greater Bristol Ecumenical Council, Christian Aid, Bristol Race Equality Council, the Bristol West Indian Parents Association, the Keyboard Project and Refugee Action. A representative was also present from the Liberal Democrats. No Conservative was present to speak in favour of the Bill.

  775
  Nobody listening to the debate could conclude other than that the arguments used to justify the Bill are either inconsistent or not supported by the facts. First, the white list. It is obviously an abbreviated appeals procedure at the diktat of the Home Secretary, but there is a huge conflict between the obligation under the convention to look at each case individually on its merits and an automatic presumption that applications from some countries will not have the proper scrutiny that the convention lays down.
  If it is right, as the Minister herself said on Radio 4 this morning, that the Government will look at each case individually and on its merit, how many human rights abuses must there be before a country is moved from the white list? For example, we were told a few weeks ago that Nigeria would be on the white list. Obviously, since Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight associates were hanged, it could not possibly stay on the white list, but is it right that that had to happen—it was a huge price to pay—before it was moved from the list?
  As the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture said:
  "The proposal does not appear to be consistent with the intention."
  We are also told that the problem is a flood of so-called "bogus applicants". I am not in favour of anything other than genuine asylum seekers, but administrative delays at the Home Office are unbelievable. The number of asylum decisions made by the immigration service fell from 35,000 in 1992 to 20,990 in 1994. We were also told that, at the end of 1994, there was a backlog of 55,000 cases awaiting decision.
  Today, the Home Secretary told us that the figure is now 66,000. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said that the delays are caused by the Home Office. Who could conclude otherwise? Surely the solution is for the Home Office to address its own inefficiency.
  We are also told that there is a problem of illegal employment. Concern about that is not confined to Opposition Members; it is at the heart of Government. In a letter that she did not intend to be made public—although it was—the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said:
  "There is a danger that employers will concentrate checks on prospective employees whom they see as a risk, if not simply exclude them from consideration for the job. Either way there could be racial discrimination".
  That concern is supported by the evidence. Writing to hon. Members, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux said:
  "There is already evidence from CABx that media speculation about 'employment of illegal immigrants' is resulting in an over-zealous approach from some employers to their new role. For example:
  A CAB in Surrey reported a black client who was registered with an employment agency. The agency had required the client to present her passport. The client felt she was unlikely to get any more work, and believed that it was the result of victimisation by an employer who had told the agency that she was an overstayer. The client was a British citizen.
  A CAB in Northamptonshire reported a client whose employer was demanding that all employees bring in their passports for inspection. The client objected, and wanted to know the legality of the request."
  776
  We are now told—or it is implied—that national insurance numbers will be used. We all know that there are 20 million more numbers in circulation than there are people to use them. Imagine that as a potential for fraud! The House could be creating a whole new layer of economic activity. No doubt the Minister of State will tell us in a few months that we need yet more primary legislation to close yet another loophole caused by the unintended consequences of the Government's own ill-thought-out legislation.
  We are also told that people are posing as asylum seekers to take advantage of our social security system—
  Miss Widdecombe: They are.
  Ms Corston: The Minister said that in terms this morning, and I note that she has just affirmed it in a seated intervention. Why, then, has she—a Home Office Minister—ignored Home Office research paper 141 of 1995, entitled "The Settlement of Refugees in Britain", which concluded that the majority of refugees have left behind far more in terms of jobs, homes and future than they have gained by coming to Britain? [Interruption.] Conservative Members are all beginning to shout, but that evidence comes from the Minister's own Department. She must tell us if it is wrong. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Some confusion will arise if these seated interventions continue.
  Ms Corston: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  We understand that applications come overwhelmingly from countries where human rights abuses take place. Poorer countries such as Bangladesh do not feature. The argument that this is just economic migration will not wash.
  Those are all reasons why we need a Special Standing Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is no good Conservative Members groaning. This morning, in an interview on the "Today" programme which provided fertile ground for those wishing to attack the legislation, the Minister said that if the Opposition were not going to make points there was a good case for a Special Standing Committee. She knows, however, that the adversarial nature of Standing Committees is such that, if the Opposition tabled a motion to the effect that today was 11 December, it would be defeated by an inbuilt Conservative majority.
  We know that the adversarial nature of Standing Committees is not appropriate to legislation of this kind. The Minister and the Home Secretary know that the other reason why there cannot be a Special Standing Committee is that no individual, agency and organisation that would give evidence would say anything in support of the Bill. The evidence is all in the opposite direction. The Government's refusal to set up such a Committee can only fuel the "race card" suspicion.
  Reference has been made to Andrew Lansley, the former director of research at Conservative central office. His assertion that the Tories play the race card has not been repudiated by the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister. A Times editorial of 26 October this year referred to the assertion that Britain should he a safe haven rather than a soft touch as "populist and xenophobic nonsense", saying:
  "Britain is anything but a 'soft touch' for would-he refugees. The 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act already imposes conditions on asylum seekers so stringent that they give the UN Human Rights Committee 'cause for considerable concern."

  777
  Last week, "Newsnight" featured an item about the Secretary of State for Transport. We were told that he and the Prime Minister had become friends when they were councillors in Lambeth, and that the two things that united them were their opposition to bad housing and their opposition to racism. It is pretty outrageous that a Government headed by someone who claims to be opposed to racism should present legislation such as this.
  In a statement which I think anyone would accept comes from a valid source, the Churches Commission for Racial Justice states:
  "There is anger about the treatment of asylum-seekers. The proposed measures are seen as racially biased. There is a strong belief that in the approach to the General Election the 'race card' is being played."
  That was written by representatives of churches, one of which the Minister has left and another of which she has joined. Are those churches wrong? The Minister must tell us why they consider the legislation to be racially motivated and immoral.
  The Bristol Racial Equality Council asked me
  "to oppose the proposals and ensure that one of the most vulnerable groups in British society, refugees and asylum seekers, are not singled out and treated in a discriminatory manner."
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's time is up.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: Sometimes I think that debates in the House of Commons do not take place in the real world. My constituents' view of problems is entirely different from that of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston). I shall be politically incorrect: no doubt I shall be accused of racism by some of the boneheads on the Opposition Benches, but I will not be intimidated.
  In no way am I a racist. Like other hon. Members, I value the different communities and cultures that are established and settled in the British homelands, and, as my constituents know, I would treat everyone's problems with the same sensitivity and concern regardless of their race and background.
  Every time we open a newspaper nowadays, we are told that a time bomb awaits—pension. A far greater potential danger lies ahead. For far too long, the lips of our leaders have been sealed by moral blackmail. My grandfather was a Londoner. He died 30 years ago. In an answer that I received from the Home Office, I was told that a third of all children in London under the age of 16 are coloured. If the population were to stabilise at that level, in time a third of the population of our capital city would have a different cultural background from the native majority; but it will not stabilise. Differential birth rates and migrations mean that, on present trends, it is only a matter of time before half or more of our metropolitan population is not indigenous.
  Mr. Spearing: This has nothing to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Marlow: It is an immigration Bill.
  If my grandfather could revisit his home now, he would be astounded. He would wonder how representative Government could have been so unrepresentative as to
  778
  allow such changes to happen in the teeth of popular will. He would ask how it is that, in a democracy, the concerns of the Bishop of Liverpool and the European Court of Human Rights should have taken precedence over those of the electorate. London has been transformed, while its people have willed no transformation.
  I do not condone racism, but I understand why it exists. It exists for the same reason as the mob is on the streets of Paris. It exists because for a generation or more elitist Governments have found it too difficult or embarrassing to listen or to tell the truth.
  Good race relations are essential, as are sensible, pragmatic policies to help to bring them about, but, as has been said before, numbers are of the essence. In Ulster, a community divided by a mere detail of religion, there has been bloody violence for a quarter of a century. Therefore, how much greater is the risk in our metropolitan areas where the differences are visible and the ghettos more politically incestuous, and where the cultural divide offers much greater scope for incomprehension and mischief.
  We may succeed in developing an adequately integrated coherent and tolerant society for 10 years or for 20 years, but in perpetuity? For our grandchildren's sake it is wise to assume that we may not succeed. The only safe course is to pursue today what will doubtless appear to be cruel and ruthless policies, otherwise there is a real risk that this country will face several urban Yugoslavias. The alternative, if we do not take strong action, could yet be undreamt of and unimaginable barbarism.
  I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and his timely Bill. For all our sakes, white and coloured, he must go further. Many burglars, I dare say, are in some ways decent people—family men, disadvantaged and wishing to provide a better life for their heirs, their children. Burglary is a crime: so, too, should be illegal immigration. It is, after all, an illegal attempt to acquire something of value that does not belong.
  We must, I am afraid, be ruthless. Anyone who is illegally in the United Kingdom must know that he will be expelled: no amnesties, never. Anyone seeking to aid or abet illegal immigration is trading in human misery and should be accorded the same contempt and rigorous punishment as that meted out to a drug dealer.
  I have one further point and I do not know how to describe it other than to say that it is racist. The dangerous divides in our cities will be between the white British and the Asians, not the West Indian community.
  The time must come to stop immigration from the sub-continent. Quite properly, families will wish to reunite but it must he done at the place of original family origin and not here because it is too dangerous for all of us. I know that that must sound monstrous and cruel, but sometimes it is necessary to take strong action. Sometimes it is necessary to be cruel in order to be kind. Frankly, the alternative is terrifying.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra (Ealing, Southall): In the past I have heard many speeches on immigration, including those about rivers of blood and the swamping of British culture by foreigners. They were made by leaders of the nation and, of course, leaders of the Conservative party. They were made to whip up racial prejudice and to use immigration for party political purposes and caused great damage to good race relations.

  779
  The present problem of bogus refugees and illegal immigrants is the creation of a Government who have been in power for 16 years and have failed to tackle the problem. Typically, the Government lay the blame at the door of others. Their immigration policies are in a mess. They are already in deep water on this matter and are getting panicky and taking hasty and unwise steps to rectify their mistakes. They are trying to make a virtue out of an evil. Because of their incompetence and stupidity the Government, and nobody else, are to blame for the crisis.
  For the rest of my speech I shall concentrate on the three unacceptable aspects of the Bill. First, I am appalled by the motives of clause 8, which makes it a criminal offence to employ a person who has no immigration entitlement to work in the United Kingdom. The Government have made that proposal without consulting employers or their representative bodies. In the consultation documents that accompany the Bill they admit that the number of people working in breach of their immigration conditions can be no more than speculation. That was underlined by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker), who is not in his place, when he was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. At that time he described the figures for illegal immigrants as "wild-guess estimates".
  The only reason for setting out to tackle a problem without knowing whether it exists or its extent can only be prejudice—racial prejudice for party political motives. The rejection of the offer to look at the legislation in a Special Standing Committee underlines my opinion and the opinion of the CBI and the Institute of Directors. The Home Secretary has said that both organisations are satisfied by his explanation.
  The Government try to pretend that they are committed to keeping the burdens on business to a minimum, but clause 8 will add £25 million to business costs in its first year of operation and there will be a recurring cost of more than £11 million. Those figures are not wild speculation: they are from the Government's consultation documents. It is clear that those costs are to meet the minimum requirements and that a full check on immigrant status is likely to cost far more in employee time, thus adding to the burden on business. They will be imposed so that the Government can use race for political advantage. Given such a political lead, should we wonder when unscrupulous employers use the legislation to discriminate against black and ethnic minority applicants?
  Discrimination is also enshrined in clause 9, which instructs housing authorities "as far as practicable" not to make available any accommodation or offer assistance to any immigrant. The operation of the clause will mean that immigrants who are classified as illegal, those who claim asylum status after they arrive in this country and those who appeal against refugee status will be denied access to local authority housing. That will add directly to the growing number of homeless people. In reality, local authorities such as that in my home borough of Ealing will continue to find accommodation for homeless immigrants, whatever their status, and will bear the costs. It is likely anyway that local authorities will have a duty to the most vulnerable asylum seekers under other social legislation such as the Children Act 1989 or the various parts of the community care legislation.
  780
  The effect is that, once again, central Government are pushing the cost of their legislation on to local councils and not providing any compensation. Local councils will be forced to make the invidious choice of either raising the council tax or cutting even further its services. The parallel with the Secretary of State for the Environment's raising of the capping limit, to pay for extra education spending through councils raising more from their council tax, shows that the tactics of loading central Government costs on to local authority precepts is not confined to the Home Office.
  It is also instructive that the Government have not formally consulted local authorities about these changes. Do not they care, or has the Government's arrogance become so complete that any democratic opinion outside Whitehall no longer counts?
  On the proposal to draw up a "white list" of so-called safe countries, the fact that Nigeria, Sri Lanka and Algeria—all countries experiencing political upheaval and internal repression—are rumoured to be on the list serves to underline how arbitrary it is. Home Office denials of the inclusion of those countries would be believed only if more than 95 per cent. of asylum applications from those countries were not turned down. It is clear that the Government are ashamed about that proposal because, should it ever reach the statute book with a fairly innocuous-looking list of countries, the Bill allows the Home Secretary to change the composition of the list without reference to the House or to any of its Committees.
  I should like to question whether this proposal complies with international law such as the European convention on human rights and, especially, the 1951 United Nations refugee convention, to which Britain is a signatory. Under that convention, each asylum application must be considered on its individual merits and
  "without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin:"
  The way to tackle the problem of illegal immigration is not by this inhuman and potentially racist legislation but by tackling the root of economic and social problems in immigrants' home countries. It is clear from the recently announced massive overseas aid budget cuts that the Government are interested not in solving the immigration problem but only, in the run-up to the election, in using the race card for their own party political ends. I therefore ask hon. Members to vote against Second Reading and to throw this tawdry Bill out.
  9.1 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: May I give the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) some immediate feedback from a constituent? He is my Member of Parliament and I did not agree with what he said. On that basis, I will not vote for him in the next general election.
  While sitting here, I have been trying to remember whether I have spoken on immigration before. I do not think that I have made a speech on that subject, although I have made many speeches on race relations because I regard race relations as one of the most important issues in this country. We have differing groups, well typified by my constituency of Harrow, West, but if those groups do not get on together and understand the differences, and if society and the community do not expand to take account of those things, and grow as a result of the marvellous diversity that

  781
  immigrants have brought to this country, we have no hope as a society. It is against that background of my fundamental belief that I talk about the Bill.
  My constituency contains many people who are and have been asylum seekers, and, especially in the large Jewish population, many people who are descendants of asylum seekers. Our schools and communities cope with the effect of asylum seekers in a way that the hon. Member for Southall referred to in relation to his constituency.
  It is right, and something that I am proud of, that over centuries this country has offered a safe haven to the people who have needed it. There is no suggestion in the Bill that the Government do not intend that to continue to be the case. It is a fact, however—and the Labour party cannot wish this away—that many people have a wish and a desire to come to this country. Although that is understandable from their point of view, it is nevertheless a fact that they are not genuine asylum seekers and that they come here, understandably, to seek to improve their way of life. I have to tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) that to say that this country cannot cope with the many people who want to come here is not to offend against the Judaeo-Christian values that many of us hold dear. It is nonsense to suggest, as some Opposition Members are trying to, that all applications to come to this country must be genuine.
  Mr. Doug Henderson indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hughes: Labour's Front-Bench spokesman indicates that the Labour party did not say that. With respect, some people have been seeking to cast slurs on the Government and question the way in which asylum seekers are treated, but the only way to deal with those matters completely would be to abolish all controls and have no system of deciding which applicant was genuine. Only then would the problems go away.
  It is all very well for the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to complain about what he regards as the spin put by Conservative central office on issues such as the designated list, but he forgot to mention the spin deployed by the Labour party when it suggested that Sri Lanka would be included on the list. That was, of course, preposterous and has the fingerprints of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) all over it. Anyone seeking to discredit the Government's aim would of course suggest that Sri Lanka would be on the list.
  I suggest that the presumption that people coming from countries on the list are not genuinely in need of asylum is helpful to genuine asylum seekers. They would know where they stood. I believe that the Bill will help genuine asylum seekers, and nothing that the Opposition have said, nothing that I have read in any briefings or in any newspapers, including The Universe yesterday, has led me to believe that one genuine asylum seeker will be disadvantaged by it. Indeed, when the queues are reduced and when people who are not genuine asylum seekers are no longer part of the bureaucratic problem facing the Government and officials—
  Mr. John Austin-Walker rose—
  Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way because of the 10-minute rule. Genuine asylum seekers will benefit from the Bill.
  There is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Blackburn. He mentioned an abuse which, as I understand it, is not covered in the Bill although it is one that Ministers should consider. I have been sickened by a number of solicitors and so-called immigration advisers who prey on vulnerable people seeking to come to this country. I stress that the problem lies not only with so-called advisers but with some solicitors. Of course, the Government must examine the problem, but the Law Society has ignored it for far too long. Some of its members are responsible and it should sort them out. The solicitors involved are an absolute disgrace to any reasonable society. One of their devices is the offer of judicial review.
  Only a couple of weeks ago I telephoned such a solicitor. I said that I was not a lawyer and had perhaps missed something but that I could see nothing in a particular case that led me to think that a judicial review was necessary. The solicitor said that there was of course no case for judicial review but that the people involved seemed keen and he wanted to offer them something. I do not know how much it was costing but, as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) rightly indicates from a sedentary position, some solicitors are behaving in this way to earn money. They are a disgrace and need to be sorted out.
  The suggestion that the Bill should go to a Special Standing Committee is an attempt by the Labour party to appear to be on both sides of the issue, but the Labour party cannot have it both ways. If there is a problem, it needs to be sorted out. There is a degree of confusion in the Labour party on whether it thinks there is a problem. If it thought that there was not a problem, it would not want the Bill to be considered by a Special Standing Committee. Plainly, Labour Members recognise, although do not dare say it, that there is a problem that needs to be sorted out. The suggestion of a Special Standing Committee is merely a fig leaf.
  The Labour party cannot expect to be taken seriously on this issue until it answers the central question: does it accept that there is a problem? Given that I think that it does, what would be its solution? If it does not answer that central question everyone will know that it is simply trying to play both sides of the issue.
  Labour Governments have had to grapple with such problems before. Indeed, the right hon. Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) voted for measures to deal with such problems when they were in Labour Governments. Yet when a Conservative Government seek to grapple with the issues, somehow it is different.
  I have found some of the speeches made by Labour Members and some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn to be simply playing a race card. They want to build up this issue so that Asian people believe that their only home is in the Labour party. I do not think that Asian people are that naive. Certainly, from all the contact that I have had with my constituents over the past few weeks, I do not think that they believe it. The Labour party will be condemned for playing race with this issue.
  9.10 pm
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Bill is one of the nastiest pieces of proposed legislation that I have seen since I entered the House in 1992 and, as several hon. Friends have said, I am sure that it will greatly damage race relations in this country.
  Repeatedly during the debate, a rationale for the need for the Bill has been cited. We have heard that there are increasing abuses in the system, that there is an increasing number of bogus asylum seekers, that the UK is a target, that we must follow the rest of Europe, and that nothing proposed is inconsistent with the 1951 convention.
  We all know—anyone who has dealt with asylum applicants certainly knows—that there are unjustified applications. We all know, too, what is happening in the Home Office—and what has been happening there for years and years. There is an enormous delay in dealing with applications, which actually encourages the minority who want to make fraudulent claims. Why have the applications of more than 30,000 asylum seekers who applied before the introduction of Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 still not been dealt with? Even before they have been dealt with, another Act is on the way.
  The Government have been trying to paint a picture suggesting not that some or a few applications are bogus, but that the majority of people applying for asylum are fakes. Indeed, the Government have made great play of the numbers. It is important to put those numbers into some perspective. The truth is that the numbers of refugees in Europe are not large compared with the rest of the world—and the numbers of refugees in the UK are not large compared with other European countries. Jordan, a country of 4 million people, had to cope with 400,000 people who fled there during the Gulf war—equivalent to 10 per cent. of the population. There were millions of refugees in Pakistan from Afghanistan. The poorest countries in the world carry most of the burden of dealing with refugees. So let us not hear this rubbish that the rich countries in western Europe cannot afford all the refugees. The poor countries are carrying the burden.
  In Europe, Germany had more than 400,000 asylum seekers in 1992 alone, and 127,000 last year. The fact that some European countries are tightening up their procedures does not necessarily make it right or something that we should follow. In any case, the refugees who went to Germany would not necessarily apply to this country. Indeed, that is very unlikely. Germany has always taken refugees from eastern Europe, the former Yugoslavia and the like. The 1994 figures for this country show that 12,000 applicants came from former colonies in Africa, 6,000-plus from former colonies in Asia and 2,000-plus from the middle east. The figures reveal this country's colonial past and it is not surprising that people feel that they ought to be able to turn to a country with which they have links of culture and language. The application figures for the past 10 to 15 years—the ups and downs from different countries—show a history of repression and civil war.
  What makes an application bogus? I suggest that it is a predetermined attempt to deceive. I do not accept that the fact that the Home Office turns down an application makes it bogus. Why were an average of 20 per cent. of asylum applicants given asylum between 1986 and 1990 and another 62 per cent. exceptional leave to remain, which makes 82 per cent. in all? In 1992-93, 6 per cent.
  784
  were granted asylum and only 43 per cent. exceptional leave to remain—about 50 per cent. in all. Since the 1993 Act, 4 per cent. have been given asylum and 17 per cent. exceptional leave to remain.
  What has happened to change the nature of asylum applications in the past 10 years? Are different types of people applying? I have seen no evidence of that. Judging by the asylum seekers to whom I have spoken during a long period of time—before coming to this House—I have seen nothing to suggest that there is any change in the nature of the applicants. There has been a political decision to tighten up. In evidence to the Social Security Advisory Committee about the proposed benefit changes, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:
  "A country's recognition rate of refugees may more often reflect the narrowness or liberalness of that state's application of the refugee definition than the legitimacy or otherwise of individual claims. There are dangerous shortcomings in any assumption that the low refugee recognition rate in the UK is evidence of the extent of bogus claimants".
  That is the view of the United Nations.
  As I said during the debate on the statement, the white list is a clear breach of article 3 of the 1951 convention, which states:
  "The contracting states shall apply the provisions of this Convention … without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin".
  The UN handbook on procedures is explicit that group decisions should not be made, except in urgency and then only to allow each member of a group to be regarded prima facie as a refugee. It is impossible to argue that the white list and the accelerated procedures are not discriminatory against people from certain countries, which is exactly the opposite of what the UN suggests.
  It is nonsense to try to pretend, as Ministers have several times, that there will be an unbiased, prejudice-free determination of every individual, whether or not the country of origin is on the white list. If that were the case, why have the list? One does not have such lists except to do something with them. The consequences of the list will be the refusal of many genuine asylum seekers. I have no doubt about that. Clause 1 will mean that virtually anyone who has been refused will be subject to the fast track appeal—an appeal within days. Such fast decisions will mean more wrong decisions—of that there is no doubt. People will be sent back to third countries. The Minister will not even check that the countries will accept them before they are sent there.
  Then there will be the farce of an appeal from a third country. At the beginning of the debate, the Minister asked why we needed appeals as only 4 per cent. of all cases that went to appeal last year were allowed. For those 4 per cent. the appeal was very important. It meant that they were not sent somewhere unsafe. The adjudicators referred another 30 per cent. of cases back for another look, but that procedure is also being taken away.
  Finally, I shall deal briefly with clause 4. We all want to get rid of the con men and the advisers who give false advice. Clause 4 makes it an offence to obtain or seek to obtain leave to enter this country by deception. Anyone who deals with asylum seekers knows that many people have to come with false papers. They need a false passport or visitor's visa to get to Britain. Clause 4 criminalises those people.

  785
  I do not have time to deal with the other clauses. Suffice it to say that the rest of the Bill will poison race relations. The Bill is about one thing: turning people away. If the Government said that they did not want asylum seekers and that the Bill is designed to get rid of them at least it would have the merit of being honest. It is a destructive, dishonest Bill that will do enormous damage.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: The Bill should be about how this country can meet its obligations to itself and to the international community by providing a system of asylum procedures which reinforces our historic tradition, which dates back centuries, of providing asylum for people with well-founded fears of persecution, guarantees that a genuine asylum seeker can find safety in Britain, roots out bogus applicants and achieves those objectives speedily and fairly. I hoped that the Government also wanted to achieve those objectives. If they do, why have they brought forward this concoction of misjudged, unfair, inadequate and provocative measures?
  It has been a controversial debate. Many hon. Members have asserted their views with considerable vehemence, which does not always happen in the House. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Baker) said that we needed to tackle racketeers and traffickers. The Opposition agree.
  My right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) made several telling points in their contributions. They drew attention to clause 10, which states:
  "No immigrant … shall be entitled to child benefit … unless he satisfies prescribed conditions."
  I put it to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), and the Home Secretary, why such a wide definition? Is there something to hide? Is there another agenda? Will the Minister explain what those conditions are and will she accept amendments to define the prescribed conditions should the Bill go to Committee? Or is it another case of removing the authority of Parliament—a case of government by edict and withdrawal of child benefit by edict?
  There has been criticism from Conservative Members. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) expressed concern that there had been insufficient interdepartmental consultation, especially in relation to the housing clauses. He drew our attention to the fact that under the Bill, Westminster council would have additional obligations and incur cost in relation to child care and other matters. I hope that the Minister will respond clearly to those points when she sums up.
  The hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson), among other observations, gave considerable emphasis to the employment clauses and pointed out, in different ways, that they did not believe that they would work. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) argued that there was a need for regulation of legal advisers. We agree with him.
  786
  Many of my hon. Friends made speeches of great conviction, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) for Bristol, East (Ms Corston), for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) and for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) spoke about the often derogatory use of the word "immigrant". I agree with her about that.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) discussed the impact of the Bill and the social security regulations on the poor. I share his concerns and we shall be in the same Lobby as him this evening to vote in favour of the Liberal Democrat amendment.
  Given the controversy and the many strongly held views, would it not have been both wise and reassuring for the Government to have agreed to refer the Bill at this stage to a Special Standing Committee? Would not it have reassured the country about the Bill's purpose? Would not it have allowed a wide range of experts to look at how accurately the Bill's assumptions relate to what is happening to asylum applications and assess the repercussions of any proposals?
  The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said that the perception of the Bill would not be helpful. Much of the problem has been created by people like the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), whose contribution was extremely xenophobic—perhaps worse. He used different language to say what has been said by Andrew Lansley, the Conservative candidate for South Cambridgeshire and former head of research at Conservative central office. I know that Conservative Members do not want to hear about Mr. Lansley, but this is a key issue. He said:
  "Immigration, an issue we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 European election campaign, played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt".
  That statement has caused concern in the House, outside the House, with bodies who deal with race and community relations, in the editorial columns of The Times, and with church leaders.
  I hope that the Minister of State will take account of the views expressed in this morning's edition of The Times:
  "We are anxious about the effect on race relations if the proposals are hurried through in a contentious atmosphere."
  If the Bill is not about playing the race card for party advantage, will the Home Secretary repudiate Mr. Lansley's comments now? That question was put to him following his statement two weeks ago and again by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) in today's debate. If he will not, the House and the country must assume that he agrees with his comments.
  Mr. Marlow: Does the hon. Gentleman want the Bill to go before a Special Standing Committee because it is controversial or because it is not controversial? If it is because it is controversial, does he want all controversial Bills to go before Special Standing Committees? If not, does he want all non-controversial Bills to go before Special Standing Committees? Will he please come clean on this issue, because we are confused?
  Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has already made it clear that it would damage race relations if the Bill were considered in a controversial

  787
  climate. It should be considered on the issues before us and, if it is considered in that way in a Special Standing Committee, we may make some progress.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: If the Bill were not to become law, how would the hon. Gentleman deal with paid marriage brokers who procure British-born Sikh girls to marry illegal immigrants? An example of such a marriage broker is former Labour councillor Talwar, who ruined the life of a young constituent of mine.
  Mr. Henderson: I am not sure that the Bill deals with that serious issue. It is not the kind of issue that should be used for party political advantage. It should be examined in a cool fashion and we should hear advice from those involved in the case and try to come up with a sensible solution.
  Other parts of the Bill are objectionable. Clause 1 empowers the Government to establish a so-called "white list", which they regard as necessary to speed up the process of asylum applications. They say that it also complies with the 1951 United Nations convention on human rights. How can the Government claim that all cases should be heard on their merit when, if the Bill is enacted, there will be clear differences in how applications are dealt with in the future? Is not it clear that there is a grave risk of infringing the 1951 convention because of an inability to convince that cases will be heard on their merit and that genuine applicants will be accepted, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe said in his contribution?
  Is it really necessary to deny the right of appeal to applicants who have arrived through a third country and been refused admission, which is the realistic consequence of being forced to make an appeal in another country where one might not even be able to speak the language?
  Are not those clauses all the more objectionable if the results of the Bill are that we are encumbered with that ineffective new procedure, the number of cases that go to judicial appeal continues to increase, the backlog remains, long delays build up in the system and, in addition, people feel that the procedures are unfair and damaging to our community and race relations?
  Does the Home Secretary accept what the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle said in a statement two weeks ago and repeated in his contribution today—that additional resources need to be applied to the problems that exist in ensuring that immigration cases are dealt with speedily, and that, if those resources are applied now, it can have the effect that savings will be made in future? As an ex-Minister, who has practical experience of what is happening in the immigration and nationality department, is not the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle right? Is not the only effective way of reducing the backlog and of rooting out bogus applications properly to resource the immigration and nationality department and the judicial system?
  Will not the House be damned by our successors if, instead of facing up to the real problem of providing those resources, we agree to the introduction of a demonstrably unfair, divided asylum procedure as a convenience for the Government and their not-so-hidden motives?
  Many submissions have been made in the debate about employers' checks on immigrant people. What has possessed the Secretary of State to make that proposal? For 16 years, the Conservative party has made a great
  788
  virtue of arguing for the relief of the burden of bureaucracy and paperwork on employers, especially small employers. I do not concede that it has achieved that, and many small employers in my constituency tell me that that is not the case, but I am sure that we have all heard the spin doctoring on that matter. Are not the proposals in clause 8 in complete conflict with what the spin doctors claim from Smith square?
  The Home Secretary must now be aware of the opinions of the business community. I do not know whether he has had further correspondence with the Confederation of British Industry, but it initially said that it would find great difficulty with his proposals.
  It came as a great surprise to us when the Secretary of State said in his opening statement that, after great difficulty, he had managed to reach an understanding with the Institute of Directors. I suggest to him that he has not reached the same understanding with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who challenged him on how efficacious those regulations would be in relation to small business.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley was echoing the remarks of Mrs. Jacqueline Jeynes, who is the employment affairs chairman of the Federation of Small Business. She is not yet convinced. She says:
  "Mr. Howard's plan is completely at odds with the Government's deregulation drive and will hit those very employers the Prime Minister referred to in his recent conference speech as the 'heroes' and 'risk takers' of this nation."
  Other people have also expressed their concern. The hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle, for Broxtowe and for Gillingham have said that they feel that many of the proposals that the Secretary of State is making about employers' checks are unworkable.
  The Lord Chancellor also expressed concern. He said that there is an
  "unlikely viability of the scheme based on national insurance numbers".
  The Social Security Select Committee, in its fifth report, dated 23 November 1995, found:
  "there are many more numbers than there are British residents aged 16 and over"
  and that
  "we are concerned that the existence of millions of non-active accounts has the potential to allow widespread fraud of the system."
  My principal objection to the proposals is that they will damage race relations. Will not they discourage employers from taking on people from ethnic communities? Does not it bring job apartheid to Britain when British citizens with ethnic characteristics find themselves ostracised from certain employment opportunities? Does the Secretary of State understand—as many hon. Members have pointed out during the debate—that black and Asian British people will perceive the measures in that light? For that reason, they will cause untold damage to race relations. Yet the employment checks will do virtually nothing to stop illegal immigration. Should not the Secretary of State devote his energies to measures that might have some impact?
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that he is helping race relations in this country by raising wildly unjustified fears? That does nothing to help race relations.
  Mr. Henderson: I do not believe that the fears are wildly unjustified. The Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and at least four Government Members who have spoken today have said that they believe that the measures will not work. In addition—I believe that this is the most important point—they have said that the proposals will damage race relations in constituencies such as that of the hon. Member for Harrow, West. I am sure that he knows what I am talking about in that regard.
  Much has been said about the impact of the new regulations on social security, and clauses in the Bill deal with that subject. Do the Government recognise that, in addition to further injuring race relations, the social security proposals will lead to obvious discrimination between those asylum seekers who have the means to support themselves while they proceed with their appeals and those poorer asylum seekers who will either be dependent on charity or will have to drop their appeals and return to the countries from whence they came—regardless of the consequences?
  If the Government believe in justice, they must acknowledge that society will pay the price if the social security changes come into effect. More homeless and destitute adults and children will harbour under the railway arches of our cities. We will see them in the city centre of the oldest democracy in the world. Does not that prick the conscience of Ministers? Does it not leave them somewhat embarrassed? Is that the kind of society that they want to see in downtown London as we move to the new millennium? Is that the memorial that they want after 16 years of Conservative Government?
  Will not the Government think again? It would be more honourable and statesmanlike to remove the issue from politics and to agree to investigation by a Special Standing Committee. The Government should listen to the views of those who deal with asylum cases and seek consensus. They should pursue a single, straightforward procedure—with a proper time period in which an applicant could prepare a case and make representations—and a fair appeals procedure which would apply to every applicant in every situation.
  That would not necessarily mean untold delays in dealing with asylum applications. We want a speedy system but that must not be achieved at the expense of fairness. We must find the necessary resources to ensure that the backlog of cases is cleared. Cases must be dealt with speedily, bogus applications must be rooted out and genuine asylum seekers must find refuge and safety in our country. This week The Economist stated:
  "By promoting anti-immigrant policies the government risks encouraging racism and undermining liberty. It deserves contempt, not votes, for proposing this nasty little bill."
  I agree with The Economist. The Bill is not the approach of one nation politics. It is not what the majority of hon. Members want or expect and it is not what the majority of reasonable people in the community want or expect. The Bill is not what we need to foster strong communities in a multi-racial society and it does not constitute the kind of approach that will stand the test of time. In short, the Bill is not right, it is not moral and the House should refuse it a Second Reading.
  9.38 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): This has been an interesting debate, with a good deal of sense talked by Conservative Members and a great deal of evidence of embarrassment in the Labour party. It is quite right that the Opposition should be embarrassed. They know that there is a problem but they are too cynical to do anything about it. They are also embarrassed by their appalling record of ignoring the problem and by the revelation that new Labour has no new solutions—only the old voting patterns on this issue as on so many others.
  Each time in the past 16 years that we have sought to protect this country against abusers of our immigration system, the Labour party has opposed us. The Opposition opposed the revision of the immigration rules in 1979, the British Nationality Act 1981, the Immigration Act 1988 and the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. Now they are going to let the people down by opposing this Act as well: no wonder they are embarrassed.
  The Opposition say that we are playing the race card, and that we are introducing the Bill only in order to improve our electoral chances. Both allegations demonstrate the profound irresponsibility of the Labour party.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: If anyone is playing the race card—to use their own vulgar expression—the Opposition are. Even before they knew the contents of the Bill, they were stirring up fears that it would be racist. Firm but fair immigration controls underpin good race relations; alarmism and scaremongering destroy good race relations.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I must tell Opposition Members that during my preamble I shall not give way, but when I begin to amble, I will.
  All communities, of whatever ethnic origin, benefit from the sensible and responsible use of public funds—a lesson that the Opposition either cannot or will not learn. Immigration and asylum issues must not become a no-go area of public debate, as the Opposition appear to think they should. It is an affront to democracy to claim—[Interruption.] It is an affront to democracy to cry "racist" every time a major issue of national importance is brought before the House.
  Mr. Henderson rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not expect Front-Bench interventions from either side—I wish to hear what the hon. Lady is saying. Tolerance should be a mark of this House. We should listen even though we may profoundly disagree with what is said.
  Miss Widdecombe: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Opposition do not want to listen because they do not want to be embarrassed by hearing the truth. Nevertheless I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) to what I believe is his first occasion in this role. I hope that what he has to say is more sensible than what he said in his speech.
  Mr. Henderson: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks. Now that she has finished her preamble and has

  791
  gone on a ramble, may I bring her back to the issue of race—in particular, to the comments, reported in The Times of 27 September, of Mr. Taylor, a Conservative candidate at the last election?
  "The Tory party think giving a few cocktail parties for Asian millionaires is race relations … They alienate ethnic minorities by pandering to xenophobic voters with promises of crackdowns on immigration."
  Would the hon. Lady care to comment?
  Miss Widdecombe: What alienates ethnic minorities is the patronising attitude of the Labour party, which does not even believe that we should discuss issues pertaining to those minorities.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: While we are on the topic of embarrassment, is the Minister embarrassed by the views of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? If not, would she care to explain why not?
  Miss Widdecombe: I was not at all embarrassed when my hon. Friend deplored the attitude of Opposition Members—he was absolutely right so to do.
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend note that the Bill has considerable support from hundreds of my Sikh constituents, who in recent years have complained to me that the wage rates for their labouring jobs are being undercut by bogus applicants who are working for a cheap price?
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and brings a note of much-needed good sense into the debate. Perhaps while he is on the subject of employers, I could turn to some of the concerns that have been expressed over the sanctions which we shall be imposing on employers.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall take one more intervention. Does the hon. Gentleman want to be that one?
  Mr. Clive Soley: During her preamble the Minister said her party was not playing the race card; it was the Labour party. If that is right, why did Mr. Andrew Lansley say that immigration plays well in the tabloids, that they had played it before the last election and they must play it again? Is that or is that not the race card? If the Minister thinks that it is not, the view of the Opposition and everyone else will be that it is a bogus claim by a bogus Government.
  Miss Widdecombe: Addressing a serious problem and finding responsible solutions to it is not playing the race card. Stirring up fears even before knowing the contents of the Bill is playing the race card.
  Mr. Spearing rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I said that that was to be the last intervention. It was a terrible waste, but I am afraid that it is all over.
  Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will recall that at the beginning of the debate the Home Secretary told the House and Madam Speaker, in respect of my point of order, that the Minister
  792
  would reply to the specific points that I had raised. I have not heard a reply. Nor is the Minister giving way, as I had hoped she might.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The content of speeches is not a matter for the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman will know, but I also note that the hon. Lady has not yet concluded her speech.
  Miss Widdecombe: I agree. If the hon. Gentleman seriously wants a reply rather than just to make a point, he will wait and give me a chance to answer. He is now wasting time and that time will come off my reply to him and not to anybody else.
  Various Members on both sides of the House raised concerns about the sanctions that we may impose on employers. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) both raised those particular concerns.
  It is not the case that we shall be imposing undue burdens on employers—a fact now recognised by many employers' organisations. Nor is it a fact, as was claimed later in the debate, that the cost to employers will be enormous. Our compliance cost assessment works out that the cost is likely to be in the region of 65p per employee, which does not seem extravagant.
  I turn now to the opening speech for the Opposition. There are times when I feel sorry for the shadow spokesman on home affairs. I nearly felt sorry for him tonight. There he was with same old approach, only this time he had to take shelter behind errors in the Amnesty International briefing rather than misprints in The Guardian.
  The hon. Gentleman protested strongly when we refused to set up a Special Standing Committee. He might have been convincing had he not announced at the Labour party conference an intention to oppose our Bill some weeks before anybody suggested a Special Standing Committee. However, perhaps it is just as well that we shall not be having one as the hon. Gentleman does not appear even to understand its function. When one of his hon. Friends asked him whether it would not be an advantage that such a Committee would be able to examine the benefit changes, he agreed, but the benefit changes are not in the Bill so would not have been examined by a Special Standing Committee.
  Mr. Straw: The Minister has not read her own Bill. What does she think that clauses 10 and 12 are about, if not about changes to the benefit regime?
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman would like to check Hansard, he will find that the reference was specifically to the benefit changes to the safety net in income-related benefits—which are not covered by the Bill. Opposition Members do not know what is in the Bill. They try to deny, from a sedentary position, that sanctions against racketeers are in the Bill. The Opposition do not have a notion.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn said that he was concerned about the Bill's employer provisions. I am not surprised. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has in mind a Labour-controlled council. Perhaps he has in mind Hackney council, which has a good record of giving jobs to people not entitled to work in this country. On 2 September 1994, the immigration service detained a cook employed by Hackney council. She did not have any

  793
  permission to live or work in this country, and she should have gone in October 1992. That woman found a ready refuge in illegal working in Hackney.
  Mr. George Howarth: She must have been cheap to employ.
  Miss Widdecombe: I do not know whether she was cheap, but Hackney council is where she found a place of work.
  On 1 December 1994, an estate manager in Hackney's housing department was detained by immigration officials for working in breach of his conditions of entry. It did not stop there. On 17 February 1995, a personnel officer in the office of Hackney's chief executive was served with a notice of illegal entry. He was deported in February.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I notice that Opposition Members are rising to their feet in defence of Hackney—in defence of an illegal employer. We intend to draw those employers under the net of our sanctions.
  Ms Abbott rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I made it clear that I had taken the last intervention, so I suggest that the hon. Lady sits down.
  Ms Abbott: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the hon. Lady has to say.
  Ms Abbott: Are the matters raised by the Minister relevant to the Bill? [Horn. MEMBERS: "Yes."] The issues to which she has just referred will not be dealt with under the terms of the Bill.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If I could hear the Minister, it would be easier for me to judge.
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Lady has failed to notice that illegal working and sanctions against employers who take on illegal workers are not part of the Bill, she has not read very far through it because those provisions come fairly early on in the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) drew attention to a lot of expense incurred by Westminster city council—£8 million housing costs and £2 million in residential care. The deterrent effect of our measures, by reducing the number of people who will try to take advantage of our system, should lower the number of persons who are lawfully resident and who also have to be looked after while applying for asylum.
  I come with some reluctance to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who did not seem to understand the function of that which he persistently misnames the white list. In fact, it is a designated list. The right hon. Gentleman asked what is a general fear of persecution. He only has to look at current practice. Some countries have a 99 per cent. asylum application rejection rate but 1 per cent. are accepted. That conclusively demonstrates that we examine each case on its merits. We will continue to do so. I have
  794
  no doubt that countries on the designated list will, nevertheless, still produce a small percentage of acceptances—as they do at present, despite their high rate of general rejection.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that we are creating the entirely new offence of entry by deception. The law already makes provision for that, and all that we are doing is extending existing provisions. At present, the law makes it an offence to obtain leave to enter by deception; there is nothing new about that. Clause 4 extends that to leave to remain by deception. It seems to me totally illogical that we should make it illegal to enter by deception but not make it illegal to remain.
  Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I beg her pardon. If the hon. Lady will check the record, she will find that I did not say that the offence was new; I said that it was unjustifiable. Will she now turn her mind to the point that I made: that an applicant for asylum is unlikely to turn up at a high commission or embassy and say, "I need a visa because I am being persecuted", and stand in line while one is provided? Will she deal with the real problem rather than the one that she has invented?
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference between lots of things, apparently. He cannot tell the difference between leaving a country by illegal methods and entering a country by illegal methods. If somebody leaves a country on a forged document because they have no choice, because they are fleeing an inclement regime and are in real genuine fear, that does not stop them when they arrive at our ports of entry declaring honestly that they are seeking asylum. In that case, they are covered.
  I come now to a point that was raised consistently throughout the debate: the alleged 20 million missing national insurance numbers. The Opposition are enjoying their usual hyperbole, because the Select Committee's report shows that it is not in fact the case. There are some 65 million national insurance numbers: 9 million relate to people who are dead, but the records are kept [Interruption.] Yes, the records are kept because widows' entitlement may be affected. [Interruption.] Opposition Members think that widows' entitlement is a joke, so let us record that fact. Ten million national insurance numbers relate to other known groups: the main group is people who are abroad but still entitled to claim; and 3.2 million people under the age of 16. Some 45 million adult UK residents are actively working and are in the system. Therefore, the discrepancies in the system arc but a tiny fraction of the 20 million suggested by the Opposition.
  I now turn to the interesting speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Usually, I have quite a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but tonight he let me down very badly. First, there was—I say with regret—his tasteless and personal attack on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in respect of his family position. He then had the gall, having launched that false attack, to quote scripture. May I quote it back?
  "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
  And then, as if that was not enough—
  Mr. Alton rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I am running out of time.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not the

  795
  equivalent to bear false witness to lie? Has not the hon. Lady just called the hon. Member for Mossley Hill a liar? Should not she withdraw that remark immediately?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not hear anything that would cause me to ask the hon. Lady to withdraw, but I would add that there is sufficient noise in the House to make it difficult to follow. Therefore I ask the House to settle down so that I can hear what is being said.
  Miss Widdecombe: As if that was not enough, we then had a false picture about the Home Office causing delays in the system and failing to address that. The hon. Gentleman completely overlooked the fact that, against 15,000 applicants [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If neither you nor the House heard the expression "bear false witness", will the Chair ask for an apology tomorrow, when the Hansard record shows that those words were uttered?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I will examine the matter tomorrow.
  Miss Widdecombe: That intervention says it all. The Opposition have not an argument to stand on; they are hopeless.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 319.

  Division No. 13]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Callaghan, Jim

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Alton, David

  Canavan, Dennis

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Chidgey, David

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ashton, Joe

  Church, Judith

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Battle, John

  Clelland, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Coffey, Ann

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cohen, Harry

  Bell, Stuart

  Connarty, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Jean

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Cox, Tom

  Blunkett, David

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

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

  Dafis, Cynog

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burden, Richard

  Darling, Alistair

  Byers, Stephen

  Davidson, Ian

  Caborn, Richard

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  796

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

  Jowell, Tessa

  Denham, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Keen, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Dobson, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Litherland, Robert

  Eastham, Ken

  Livingstone, Ken

  Etherington, Bill

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Fatchett, Derek

  McAllion, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McCartney, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  McCartney, Robert

  Flynn, Paul

  Macdonald, Calum

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McFall, John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foulkes, George

  McLeish, Henry

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maclennan, Robert

  Galbraith, Sam

  McMaster, Gordon

  Galloway, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gapes, Mike

  MacShane, Denis

  Garrett, John

  McWilliam, John

  George, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Gerrard, Neil

  Maddock, Diana

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Mahon, Alice

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mandelson, Peter

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marek, Dr John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Maxton, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Meacher, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Meale, Alan

  Hain, Peter

  Michael, Alun

  Hall, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Hanson, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Hardy, Peter

  Milburn, Alan

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Miller, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Henderson, Doug

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Heppell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hoey, Kate

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mudie, George

  Home Robertson, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hood, Jimmy

  Murphy, Paul

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

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

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Olner, Bill

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  O'Neil, Martin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Parry, Robert

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Pentry, Tom

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hutton, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Illsley, Eric

  Pope, Greg

  Ingram, Adam

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jamieson, David

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Janner, Greville

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Radice, Giles

  797

  Randall, Stuart

  Stevenson, George

  Raynsford, Nick

  Stott, Roger

  Redmond, Martin

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Reid, Dr John

  Straw, Jack

  Rendel, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Timms, Stephen

  Rogers, Allan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Touhig, Don

  Rooney, Terry

  Turner, Dennis

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Vaz, Keith

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wallace, James

  Salmond, Alex

  Walley, Joan

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Welsh, Andrew

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Short, Clare

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Simpson, Alan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

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

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wise, Audrey

  Snape, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Spearing, Nigel

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Paul Tyler.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Burns, Simon

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Burt, Alistair

  Alexander, Richard

  Butcher, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Butler, Peter

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Butterfill, John

  Amess, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Ancram, Michael

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Carrington, Mathew

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Cash, William

  Ashby, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Churcill, Mr

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Clappison, James

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Colvin, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Congdon, David

  Batiste, Spencer

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Couchman, James

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Cran, James

  Body, Sir Richard

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

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Booth, Hartley

  Davis, Quentin (Stamford)

  Boswell, Tim

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Day, Stephen

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Bowis, John

  Dicks, Terry

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Dorell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Brazier, Julian

  Dover, Den

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Duncan, Alan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Dunn, Bob

  Browing, Mrs Angela

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  798

  Elletson, Harold

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

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

  Evennett, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Faber, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forman, Nigel

  Legg, Barry

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Leigh, Edward

  Forth, Eric

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lidington, David

  Freeman, Rt HOn Roger

  Lightbown, Sir David

  French, Douglas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon sir Peter (Fareham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Lord, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Luff, Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Mackay, Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mcloughlin, Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gorst, Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Malone, Gerald

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mans, Keith

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Marlow, Tony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hannam, Sir John

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Harris, David

  Merchant, Piers

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Mills, Iain

  Hawkins, Nick

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Heald, Oliver

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hendry, Charles

  Moss, Malcolm

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Nelson, Anthony

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Horam, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Paice, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jack, Michael

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffery

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Pawsey, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jessel, Toby

  Pickles, Eric

  Johnson, Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Richards, Rod

  799

  Riddick, Graham

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Thomason, Roy

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Thurnham, Peter

  Ryder, RI Hon Richard

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Sackville, Tom

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tredinnick, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Trend, Michael

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Trotter, Neville

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Viggers, Peter

  Sims, Roger

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Walden, George

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Waller, Gary

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Ward, John

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Watts, John

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sproat, Iain

  Wilkinson, John

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Willetts, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stephen, Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc?fld)

  Stern, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Allan

  Yeo, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Young, RI Hon Sir George

  Sumberg, David

  Sweeney, Walter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sykes, John

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on second or third reading):—
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second Time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
  That the Bill be committed to a Special Standing Committee—[Mr. Straw.]
  The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 314.

  Division No. 14]

  [10.14pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Alexander, Richard

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Amess, David

  Booth, Hartley

  Ancram, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Ashby, David

  Bowis, John

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Brazier, Julian

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Bates, Michael

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Batiste, Spencer

  Burns, Simon

  Bellingham, Henry

  Burt, Alistair

  800

  Butcher, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Butler, Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butterfill, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carttiss, Michael

  Harris, David

  Cash, William

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hawksley, Warren

  Churchill, Mr

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clappison, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Congdon, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'Tham)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Horam, John

  Couchman, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cran, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'byire)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunter, Andrew

  Devlin, Tim

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Dicks, Terry

  Jack, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dover, Den

  Jessel, Toby

  Duncan, Alan

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dunn, Bob

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Key, Robert

  Elletson, Harold

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield

  Knapman, Roger

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

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

  Evennett, David

  Knox, Sir David

  Faber, David

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Forman, Nigel

  Legg, Barry

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Leigh, Edward

  Forth, Eric

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Lidington, David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Lightbown, Sir David

  French, Douglas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Gallie, Phil

  Lord, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Luff, Peter

  Garnier, Edward

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  MacKay, Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gorst, Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Malone, Gerald

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Mans, Keith

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Marlow, Tony

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  801

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Mates, Michael

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Merchant, Piers

  Spring, Richard

  Mills, Iain

  Sproat, Iain

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Steen, Anthony

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Stephen, Michael

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Stem, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stewart, Allan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Streeter, Gary

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Sumberg, David

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sweeney, Walter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sykes, John

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Thomason, Roy

  Ottaway, Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Page, Richard

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Paice, James

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Thurnham, Peter

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Pawsey, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tredinnick, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Trend, Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Richards, Rod

  Walden, George

  Riddick, Graham

  Walden, Gary

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Ward, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Watts, John

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Whitney, Ray

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Whitlingdale, John

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Sackville, Tom

  Wilkinson, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Willetts, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wilshire, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Wolfson, Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  NOES

  Abbott Ms Diane

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ainger, Nick

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Allen, Graham

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Alton, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Barron, Kevin

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Battle, John

  802

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Faulds, Andrew

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bell, Stuart

  Fisher, Mark

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flynn, Paul

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foulkes, George

  Berry, Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Betts, Clive

  Galbraith, Sam

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Galloway, George

  Blunkett, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Boateng, Paul

  Garrett, John

  Bradley, Keith

  George, Bruce

  Brazier, Julian

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

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

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Byers, Stephen

  Gordon, Mildred

  Caborn, Richard

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hain, Peter

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hall, Mike

  Cann, Jamie

  Hanson, David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hardy, Peter

  Chidgey, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harvey, Nick

  Church, Judith

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hill Keith (Streatham)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coffey, Ann

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cohen, Harry

  Home Robertson, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Frank (Stockton)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

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

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corston, Jean

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Ingram, Adam

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Davidson, Ian

  Janner, Greville

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Barry(Alyn and D'side)

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Denham, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Keen, Alan

  Dixon, Don

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Dobson, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Eastham, Ken

  Litherland, Robert

  Etherington, Bill

  Livingstone, Ken

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  803

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Redmond, Martin

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Reid, Dr John

  McAllion, John

  Rendel, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McCartney, Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  McCartney, Robert

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rogers, Allan

  McFall, John

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McLeish, Henry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  McMaster, Gordon

  Ruddock, Joan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Salmond, Alex

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Madden, Max

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maddock, Diana

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mahon, Alice

  Short, Clare

  Mandelson, Peter

  Simpson, Alan

  Marek, Dr John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

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

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Martlew, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Meacher, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Meale, Alan

  Spellar, John

  Michael, Alun

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Stevenson, George

  Milburn, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Straw, Jack

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Timms, Stephen

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Touhig, Don

  Mudie, George

  Turner, Dennis

  Mullin, Chris

  Tyler, Paul

  Murphy, Paul

  Vaz, Keith

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Wallace, James

  Olner, Bill

  Walley, Joan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wareing, Robert N

  Parry, Robert

  Welsh, Andrew

  Pearson, Ian

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pendry, Tom

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Pickthall, Colin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Pope, Greg

  Wilson, Brian

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Winnick, David

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wise, Audrey

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Worthington, Tony

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Purchase, Ken

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Radice, Giles

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Randall, Stuart

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ms Bridget Prentice.

  Division No. 15]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

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

  Allen, Graham

  Denham, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dewar, Donald

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dixon, Don

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Dobson, Frank

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Ashton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Austin-Walker, John

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Barnes, Harry

  Eastham, Ken

  Barron, Kevin

  Etherington, Bill

  Battle, John

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fatchett, Derek

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bell, Stuart

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Flynn, Paul

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Berry, Roger

  Foulkes, George

  Betts, Clive

  Fyfe, Maria

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Galbraith, Sam

  Blunkett, David

  Galloway, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Gapes, Mike

  Bradley, Keith

  Garrett, John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  George, Bruce

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gerrard, Neil

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

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burden, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Byers, Stephen

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caborn, Richard

  Gordon, Mildred

  Callaghan, Jim

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Gunnell, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Hain, Peter

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Mike

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hanson, David

  Chidgey, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Church, Judith

  Harvey, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Henderson, Doug

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Connarty, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Corbett, Robin

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

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Corston, Jean

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Illsley, Eric

  Dafis, Cynog

  Ingram, Adam

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Shef?ld, H)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Janner, Greville

  805

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Radice, Giles

  Jowell, Tessa

  Randall, Stuart

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Raynsford, Nick

  Keen, Alan

  Redmond, Martin

  Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

  Reid, Dr John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rendel, David

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rogers, Allan

  Litherland, Robert

  Rooker, Jeff

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rooney, Terry

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAllion, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salmond, Alex

  McCartney, Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCartney, Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McFall, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  McLeish, Henry

  Simpson, Alan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  McMaster, Gordon

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

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

  MacShane, Denis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWilliam, John

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Maddock, Diana

  Snape, Peter

  Mahon, Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mandelson, Peter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marek, Dr John

  Spellar, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stott, Roger

  Maxton, John

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Meacher, Michael

  Straw, Jack

  Meale, Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Michael, Alun

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Timms, Stephen

  Milburn, Alan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Miller, Andrew

  Touhig, Don

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Turner, Dennis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tyler, Paul

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Vaz, Keith

  Morley, Elliot

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Walley, Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mudie, George

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mullin, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Murphy, Paul

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SWn W)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Olner, Bill

  Wilson, Brian

  O'Neill, Martin

  Winnick, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wise, Audrey

  Parry, Robert

  Worthington, Tony

  Pearson, Ian

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Pendry, Tom

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pope, Greg

  Mr. Max Madden and

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. David Alton.

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  806

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Dicks, Terry

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Alexander, Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Dover, Den

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Duncan, Alan

  Amess, David

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Ancram, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Arbuthnot, James

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Ashby, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Atkinson, David (Bour'Mouth E)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evennett, David

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Faber, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bates, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Batiste, Spencer

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Bendall, Vivian

  Forman, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Forth, Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Booth, Hartley

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Boswell, Tim

  French, Douglas

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gallie, Phil

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bowis, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gill, Christopher

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Brazier, Julian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Burns, Simon

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Butler, Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hannam, Sir John

  Cash, William

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Harris, David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Churchill, Mr

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clappison, James

  Hawksley, Warren

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hayes, Jerry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Heald, Oliver

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Coe, Sebastian

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Hendry, Charles

  Congdon, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hicks, Robert

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Couchman, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Cran, James

  Horam, John

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

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Day, Stephen

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Devlin, Tim

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  807

  Hunter, Andrew

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pawsey, James

  Jack, Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Pickles, Eric

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Jessel, Toby

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Riddick, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Robathan, Andrew

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Knapman, Roger

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Knox, Sir David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Sackville, Tom

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Legg, Barry

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lidington, David

  Sims, Roger

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lord, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Luff, Peter

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Spring, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sproat, Iain

  Madel, Sir David

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Malone, Gerald

  Stephen, Michael

  Mans, Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Marland, Paul

  Stewart, Allan

  Marlow, Tony

  Streeter, Gary

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Sumberg, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Sykes, John

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Merchant, Piers

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Mills, Iain

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Thomason, Roy

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thurnham, Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Tracey, Richard

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Trend, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Trotter, Neville

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Norris, Steve

  Viggers, Peter

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Page, Richard

  Ward, John

  Paice, James

  Wade, Charles (Bexhill)

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Waterson, Nigel

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Watts, John

  808

  Wells, Bowen

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Maccf'ld)

  Whitney, Ray

  Wolfson, Mark

  Whittingdale, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Willetts, David

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Wilshire, David

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

  SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That the Scottish Grand Committee shall meet at half-past Ten o'clock:

  1. in the New Parliament House, Edinburgh, on Monday 15th January 1996 to take Questions for oral answer and to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  2. in the Albert Halls, Stirling, on Monday 29th January 1996 to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  3. in the Highland Regional Council Buildings, Inverness, on Monday 5th February to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  4. in the Town and County Hall, Aberdeen on Monday 19th February to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  5. in Scotland on Monday 4th March to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  6. in Scotland on Friday 15th March to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  7. in Scotland on Monday 22nd April to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  8. in Scotland on Monday 13th May to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  9. in Scotland on Monday 20th May to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  10. in Scotland on Monday 10th June to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  11. in Scotland on Monday 17th June to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;

  12. in Scotland on Monday 8th July to consider a substantive motion for the adjournment of the Committee;—[Mr. Burns.]

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Alan Duncan be discharged from the Social Security Committee and Mr. Edward Leigh be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  WELSH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Christopher Gill he added to the Welsh Affairs Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  PETITION

    A5209 (Lancashire)
    10.40 pm
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: I beg leave to introduce a petition on behalf of the A5209 Traffic Action Group, representing 2,500 people in the villages of Wrightington, Parbold, Newburgh, Latham and Burscough. The petition declares:
    The A5209 … which links junction 27 of the M6 motorway to the A59 road at Burscough, is totally unsuited for the purpose of a feeder route into West Lancashire for heavy commercial traffic, by reason of its narrow, twisting and dangerous carriageway through a mainly rural area. This is causing hazardous conditions, destruction of the quality of life, and environmental damage affecting the residents of five villages which are situated on the route.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons:—
    authorise the Department of Transport to hasten construction of the Ormskirk and Burscough bypasses, and on completion to place a 7.5 ton weight limit on the full length of the A5209 route."
    I fully support that petition.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Farm Incomes
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: This is the first, and perhaps only, chance that we shall have to discuss on the Floor of the House the current collapse in farm incomes in less-favoured areas and the failure of the Budget to tackle those problems. I therefore hope that there will be an opportunity for one or two other hon. Members to intervene briefly, because I know that my anxieties are shared across party and across the country.
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has acknowledged a decrease in those incomes. In the severely disadvantaged areas, in 1994–95, the specialist sheep farmers have experienced a downturn of 24 per cent. on 1993–94, when the hill livestock compensatory allowance rates were about 20 per cent. greater. Even MAFF's very optimistic forecast for the current year shows a drop of 18 per cent. for 1995–96.
  The specialist beef farmers have experienced a downturn of 17 per cent. in the same period, and it is forecast that they will be down 19 per cent. this year. Mixed cattle and sheep farmers have experienced a downturn of 16 per cent. for the same period, and it is forecast that they will be down 12 per cent. this year. In the disadvantaged areas, cattle and sheep farmers have experienced a downturn of 26 per cent. for the same period, and it is forecast that they will he down 17 per cent. this year. The forecast for 1995–96 is very similar to the actual index for 1992–93, when HLCA rates were very much greater. The index is now 131 compared with 133 then. The MAFF figures fail to take into account the current problems for beef in the market.
  The National Farmers Union for England and Wales is even more pessimistic. It says:
  "For the second consecutive year, the Government has chosen to ignore the great need of our hill and upland farms for extra support. Four out of ten farmers in Less Favoured Areas have incomes of less than £10,000 per year and their pleas for help have been roundly rejected. This decision calls into question the Government's claim of a genuine commitment to the hills and uplands. Furthermore, this reluctance to act is inconsistent with the spirit and words of the recently-published Rural White Paper which speaks of a concern to strengthen the rural economy. Under the terms of the Chancellor's Budget, HLCA rates have been frozen for the coming year 1996/97. The decision is particularly painful coming on top of a similar freeze last year and a slashing of payments in 1993 and 1994. When the Government originally made these cuts it stated that if hill incomes fell in future years, it would look at reinstating the payments".
  Similarly, the National Farmers Union for Scotland writes:
  "A standstill in payments for next year means that the real value of these important payments to hill farmers will be reduced. The incomes of these producers are already unsustainably low, and where they are below the tax thresholds, will not benefit from the tax cutting measures announced in today's Budget. The Government has therefore missed an opportunity to support this most vulnerable sector of our industry. The absence of higher HLCAs for 1996 will further reduce the confidence of LFA producers and, in all probability, will drive still more livestock and producers from the hills".
  The National Farmers Union in Wales writes in similar terms. It states:
  "The real value of HLCA payments has been consistently eroded in successive reviews. Net farm incomes in Wales which fell by 28% in 1994/95 remain inadequate to sustain farming families in

  811
  the hill and upland areas, meet their investment needs and to make interest repayments. The Government has publicly committed itself to maintain the hill farming sector. This decision fails to reflect that commitment".
  The Hill Farming Initiative adds:
  "The NFU, the HFI and the Newcastle Farm Business Survey in the North East Region are convinced that this year will be worse than last year. The late upturn in the market is no benefit to hill farmers. Hill farms ran short on grass because of the drought. Therefore the majority of hill farm lambs had to be sold in August/September before the late upturn in the store and fat lamb prices".
  Logic points to the need for a substantial HLCA rate increase this year, and I know that hon. Members on all sides of the House—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my hon. Friends the Members for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—have met representatives in their communities who have expressed real concern about what is happening.
  There is a 50-year commitment to maintaining the HLCAs as an effective mechanism, and successive Governments have endorsed it. As the National Farmers Union made clear, the rural White Paper refers specifically to that commitment as an important part of the armoury for maintaining incomes in rural areas. That point was reinforced by the Minister when we debated the matter in Committee on 25 October 1995.
  Meanwhile, other European Union member states are using the mechanism to good effect. The Minister was kind enough to provide me with some provisional figures—I hope that he will be able to give us the accurate figures this evening—which show the way in which other member states are supporting their hill farmers. Not only do we appear to have the lowest level of support, but we are the only country in Europe that has cut its HLCA rate.
  Persistent Ministry promises to compensate for adverse conditions in the less-favoured areas are being broken this year. It is a case of "Heads we win, tails you lose." In the past, when the Government have been able to point to some improvements in incomes, they have used that as a reason for reducing HLCA rates. The reverse should now apply.
  There is broad cross-party support for an increase in the HLCA to meet the critical income fall. That was clear from the deliberations of the Committee that met on 25 October. There is a recognition that income levels that were considered acceptable in the 1980s have not been restored in the 1990s. Instead, the Budget contains a cut in real terms for all farmers in LFAs.
  There is an extra cut for those in disadvantaged areas, as this year the Ministry decided to make a change in the eligible stocking levels for ewes. That represents a real cut. Farmers in the disadvantaged areas are facing some of the worst income drops. As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Hicks) will know, we have that experience in Cornwall.
  I want to make it clear that this is not a requirement of Brussels. It simply results from the Government's failure to maintain the severely disadvantaged area rates at a realistic level, so it becomes necessary to adjust the DA rates to maintain the ratio.
  In recent weeks, a number of Conservative Members have expressed concern about the situation. 1 am sorry that the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) is not here, as he has said that any cut in HLCAs would have
  812
  Back Benchers voting against the move. He is quoted as saying that in Farmers Weekly. All hon. Members will recognise from what I have said that there has been a cut in the HLCAs for the DAs, and a general real-terms cut as a result of failure to maintain the rates at a realistic level and to keep pace with inflation.
  Logically, all Conservative Members from the LFAs should be with us when the time comes—if the time comes—when we have a chance to vote against these figures.
  On the Ministry's own farm income figures, we should expect at least a return to the 1992 levels of HLCAs. But its optimism is not shared by many other commentators, or by the industry generally. If its figures are found to be over-optimistic, this year will he even more disastrous for hill farmers.
  The Minister and his team have a reputation for personal integrity. I ask, therefore, how they could possibly have endorsed the press release in my hand this evening. I have some experience in the public relations industry—I make no apology for that. But if anyone in my company or department—any professional PR officer—had produced this travesty of the situation, I would speedily have dismissed him.
  The press release is headed:
  "No Reduction in HLCA rates in 1996".
  That is simply not true. Worse, it is misleading, in that it fails to take account of figures included further down the same page. It is a worthless document, clearly written by an illiterate or innumerate spin doctor, not by a reputable politician. Ministers should have found some opportunity to correct the mistake made in their Department. The document is not even technically correct, and it reduces MAFF's credibility to an all-time low. It is a worthless bit of paper, and I hope the Minister will apologise for it.
  Why are the Government not honest with the House? Why does not the Minister admit in the privacy of this night that he and his colleagues failed to persuade their colleagues at the Treasury? No one will hold that against them; an honest Minister is such a rare sight these days that it would be extremely helpful for someone to do just that. Why not own up, and promise to try again? If Ministers did that, they would gain our respect.
  10.52 pm
  The Minister for Rural Affairs (Mr. Tim Boswell): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing an Adjournment debate on this subject. I know that it is a subject close to the hearts of many hon. Members. He has already referred to the stimulating debate that we had in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in October, in the context of an amendment to the hill livestock compensatory allowances regulations.
  I share the hon. Gentleman's view that farmers in the less-favoured areas play an essential role in the rural community. They are responsible for creating and maintaining some of our most beautiful countryside. They are vital in supporting living communities in some of the most remote parts of the country. Hill livestock farming is an essential element in our highly stratified livestock industry. Hill farmers fulfil these roles often in hard

  813
  physical conditions, with hard physical work. As the country owes so much to farmers in these areas, it is clearly right that we should all be concerned with their incomes.
  It is perhaps worth reminding the House briefly of the nature of the less-favoured areas of the United Kingdom—hereafter LFAs, for short.
  They are, by definition, areas in which extensive livestock farming is the only practicable form of agriculture. That is implicit in the criteria adopted for their designation. Grassland must account for more than 70 per cent. of the area used for agriculture, and the stocking rate must be less than one livestock unit per forage hectare. They are also, by definition, areas where farm income is below the national average. Farm rents must not exceed 65 per cent. of the national average, and family farm income per work unit must be less than 80 per cent. of the average for non-LFA farms.
  The most recent figures relating to incomes in the LFA are those prepared for the 1995 autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands, which considered the rates and conditions for the HLCA scheme for the 1996 scheme year. The tables were placed in the Library on 28 November. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that, of course, they reflect the outcome of discussions with the farming unions, and they are an objective measurement of the circumstances on which he drew for some of his figures.
  The autumn review tables give information on three measures of income: first, net farm income, which represents the return for the labour and investment of farmer and spouse on the assumption that the farmer is tenanted; secondly, occupiers' net income, which is based on actual tenure and indebtedness to the farm; thirdly, cash income, which represents the difference between receipts and expenditure in the year.
  I shall restrict myself to net farm income figures, which traditionally have been used to monitor economic trends. Although net farm income on average cattle and sheep farms in the LFA fell by some 20 per cent. in real terms in 1994–95, it is forecast to recover by 4 per cent. in 1995–96.
  I remind the House that HLCAs are intended to compensate farmers for the permanent natural handicaps in the hills and uplands. In contrast, all factors which affect farming incomes in the years in question are taken into account in the tables prepared for the autumn review. The income figures which inform discussions on the rates of HLCA therefore also reflect short-term factors such as adverse weather conditions.
  The fall in net farm incomes in 1994–95 to which I have referred was the result of a cold, wet spring and a dry summer, leading to higher than usual lamb mortality. In addition, the cold winter and long wet spring obliged farmers to draw heavily on their stocks of winter fodder. The dry summer restricted grass growth, especially in the east, leading to poor fodder production and high fodder costs in the autumn of 1994, but those factors were not universal. For example, the fall in income experienced in other parts of the United Kingdom was not recorded in Northern Ireland. Those regional variations reflect differences in weather conditions and market prices.
  Nevertheless, many hill farmers started the 1995 season with low fodder stocks. In consequence, the drought in the summer of 1995, on top of a previously difficult year,
  814
  has affected feed and fodder stocks and prices appreciably. I need hardly add that lowland farms suffered equally, if not more, from the dry summer weather.
  Despite two years of unfavourable weather conditions, net farm income in the LFA 1995–96 is expected to be about the same in real terms as it was in 1992–93. While HLCAs compensate for the particular difficulties facing livestock farmers in the less-favoured area, it would be misleading to consider them outside the context of the total Government support for livestock in those areas. In 1995, it is forecast that some £610 million will be paid in direct subsidies to livestock farmers in the LFA. In 1996, it is forecast that the figure will rise to £655 million, of which only some £108 million will come from HLCA.
  Moreover, special support for livestock farmers in the LFA does not come exclusively from HLCAs. The LFA supplement to the sheep annual premium is making an increasingly important contribution. Taking account of the recent devaluations of the green pound, that supplement in 1995 is expected to amount to £5.69 per ewe. The tables prepared for the autumn review show that the increase in food and other input costs during 1994–95 should he set against a forecast increase in direct livestock subsidies, including those that I have referred to, and better returns from sales.
  For example, the rate of payment under the suckler cow premium scheme will increase from £115.12 to £143.04—a rise of 24 per cent. The payment made under the beef special premium scheme will rise 28.5 per cent.—from £85.09 to £114.03. The rate of payment under the sheep annual premium scheme is forecast to rise from £22.21 to £26.28—an increase of 18 per cent. Those figures do not take account of further increases in the rates of payment that will affect the 1995 sheep annual premium and the 1996 beef special premium and suckler cow premium, following the recent devaluations of the green pound.
  Despite the remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall, returns from the autumn sales increased. Prices for all types of sheep this autumn were buoyant, and most cattle prices showed some increase over 1994.
  Mr. Robert Hicks: I am sure that the House appreciates the criteria used in determining the level of financial support given to hill farmers this year, but does my hon. Friend agree that, comparing the situation with our European counterparts, this country is not supporting its hill farmers to the same extent? Is it not relevant to take into account the contribution that hill farmers make to the management of the uplands in the overall rural economy? Is that not equally valid?
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he represents a long and continuing interest in the problems of farmers in his area, including hill farmers. We are lucky to have on the Hill Farming Advisory Committee Mr. Cornelius from Bodmin, and to have that Cornish influence and discussion of the affairs of that county.
  Of course we compare our efforts with those made in other European countries. We have one of the largest LFA sectors, and, although the provisional figures are only being released at this stage and on a confidential basis, it is clear that we tend to have a larger overall unit level of payments, even if some direct headage comparisons are less favourable. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about the importance of hill farmers to the wider rural

  815
  economy. I prefaced my speech with a reference to that aspect, and I happily reiterate that recognition. We wish to do our best for hill farmers.
  Trends in the labour force are more encouraging than the hon. Member for North Cornwall suggested. Figures prepared for the autumn review show that the agricultural labour force in the less-favoured areas is declining less rapidly than outside them. In England, the labour force on agricultural holdings in non-LFA has declined 1.7 per cent. per annum over the eight years from 1986 to 1994, while the equivalent reduction in the severely disadvantaged areas of the LFA is 1.2 per cent. In the disadvantaged areas, the decline was only 0.8 per cent. Those figures suggest that the Government's policy of providing support for hill livestock farming has been successful.
  Farm incomes in the LFA should be viewed in perspective, and I will compare them with farm incomes in other areas. Two comparisons can easily be drawn. We can compare net farm income in the LFA with that for all types of farm. Incomes from cattle and sheep farms in the LFA are lower than the average incomes of all types of farm. Published figures on UK farm incomes show that, in 1993–94, average net farm income on cattle and sheep farms in the LFA in England was £18,000, whereas the average for all types of farm in England was £23,800.
  But that does not compare like with like; it is more a reflection of the difference between extensive livestock farming and other more profitable types of agriculture, such as dairying or arable. Also, to some extent, the lower income of cattle and sheep farms reflects the fact that they are generally smaller than other types of farm, in terms of scale of enterprise.
  Secondly, we can compare the incomes of cattle and sheep farms in the LFA with such farms in the lowlands. That comparison tells a very different story. In England, the average in the LFA, which, I remind the House was £18,000, compares favourably with net farm income for lowland cattle and sheep farms of only £9,400—barely half. The special subsidies available to LFA farmers helped to maintain that comparative advantage.
  No debate on incomes in the LFA would be complete without some comment on the proposed rates for HLCA in the approaching scheme year, and the hon. Gentleman made a great deal of that. In reaching a decision on the rates, Agriculture Ministers have to take an overall view. This year's public expenditure round was very tough. Against the background of the rising cost of agricultural support on other fronts, and in particular a forecast increase in the level of expenditure on other direct livestock subsidies, to which I referred, rates of payment under the 1996 HLCA scheme were bound to come under severe pressure.
  816
  Farming interests argued in the course of the autumn review that the cuts in HLCA in 1993 and 1994 should be restored in full. That would have cost about £50 million. In the circumstances, it was not possible to agree to such an increase. Indeed, the increase in net farm income forecast in the autumn review simply did not justify such action.
  Not surprisingly, those who argued for an increase concentrated on costs to the sector, especially those resulting from the poor weather conditions, and took no account of the increases in subsidies and market prices, which I think are essential to give a rounded picture. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who made rather a lot of it at the end, that we issued our press release. We believe it to be accurate, we stand by it, and I am in no sense minded to advise the House of any intention to withdraw it.
  Mr. Tyler: I am following carefully what the Minister is saying, but will he acknowledge that the change in the number of ewes that are eligible in the disadvantaged areas results in a cut? It cannot be interpreted in any other way. I ask him to confirm that that was not required by any direction from Brussels.
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that point, as it has caused confusion.
  As I think I have already made clear, the background to the announcement of a reduction in the stocking limit was precautionary, and it enabled us to allow the autumn review, which was reaching its conclusion, to consider the level at which the amount on payments in respect to the ewes in the disadvantaged areas should be fixed. As we have not announced the figures, because we need to await the announcement of the sterling ecu rate on 1 January, the hon. Gentleman's concern, although strongly felt and genuinely intentioned, is somewhat premature.
  In the measures, including the rates that were announced by my right hon. Friend on 28 November, it is clear that the overall aim was to consider the economy in general—notably in respect of maintaining tight control of public expenditure and continuing to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. Those are important parts of our programme and I do not resile from them in any respect.
  Equally, it should not be forgotten that hill farmers, too, stand to benefit from the measures to reduce taxation and to control inflation which were announced in the Budget. Therefore, against the background of a difficult expenditure round, I am pleased that we were able to work hard to maintain the rates of HLCA at 1995 levels, as I have described to the House tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  HMSO (Privatisation)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what consideration the House of Commons Commission has given to the possible safeguards that might be required to protect the future provision of printing services to Parliament in the event of the privatisation of HMSO. [4901]

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: After careful considering of the possible safeguards that might be required to protect the future provision of printing services to Parliament in the event of privatisation of HMSO, the Commission agreed to the following reply which Madam Speaker has sent to the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons:
  You wrote to me on 19 September to notify me of the Government's plan to privatise Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and to ask me what safeguards might be required to enable the House to continue its agreement with HMSO after privatisation. Before sending this reply, I have, as you know, consulted the Finance and Services Committee and my colleagues on the House of Commons Commission. We have also taken the advice of the House officials most directly concerned.
  Although the services of HMSO are important throughout the public sector, they are of particularly vital significance to the House of Commons. Unlike Government Departments and agencies, the House places continuous daily demands on HMSO's printing services whenever it is in session. The timely production of the Order Paper, Hansard, bills and other documents—to very tight timetables and generally overnight—is essential to the transaction of parliamentary business: without the necessary documents, the House and its committees simply could not function.
  Against this background, you will understand that I and my fellow Commissioners have concerns about the possible consequences, both short and long-term, of privatising a public sector organisation which has, in general, given good and reliable service to the House for most of this century. Our principal concerns, and the safeguards which we think necessary to meet them, may be summarised as follows:

  (i) For some time to come the House will continue to be dependent on the Parliamentary Press in South London, with its trained and experienced staff, to ensure the overnight printing of documents to the timetables and standards which we have come to expect. This is a costly facility, and there must be some anxiety that a private sector owner would be tempted to experiment with cheaper methods for providing the service, not appreciating the unpredictability of the House's requirements and the large variations in parliamentary workload that can be experienced from one year (and even one week) to the next. We would therefore be seeking an absolute guarantee that the overnight production facilities in inner London will be retained for as long as the House continues to consider them necessary.

  (ii) Staff of the House (the Editorial Supervisor of the Vote and his team) currently work alongside HMSO employees in the overnight compilation and preparation of the Vote Bundle. We
  454
  would need a guarantee that adequate space and facilities in the Parliamentary Press will continue to be made available to those staff for as long as the House requires.

  (iii) The House's documents and the procedural rules which underpin them, are complex. HMSO staff and management acquire experience and knowledge of those complexities as they progress from job to job in the organisation; and they are brought up in the tradition that in all circumstances the requirements of Parliament are paramount. We are concerned that a private company might seek to economise by employing less experienced staff or by appointing new managers who would not have the same appreciation of the House's needs. We would therefore be looking for an assurance that there will be substantial continuity in the staffing and management of the relevant sections of HMSO after privatisation, and adequate training for any new staff.

  (iv) For similar reasons we seek an assurance of prior consultation with the House before any significant changes are made in the management or organisation of HMSO's directorate of Parliamentary and Statutory Publishing.

  (v) At present, as an Agency, HMSO is under ministerial oversight and a minister is ultimately answerable to the House in the event of a failure in its services. After privatisation, that line of accountability will be broken. The House authorities will be responsible or contracting with the privatised company for the provision of printing and publishing services, but will not be in a position to account directly for a failure on the company's part to meet the requirements of the contract. We therefore think it essential that there should be an identified individual within the privatised Stationery Office who is responsible for the contract with the House and acknowledges an obligation to account to the authorities and committees of the House on all aspects of the service being provided.

  (vi) The House has negotiated, and with the Commission's approval is on the point of concluding, a new Supply and Service Agreement (SSA) with HMSO. This agreement provides for a detailed specification of service standards, delivery schedules and related technical details. These specifications should, at least, maintain existing standards, and no attempt should be made to water them down after privatisation, without agreement with the House authorities.

  (vii) Similarly, we consider that any prospective purchaser of the Stationery Office should be required to accept the agreed principles which are set out in the SSA, particularly so far as they concern the rights of the House to regulate the production and reproduction of its documents, both in paper and electronic form.

  (viii) The first annual financial settlement under the new SSA will come into effect on 1 January 1996. Among other things, it provides for substantial reductions in the sale price of many House publications, including Hansard. This is an objective to which I, and many Members of the House, have attached great importance for some time; and it has been achieved without any significant increase in the payments to be made to HMSO by the House. Further improvements should follow from increasing use of new technology. Any prospective purchaser of HMSO should therefore be required to guarantee that it will not seek any increase (in real terms) in the charges paid by the House or the level of prices to the public above those negotiated for 1996, and that the House will be credited with a proportionate share of future savings arising from technological advances.

  Roger Freeman's press statement on 27 September indicated that the Government's decision to privatise HMSO was conditional on satisfactory arrangements being made for the future provision of services to Parliament. Before deciding whether or not that criterion has been met, the Commission will need to be assured that the safeguards and guarantees which I have outlined in this letter are capable of being enforced, not just in the immediate aftermath of privatisation but over the longer term. In that connection we are particularly concerned at the possibility that an initial purchaser might subsequently wish to break up the business by partial sales. Fragmentation of the organisation, or sale to an overseas buyer,

  455
  could pose serious, and perhaps unacceptable, problems for the House. We would like to know what mechanisms the Government proposes to guard against that possibility.
  Assuming the Commission and the House can be satisfied on these points, it will be necessary to convert the SSA and the new safeguards, together with the service specifications and the settlement on prices and charges, into formal contracts which will take effect on privatisation. This is a complex and exacting task for the small team of House officials involved, and professional and legal support will probably be required. Every effort will be made to progress this work in accordance with the Government's programme for the sale, which I understand is aimed at completion in July next year; but we cannot at this stage be at all confident that it will be possible to resolve all the issues before that deadline. We therefore request that, if it proves to be necessary, the Government's timetable for the sale of HMSO, should be adapted to the progress of preparatory work, rather than the other way round.
  In this letter, I have set out the views of the Commission, which has statutory responsibility for the House's services. But we also agreed that the House as a whole should be given an early opportunity to express its opinion on the Government's proposals. That debate might best be based on a prior ministerial statement. I am therefore copying this letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. A copy goes also to the Lord Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords.

  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee what consideration his Committee has given to the implications for the House of privatisation of HMSO. [5254]

  Mr. Channon
  The Finance and Services Committee considered the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman during its deliberation on a new supply and service agreement with HMSO. The Committee's recommendations have been put before the House of Commons Commission which is giving the matter urgent consideration.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3962]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  (a) This information has not been held centrally, and figures for the years before 1992–93 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. On the best information currently available, for the years 1992 to 1995 the following numbers of external consultants have won contracts, with the total spend on external consultancy as specified:

  1992–3

  1993–4

  1994–5

  Numbers of consultants

  34

  63

  69

  Total spend

  £1.2 million

  £1.4 million

  £1.5 million

  (b) The answer to this question could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the Department.
  456
  (c) Copies of the civil service staff post summary tables from 1990 to 1995 can be found in the House Libraries and numbers of individuals employed by the Department may be found therein.

  The purpose of each individual's employment is to assist the Department to attain its aims and objectives, as set out in the departmental report, which also details the relevant costs.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chechnya
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe mission in Chechnya. [4961]

  Mr. David Davis
  The OSCE assistance group continues to operate in Chechnya. We receive regular reports on its activities from the OSCE. It continues to play a valuable role in promoting a peaceful settlement to the conflict, and has our full support in this work.

  Nagorno-Karabakh
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress on the establishment of a peacekeeping force for Nagorno-Karabakh under OSCE auspices. [4960]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Budapest ministerial conference of the OSCE—7 to 8 December—decided that the signing of a political agreement on cessation of the armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh would enable the OSCE permanent council to take a decision on the establishment of the OSCE peacekeeping operation. The co-chairman of the Minsk group reported to the conference that the parties to the conflict have declared their commitment to continue respecting the ceasefire, and to establish direct contacts to achieve agreement on the principles governing the resolution of the conflict.

  A high-level planning group has produced an initial report on the technical aspects of a peacekeeping operation and will make further recommendations.

  Burma
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline(a) his Department's position in relation to trade with Burma and (b) that of other EU members; and if he will make a statement. [4774]

  Mr. Hanley
  There is no obstacle to United kingdom firms exploring business in Burma not covered by the European Union arms embargo. I set out to the House in some detail on July 19 the Government's policy towards Burma, including trade,Official Report, columns 1638–45.

  We regularly discuss policy towards Burma with our EU partners, but do not have details of their policy on trade.
  457
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has received regarding the use of forced labour in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [4776]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have received representations about human rights abuses in Burma, including the use of forced labour, from a wide variety of sources including Church groups, non-governmental organisations and members of the public.

  Officials have consistently expressed our concern about the use of forced labour in Burma, both in international forums and directly to the ruling military regime, the State Law and Order Restoration Council. We will continue to do so.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance his Department has provided in the last three years to United Kingdom companies interested in trade with Burma, or in operating in Burma; what is the cost of this assistance; and if he will make a statement. [4775]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade today.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many people have been held in detention on St. Helena as a result of allegations of non-payment of debts; how long they were held before their cases were heard in court; and what sentence they received. [4871]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The power of arrest arises only where an alleged debtor is about to leave St. Helena and has failed to furnish security for his appearance before a court. In the one instance during the last five years when the power was exercised, the alleged debtor was held for three hours and five minutes and was released on security being given. No question of sentence arises in such cases.

TRANSPORT

  InterCity
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultations he has had with the Director General of Passenger Rail Franchising in relation to preservation of InterCity services west of Cardiff in the event of a franchise grant to the BR Western Region management and First Bus consortium. [5416]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the franchising director. The franchising director has specified those InterCity services west of Cardiff which, in his opinion, needed to be protected in the Great Western passenger service requirement. The franchise operator will be contractually obliged to provide these services. InterCity services west of Cardiff are also provided by Cross Country and will be included in the PSR for that franchise when it is developed in due course.

  Railways
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to revise the objectives, instructions and guidance issued to the franchising director under section 5 of the Railways Act 1993. [5434]

  Sir George Young
  I am today writing to the franchising director amplifying his instructions in relation to risk sharing in franchise agreements, the funding of services in passenger transport executive areas and the provision of concessionary travel for railway employees. I am placing a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Tourism Signposting
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for liberalising tourism signposting. [5656]

  Mr. Watts
  We shall be laying a statutory instrument tomorrow to amend the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 as they apply in England, Wales and Scotland.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 21 November,Official Report, column 454, if he will make it his policy to review past legislation in respect of additional burdens imposed by regulations implementing European directives. [5075]

  Mr. Watts
  It is the policy in my Department to ensure that we do not gold-plate European directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the United Kingdom. We will take every opportunity to look at existing legislation in light of this policy.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To as the Secretary of State for Transport what are the reasons for the difference between the figures for the effects of privatisation on the national railways' external financial limits in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 in his Department's press notice No. 380 of 28 November and by the equivalent figures in table 2 of "Transport Report 1995"; and if he will provide an equivalent figure for 1998–99. [5194]

  Mr. Watts
  The figures for the effects of privatisation given in both publications referred to are the same, except in 1996–97 where rounding in the press notice to the nearest £10 million accounts for the small difference between the figures. A figure for 1998–99 is not yet available.

  A419
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To as the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the award of the contracts for the A419 Latton bypass and the A417 Cirencester/Stratton bypass. [4838]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.
  459
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 11 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, when he expects to announce the award of the contracts for the A419 Latton Bypass and the A417 Cirencester/Stratton Bypass.
  As announced in Managing the Roads Programme published on 28 November, we have shortlisted bidders for the first four Design, Build, Finance and Operate (DBFO) projects, one of which embraces the Latton and Cirencester/Stratton Bypass schemes. Negotiations are continuing and we now expect to announce the award of the DBFO contract in the new year.

  M1 (Fatal Accidents)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) non-fatal and (b) fatal accidents took place at each junction section of the M1 from London up to

  Accidents 1992

  Accidents 1993

  Accidents 1994

  Junction section

  Daylight

  Darkness

  Fatal

  Non fatal

  Daylight

  Darkness

  Fatal

  Non fatal

  Daylight

  Darkness

  Fatal

  Non fatal

  Junction 1–2

  6

  5

  0

  11

  4

  2

  0

  6

  6

  1

  0

  7

  Junction 2–3

  11

  6

  0

  17

  5

  3

  0

  18

  6

  3

  0

  11

  Junction 3–4

  9

  4

  0

  13

  8

  6

  1

  13

  11

  5

  1

  15

  Junction 4–5

  21

  16

  1

  36

  14

  5

  0

  19

  11

  5

  0

  16

  Junction 5–6

  9

  2

  0

  11

  9

  4

  0

  13

  18

  6

  2

  22

  Junction 6–6a

  2

  1

  0

  3

  3

  2

  0

  5

  5

  0

  0

  5

  Junction 6a–7

  14

  9

  0

  23

  29

  7

  1

  35

  22

  12

  2

  32

  Junction 7–8

  9

  3

  0

  12

  7

  4

  0

  11

  6

  2

  0

  8

  Junction 8–9

  45

  13

  2

  56

  41

  18

  3

  56

  52

  18

  2

  68

  Junction 9–10

  25

  5

  0

  30

  57

  6

  2

  61

  18

  9

  1

  26

  Junction 10–11

  21

  5

  2

  24

  13

  4

  0

  17

  12

  7

  1

  18

  Junction 11–12

  24

  12

  0

  36

  20

  9

  1

  28

  15

  5

  0

  20

  Junction 12–13

  19

  10

  3

  26

  16

  10

  0

  28

  18

  10

  1

  25

  Junction 13–14

  21

  10

  0

  31

  19

  3

  0

  22

  15

  4

  0

  19

  Junction 14–15

  19

  15

  3

  31

  18

  8

  1

  25

  18

  14

  0

  32

  Junction 15–15a

  12

  4

  0

  16

  11

  0

  1

  10

  10

  4

  0

  14

  Junction 15a–16

  5

  2

  0

  7

  8

  1

  1

  8

  10

  3

  0

  13

  Junction 16–17

  26

  12

  0

  38

  38

  10

  1

  47

  31

  17

  2

  46

  Junction 17–18

  5

  4

  0

  9

  5

  2

  0

  7

  2

  5

  0

  7

  Junction 18–19

  10

  8

  0

  18

  18

  18

  0

  36

  10

  3

  0

  13

  Junction 19–20

  6

  0

  0

  6

  6

  4

  0

  10

  5

  3

  0

  8

  Junction 20–21

  13

  9

  2

  20

  18

  6

  1

  23

  13

  8

  0

  21

  Junction 21–22

  13

  5

  0

  18

  31

  7

  2

  36

  13

  11

  0

  24

  Junction 22–23

  8

  4

  1

  11

  14

  4

  0

  18

  18

  7

  1

  24

  Junction 23–23a

  5

  5

  1

  9

  4

  5

  0

  9

  7

  3

  0

  10

  Junction 23a–24

  7

  5

  1

  11

  2

  2

  0

  4

  4

  3

  0

  7

  460
  how many took place (a) in daylight and (b) in darkness; and if he will make a statement. [3200]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Irvine Patnick, dated 11 December 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, how many (a) non-fatal and (b) fatal accidents took place at each junction section of the M1 from London up to Junction 29 for each of the last three years; how many took place (a) in daylight and (b) in darkness; and if he will make a statement.
  The Highways Agency is committed to contributing to the Government's target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000 when compared with the average for the UK between 1981 and 1985. Although motorway traffic doubled between that baseline and 1994, casualty numbers increased by 73%, while the number of fatalities fell by 30%. The overall accident rate on motorways reduced from 0.13 to 0.11 personal injury accidents per million vehicle kilometres.
  The information you require is shown on the attached table.
  461

  Accidents 1992

  Accidents 1993

  Accidents 1994

  Junction section

  Daylight

  Darkness

  Fatal

  Non fatal

  Daylight

  Darkness

  Fatal

  Non fatal

  Daylight

  Darkness

  Fatal

  Non fatal

  24–25

  7

  3

  0

  10

  11

  4

  1

  14

  13

  4

  0

  17

  Junction 25–26

  13

  6

  2

  17

  16

  5

  0

  21

  22

  11

  0

  33

  Junction 26–27

  11

  4

  0

  15

  17

  9

  0

  26

  14

  4

  0

  18

  Junction 27–28

  12

  4

  0

  16

  12

  9

  1

  20

  11

  4

  0

  15

  Junction 28–29

  28

  6

  2

  32

  44

  9

  1

  52

  40

  12

  0

  52

  Rail Franchising
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) at what point in the franchising process a comparison of the costs of the preferred bidders against those of British Rail is to be considered for each of the first three train operating companies; [4974]

  (2) if he will publish the comparative costs of services under (a) the preferred bidder and (b) British Rail for the first three train operating companies to be franchised; [4931]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the costs using the preferred bidder for each of the first three train operating companies, relative to the costs of continuing the service under British Rail. [4973]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: Until franchise negotiations are complete information about the preferred bids is commercially confidential. The franchising director will award franchises to the bidders that offer the best overall value for money in terms of services for passengers and costs to taxpayers. He makes comparisons of the costs of preferred bidders against those of British Rail throughout the bidding process as these are an essential component of his value-for-money judgement.

  For the funding of the British Rail train operating companies in 1995–96, I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 13 July to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), Official Report, column 706. I will write to the hon. Member shortly on the level of support appropriate to each train operating company that has been agreed between the franchising director and the British Railways Board, and will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  The franchising director expects to publish subsidy figures for the first three franchisees in the franchising director's register in due course; although, under section 73 of the Railways Act 1993, information may be withheld at the discretion of the Secretary of State or the franchising director if disclosure would be against the public interest or the commercial interests of franchisees.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Regional Challenge
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make an announcement of successful regional challenge projects, and if he will make a statement. [5468]
  462
  Mr. Eggar
  I am today announcing the successful regional challenge projects in England which will receive grant totalling £140 million towards projects costing almost £800 million.

  Regional challenge is designed to enhance local partnerships, stimulate innovative local development and maximise the contribution of the private sector. The projects announced today will bring a new dynamism and efficiency to local economies across England. Local firms will play a major role in projects ranging from industrial and transport infrastructure, tourism, research and development and environmental improvement to training and job creation.

  I am particularly encouraged by the wide range of local bodies that have been involved in the development of regional challenge projects. The competition has encouraged the far greater involvement of the private sector. This involvement is clearly reflected in its contributions to projects which account for almost half the total costs of the winning projects, and have added considerably to quality and value for money. The value of the dialogue between the public and private sectors about what is needed in local communities is shown by the type of projects that have been put forward.

  Regional challenge projects are typically larger in scale, more comprehensive in their effect, and better address the specific needs of local communities. This culture of co-operation will benefit not only today's winners. I hope that, as with previous competitions, many of the partnerships brought together by regional challenge will go ahead with part or all of their projects, even though they are not winners, thus spreading the benefits of the challenge even wider.

  A list of winning projects is set out:

  1 Lairdside (Birkenhead)

  2 New Media Factory (Liverpool)

  3 Eurogateway (Bootle)

  4 Cornwall and Devon tourism development

  5 Rural area training and information opportunities (Cornwall and Devon)

  6 Swaffham eco-tech centre

  7 Action to support planning investment for regeneration and enterprise

  8 Networking Business and the community (Hereford and Worcester, Shropshire)

  9 Whitby beacon

  10 Hills of the North (Cumbria)

  11 Lincolnshire access network

  12 Adams Building (Nottingham)

  463

  13 Pumping life back into the Coalfield community (Broughton)

  14 The Great Northern and Lowly Project (Manchester and Salford)

  15 China Gateway North West (Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire)

  16 North West Business Excellence Initiative (Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire)

  17 Integrated Waste Management (Sheffield)

  18 Technology Challenge (Yorkshire and Humberside)

  19 Earth Centre (Dearne Valley)

  20 The year of the electronic Image (Yorkshire and Humberside)

  21 South Humber Bank Industrial and Technological Regeneration (Cleethorpes)

  22 European centre for advanced industries (North Shields)

  23 Teeside Innovation Partnership (Teeside)

  24 Raising Regional competitiveness (Tyne and Wear, Northumberland, Co. Durham and Cleveland)

  25 International centre for life (Newcastle)

  26 Trent Challenge (Rugely and Armitage with Hansacre)

  27 Renaissance Canal (area wide)

  28 Creating a World Class Supplier Base (Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley)

  29 Starting with a competitive advantage (Coventry)

  30 Digital City of Stoke on Trent (Stoke on Trent)

  31 West Midlands Interactive Technology Centre (Coalbrookdale, Telford)

  32 East London and Lee Valley Teleregion

  33 Manufacturing—a new future for East London (Tower Hamlets)

  34 Robin Hood Regeneration Corridor.

  Burma
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department has provided in the last three years to United Kingdom companies interested in trading with Burma, or doing business there; what is the cost of this assistance; and if he will make a statement. [4769]

  Mr. Nelson
  Over the last three years, no financial assistance has been given to United Kingdom companies interested in trading with Burma. Our assistance has been limited to providing advice and information concerning the commercial, economic and political developments in the country via officials both in Rangoon and London. The cost of this assistance is not held on a central database and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Government's policy towards Burma, including trade, was fully set out in the speech by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), on 19 July 1995, Official Report, columns 1641–45. There is no obstacle to UK firms exploring business in Burma not covered by the European Union embargo.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations his Department has received regarding the use of forced labour in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [4772]

  Mr. Nelson
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, today.
  464
  The Government's policy towards Burma, including trade, was fully set out in the speech by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 19 July 1995, Official Report, columns 1641–45. There is no obstacle to UK firms exploring business in Burma not covered by the European Union embargo.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance was offered by his Department to(a) the South of England Exports Association British trade mission to Singapore and Brunei, with the option to visit Myanmar, which took place on 4 to 12 November and (b) the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry seminar "An Introduction to Burma", which took place on 5 December; what was the cost of this assistance in each case; and if he will make a statement. [4770]

  Mr. Nelson
  (a) The DTI travel grant for Singapore and Brunei is £666 per eligible company. The South of England Exports Association was not offered any financial assistance to visit Burma and would have undertaken this leg of its planned visit as an unsupported option. In the event, the mission was cancelled due to lack of support.

  (b) Delegates who attended the trade awareness seminar "An Introduction to Burma" at the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry—LCCI—on 5 December were charged a fee of £60 for non-LCCI members and £45 for members, including VAT. An exact breakdown of the costs incurred is not available so soon after the event, but we expect to recoup the costs from the amount taken in attendance fees.

  The Government's policy towards Burma, including trade, was fully set out in the speech by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 19 July, Official Report, columns 1641–45. There is no obstacle to UK firms exploring business in Burma not covered by the European Union embargo.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in relation to(a) trade with Burma, and (b) United Kingdom companies operating in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [4768]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's policy towards Burma, including trade, was fully set out in the speech by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 19 July,Official Report, columns 1641–45. There is no obstacle to UK firms exploring business in Burma not covered by the European Union embargo.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans his Department has to organise a trade mission to Burma in 1996; what assistance will be offered to United Kingdom companies attending; and if he will make a statement. [4771]

  Mr. Nelson
  We propose to organise a trade mission to Burma next February and will be providing financial assistance to a maximum of 20 eligible United Kingdom companies, in the form of a travel grant of £1,000, towards the cost of the visit.

  The Government's policy towards Burma, including trade, was full set out in the speech by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 19 July,

  465
  Official Report, columns 1641–45. There is no obstacle to UK firms exploring business in Burma not covered by the European Union embargo.

  Nuclear Site Licensing
  Mr. Home Roberston
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct the Health and Safety Executive to send its consultation documents on changes to nuclear site licences arising from the privatisation of the nuclear industry to hon. Members with nuclear power stations in their constituencies; and if he will extend the consultation period. [4872]

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for the Health and Safety Executive, as the independent regulator of the nuclear industry, to specify those public bodies to whom applicants must provide details of licence applications and to decide on whether or not to extend the statutory consultation period.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to regulate firms providing grant information to small firms. [5256]

  Mr. Page
  There are no plans to regulate such businesses.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action his Department is taking to promote the use of renewable sources of energy in the business community. [4711]

  Mr. Page
  The Government are stimulating the development of new and renewable energy sources and industrial and market infrastructure through a market enablement strategy. The strategy was published as "Energy Paper 62" in March 1994. The strategy's principal measure involves stimulating an initial market for electricity-producing technologies close to commercial competitiveness via renewables orders made under the non-fossil fuel obligation—NFFO.

  As I announced in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on 2 November 1995, Official Report, columns 441–42, the proposals for a fourth NFFO order for England and Wales for a further 400 to 500 MW of contracts for renewables-generated electricity.

  Other measures are aimed at assessing and developing technology options in collaboration with industry, ensuring that the market is fully informed, removing inappropriate market barriers and encouraging international competitive industries to develop.

  Specific actions under the new and renewable energy programme to date have included support for 11 studies undertaken with regional electricity companies and local authorities which identify the local availability of renewable resources; work with the financial community to promote the availability of suitable investment funds; and support for studies aimed at evaluating the prospects for retail sales of renewable electricity. Another measure funded under the DTI's new and renewable energy programme is the energy design advice scheme—EDAS—which aims to improve the energy and
  466
  environmental performance of the building stock in both commercial and residential sectors, through the provision of specialised low-energy building expertise to building designers and their clients.

  My Department also publishes, through the energy technology support unit, a wide range of literature on renewable energy and operates an inquiries bureau for businesses, local authorities and the general public.

  The Government intend to work, through the NFFO and taking account of those factors which influence business competitiveness, towards a figure of 1500 MW DNC of new electricity generating capacity from renewable energy sources for the United Kingdom as a whole by 2000.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Government-funded research projects are currently engaged on the development of renewable sources of energy. [4712]

  Mr. Page
  My Department is currently supporting 358 research projects under the new and renewable energy programme.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposal the United Kingdom intends to put to the EU Energy Council in Brussels on 14 December on ways to alleviate fuel poverty within the framework of the draft EU White Paper on energy policy. [4946]

  Mr. Page
  The EU White Paper on energy policy will be presented by the Commission for the first time at the Energy Council on 14 December. Therefore the United Kingdom will not be in a position to make any proposals within its framework until its contents have been thoroughly considered.

  British Coal Pumping Stations
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the British Coal pumping stations which closed between 1965 and privatisation in the City of Durham constituency; and which closures after that date have been notified to his Department [5130]

  Mr. Page
  The first part of the hon. Member's question is a matter for the British Coal Corporation and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member. I understand from the Coal Authority that the nine pumping stations in County Durham transferred to the authority on 31 October 1994 are all still being operated. There was and is no requirement for my Department to be notified in such cases.

  London Electricity
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance is being provided from public funds to London Electricity to transfer its customer operations functions out of London. [4786]

  Mr. Page
  I understand that London Electricity is transferring part of its customer operations functions to Doxford park in the Sunderland enterprise zone. As with any other company moving into an enterprise zone, the company will be eligible for capital allowances, and be exempt from the national non-domestic rate for the
  467
  remainder of the life of the enterprise zone. No direct grants are being made to London Electricity from central Government.

  Business Link Services Guide
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what definition of the personal business adviser service has been drawn up by the small firms and business link division; and if he will publish the guidelines that have been issued on the service. [4825]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: A detailed definition of the business link personal business adviser service, including a model job description, is included in the "Business Link Services Guide", section C 25–36, which was published on 31 October 1995.

  A copy of the services guide is available in the Library of the House.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4268]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 December 1995]: There have been no recorded incidents of Minister's mobile telephones being cloned within the last 18 months or prior to that period. Ministers in my Department are issued with digital mobile telephones which are inherently more difficult to clone than their analogue counterparts.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery (Under-age Purchasing)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what steps she is taking to eliminate the sale of national lottery tickets to under-age children. [4719]

  Mr. Sproat
  Last week I welcomed the announcement made by the Director General of the National Lottery, who is responsible for regulatory matters, about the new action designed to stamp out under-age lottery sales. I am also holding discussions with the police, the Home Office and other parties about the enforcement of the law governing the sale of tickets to under-16-year-olds.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to her circular letter to Members about the national lottery dated 10 November, reference C95/10129, if she will place in the Library(a) on paper and (b) on computer disk in a spreadsheet format compatible with the Library's computer information about
  468
  each of the awards made from the good causes fund to date indicating in each case (i) the nature of the activity supported, (ii) the amount of money granted, (iii) the distributing body making the award and (iv) the parliamentary constituency in which the recipient body's headquarters is based. [4537]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department already produces a monthly report of the distribution of lottery proceeds. Included in this report are financial details of the awards made each month and the total since the lottery began, for each distributor and by region of the United Kingdom. Copies of this report are placed in the Libraries of the House.

SCOTLAND

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 21 November,Official Report, column 454, if he will make it his policy to review past legislation in respect of additional burdens imposed by regulations implementing European directives. [5071]

  Mr. Kynoch
  It is the policy in the Scottish Office to ensure that we do not gold-plate European directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the United Kingdom. We will take every opportunity to look at existing legislation in light of this policy.

  Nuclear Site Licensing
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Health and Safety Executive to send its consultation documents on changes to nuclear site licences arising from the privatisation of the nuclear industry to hon. Members with nuclear power stations in their constituencies; and if he will extend the consultation period. [4992]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who are the chairman, chief executive and members of each of the new water authorities; and what are their correspondence addresses. [4456]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: The names of each of the chairmen, chief executives and members of the new water authorities and their correspondence addresses are as follows:
  North of Scotland Water Authority—Mr. J. Robertson (Chairman), Mr. A. Findlay (Chief Executive), Mr. D. Addly, Councillor R. Bissett, Councillor J. Easten, Councillor N. Graham, Mr. A. Lewis, Mr. A. MacCallum, Councillor O. Macdonald, Mr. N. McAndrew, Councillor D. Nicholson, Mr. D. Paton. Correspondence should be addressed to: North of Scotland Water Authority, Caledonia House, 63 Academy Street, Inverness, IVI 1LU.

  469
  East of Scotland Water Authority—Dr. I. Preston (Chairman), Mr. R. Rennet (Chief Executive), Mr. D. Barlow, Mr. R. Bell, Councillor I. Berry, Councillor Ian Galloway, Councillor A. Dickson, Councillor T. Kerr, Councillor P. McCafferty, Mr. H. O'Hanlon, Sir Francis McWilliams, Mr. R. Summers. Correspondence should be addressed to: East of Scotland Water Authority, 27 Perth Street, Edinburgh, EH3 5RB.
  West of Scotland Water Authority—Mr. J. Jameson (Chairman), Mr. E. Chambers (Chief Executive, Mr. N. Berry, Councillor M. Bryson, Sir Robert Easton, Mr. J. Goodwin, Mr. D. Gray, Mr. P. Kennedy, Councillor W. Petrie, Councillor R. Reid, Provost L. Rosin, Councillor I. Young. Correspondence should be addressed to: West of Scotland Water Authority, 419 Balmore Road Glasgow, G22 6NU.

  Departmental Inquiry Line
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of the calls made to the Scottish Office inquiry line since its establishment were on matters on which his Department(a) was competent and (b) not competent to deal with. [4452]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: This information is not recorded but the inquiry officers consider that the majority of calls relate to matters for which the Scottish Office is responsible.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement indicating for each calendar month since its establishment the number of calls made to the Scottish Office inquiry line and how many of these calls have been(a) interactive and (b) non-interactive. [4434]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: The numbers of calls received are:

  Year

  Number

  1993

  October

  797

  November

  835

  December

  357

  1994

  January

  211

  February

  239

  March

  199

  April

  220

  May

  308

  June

  315

  July

  305

  August

  341

  September

  334

  October

  372

  November

  396

  December

  354

  1995

  January

  276

  February

  346

  March

  348

  April

  317

  May

  257

  June

  159

  July

  199

  August

  276

  September

  343

  October

  293

  November

  1337

  1 To 24 November.

  Information on types of calls is not recorded.
  470
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much in total it has cost his Department to establish, publicise and operate the Scottish Office inquiry line; and what are the annual costs of this service. [4451]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Scotland on 18 April 1995, Official Report, columns 79–80.

  Fisheries Research Vessel
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the signing of a contract for the construction of a fisheries research vessel; and if he will make a statement. [4555]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 7 December 1995]: I still expect to reach a decision on the tenders by 31 December 1995. I shall notify the hon. Member of my decision.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  International Development Association
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in relation to the replenishment of IDA11. [3310]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are working to ensure a satisfactory outcome to the negotiations on the 11th replenishment of the International Development Association and to enhance IDA's effectiveness by strengthening its focus on poverty reduction, sound economic management and sustainable development.

  International Labour Migration
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effect of United Kingdom bilateral aid on international labour migration. [3317]

  Mr. Hanley
  The effects of United Kingdom bilateral aid cannot be assessed separately from other factors affecting international labour migration. ODA seeks to help people in aid recipient countries to improve their lives, but accepts that any influence on their decisions to migrate will be modest.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place and with whom as to medical and food aid to Sri Lanka during the present conflict. [3314]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are in frequent contact with the Government of Sri Lanka and relief agencies about the provision of emergency assistance, including medical and food aid needs, to those affected by the present conflict in the north.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nuclear Materials (Exports)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister what changes have been made in the guideline for the export of nuclear materials, equipment and technology by the United Kingdom beyond the measures set out in his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 13 January 1993,Official Report, column 745. [5393]

  The Prime Minister
  The guidelines for the export of nuclear materials, equipment, and technology by the United Kingdom remain the same with one exception. The guidelines of the nuclear suppliers' group, of which the UK is a member, will, in exceptional cases, allow such exports to non-nuclear weapon states without full scope safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Authority, where they are deemed essential to the safe operation of existing facilities and if IAEA safeguards are applied to these facilities.

  The NSG has also adopted guidelines for the transfer of nuclear-related dual-use material, equipment and technology. These exports are considered on a case-by-case basis.

  Departmental Transfers
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received concerning the transfer of(a) personnel and (b) responsibilities from Government Departments to Scotland; and what plans he has to make such a transfer. [5096]

  The Prime Minister
  I am not aware of any recent representations on this topic. My right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State 472
  for Scotland have, however, recently received representations from Grampian regional council and the City of Aberdeen district council about the scope for transferring to Aberdeen additional jobs in the Department of Trade and Industry's oil and gas division. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy will be meeting representatives of the councils shortly to discuss this issue.

  Princess of Wales
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to hold consultations with other Prime Ministers of those countries where Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State about the future role and duties of the Princess of Wales. [4867]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future role and duties of the Princess of Wales. [4841]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to the statement I made on 9 December 1992,Official Report, column 845.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken following the disclosure of normally confidential information to the media of information concerning the application by Mr. Abiodum Igbindu, for political asylum in the United Kingdom. [4853]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) on 5 December, Official Report, column 136.

DEFENCE

  Royal Dockyards (Privatisation)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total cost to date of consultancy payments made to firms in relation to work carried out to develop his Department's plans for the privatisation of(a) Devonport royal dockyard and (b) Rosyth royal dockyard. [5363]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  During the period between 18 October 1993, when my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence announced our policy towards the future management of the royal dockyards,Official Report, 18 October 1993, columns 39–41, and 30 November 1995, expenditure charged to defence votes in respect of consultancy advice given in relation to the proposed privatisation of the dockyards amounted to some £8.4 million, including VAT. Further costs have been incurred, but final details will not be available until invoices have been presented and payments agreed. Costs attributable to one dockyard or the other cannot be separately identified.

  Army Officers (Business Appointments)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by name, rank and service the former serving officers of the armed forces who(a) have applied under the business appointments procedure and (b) have had their application refused. [5323]

  Mr. Soames
  During the last two years, the following applications under the business appointments procedure were made by officers who had retired from the armed forces:

  Number

  Admiral of the Fleet

  3

  Vice Admiral

  2

  Rear Admiral

  9

  Captain

  3

  Commander

  3

  Lieutenant Commander

  8

  Major General

  20

  Brigadier

  2

  Colonel

  4

  Lieutenant Colonel

  4

  Major

  1

  Captain

  1

  Marshal of the RAF

  1

  Air Chief Marshal

  1

  Air Marshal

  4

  Air Vice-Marshal

  2

  Air Commodore

  1

  Group Captain

  3

  Wing Commander

  2

  Squadron Leader

  6

  None of the applications was refused: restrictions were imposed on nine applications. It is not our practice to disclose the names of the officers concerned.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 November,Official Report, column 349, how the business appointments policy for former serving officers of the armed services is enforced; and what sanctions may be imposed. [5322]
  474
  Mr. Soames
  Business appointment applications are approved unconditionally or subject to a waiting period of up to two years from the applicant's last day in Crown service, or to a condition banning the applicant from involvement in a particular project or area of work for up to two years. Where a condition is imposed, both the applicant and prospective employer are informed in writing of the nature of the condition.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sites of special scientific interest on his Ministry's land have been de-listed in each of the last five years. [4726]

  Mr. Soames
  The Ministry of Defence owns or occupies over 200 sites of special scientific interest. Available records do not show any such sites as having been de-listed in the last five years.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many instances of aircraft using reheat have been recorded by RAF police conducting covert monitoring of low flying in each year since 1990. [4486]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft movements have been observed by RAF police conducting covert monitoring of low flying in each year since 1990. [4487]

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of aircraft observed by the RAF police while conducting covert monitoring, including deployments with the Skyguard radar system, of military low flying in each year since 1990 are as follows:

  1990: 461

  1991: 780

  1992: 850

  1993: 788

  1994: 265

  19951: 236.

  1 To 30th November 1995.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints from the public his Department has received arising from low-level flying in each of the last five years. [4730]

  Mr. Soames
  The numbers of complaints and inquiries about military low flying received by my Department in each of the last five years are as follows:

  1991: 4,846

  1992: 6,295

  1993: 5,738

  1994: 5,778

  1995: 16,492.

  1 Up to 30 November 1995.

  "The Nemesis File"
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the alleged Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers non-commissioned officer(a) required and (b) sought the

  475
  permission of the Ministry of Defence before publishing "The Nemesis File". [4863]

  Mr. Soames
  Serving and former members of the armed forces are required to seek authorisation from the Ministry of Defence before publishing information gained during their service. "The Nemesis File" was not submitted.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many widows have received pensions under the special provisions for pre-1950 widows; and how much has been expended on these pensions in total. [4869]

  Mr. Soames
  Information on the number of former pensioners and total costs of the pensions paid to them is not available.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many widows are currently receiving a pre-1950 widow's pension; and at what rates these are currently being paid. [4870]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of widows currently receiving a pre-1950 widow's pension could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The current rates of special widow's pension, dependent on rank of the service man, are £12.39 to £22.19 a week. The pension is subject to the same index-linking arrangements as other public service pensions.

  Tain Bombing Range
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence following the recent noise evaluation survey of properties in the vicinity of Tain bombing range, Ross-shire, if he will(a) publish the objective criteria upon which he decides subsequent eligibility for compensation and (b) provide a detailed breakdown of the findings involved; and if he will make a statement. [5016]

  Mr. Soames
  Under the terms of the Ministry of Defence noise insulation grant scheme, which was introduced in 1985, owners of properties severely affected by military aircraft noise are eligible for grants to cover the cost of installing noise insulation in bedrooms and up to two living rooms. Eligibility is limited to properties subject to a noise level of 70 decibels averaged over a 16-hour day. The environmental noise survey undertaken at RAF Tain air weapons range in August 1995 showed that, as a result of strictly enforced aircraft circuit patterns and an overall reduction in the number of aircraft movements, no local properties are now subject to noise in excess of the 70 decibel threshold. The noise survey report was made available to the Ross and Cromarty district council on 16 November and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Military Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to make available to the relatives of service or civilian personnel killed in military aircraft accidents the full text of the board of inquiry report into the accident. [5173]
  476
  Mr. Soames
  Since December 1992, in recognition of the special position of next of kin, service board of inquiry reports have been made available to the nominated next of kin of deceased service—and associated civilian—personnel, should they so request, subject only to the essential minimum of security requirements.

  Boarding School Allowance
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will publish a list of schools on the admissible schools list; [4624]

  (2) if he will list the schools receiving funds from the boarding school allowance indicating the numbers of pupils at each school benefiting from the scheme. [4625]

  Mr. Soames
  A list of some 800 schools in respect of which boarding school allowance may be paid is kept by my Department. I am arranging for a copy of the most recent admissible schools list—June 1995—to be placed in the Library of the House. The list details the number of service children attending each school at the end of the summer term 1995 and whose parents claimed boarding school allowance.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pupils have benefitted from the boarding school allowance in each of the past four years. [4626]

  Mr. Soames
  The total average number of children for whom boarding school allowance was claimed in the academic years in question was:

  1991–1992: 16,208

  1992–1993: 15,120

  1993–1994:,12,567

  1994–1995: 11,363.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many pupils, and at what cost, are funded at the Quantock school, Taunton by the boarding school allowance. [4628]

  Mr. Soames
  The total number of service children attending Quantock school, Taunton, and whose parents have claimed boarding school allowance for the autumn term 1995, is 38. The total estimated cost to my Department for this provision is £81,969.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the annual cost of the boarding school allowance in each of the last four years. [4627]

  Mr. Soames
  The total cost to my Department of boarding school allowance for the years in question was:

  1991–1992: £115.35 million

  1992–1993: £116.72 million

  1993–1994: £113.61 million

  1994–1995: £107.23 million.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment the Service Children's Education Authority has made of the suitability of the Quantock school, Taunton to remain on the list of admissible schools. [4629]

  Mr. Soames
  SCEA conducts an on-going assessment of the quality of pastoral care at schools on the Ministry of Defence admissible schools list. As part of that process,
  477
  an informal visit to Quantock school, Taunton was carried out in June 1995. A number of reservations were expressed concerning the quality of pastoral care available and, as a result, the suitability of Quantock school to remain on the MOD admissible schools list is being reviewed.

  Northern Ireland (Troops)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of British forces currently stationed in Northern Ireland; what the figure was in August in each year since 1993; and what plans there are to withdraw British forces from Northern Ireland during the coming year. [4611]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently some 16,500 members of the armed forces stationed in Northern Ireland. This figure includes Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel as well as nine general service infantry battalions and six home service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment. In both August 1993 and August 1994 the equivalent figure was approximately 19,000; by August 1995 this had fallen to approximately 17,500.

  Force levels in Northern Ireland are kept continually under review. Since the terrorist ceasefires in 1994 three major units deployed in the infantry role have been relocated from Northern Ireland to bases elsewhere. Future measure of this kind will depend on the security situation.

  Redirected Mail
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy with regard to forwarding the mail for members of the armed services serving abroad who have moved home. [4810]

  Mr. Soames
  The redirection of mail between British Forces Post Office addresses, whether in the United Kingdom or overseas, is a unit responsibility and no charges are made to customers for this service.

  Redirection from a UK civil address to a BFPO address is handled under normal post office arrangements for which a charge is made. The charge is, however, set at the inland rate irrespective of the location of the BFPO.

  Redirected mail from a civil UK address to an overseas civil address would be undertaken by the Post Office and its normal charges for this service would apply.

  Equipment Reliability
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost to his Department each year of inadequate reliability and maintainability of defence equipment. [5361]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Ministry of Defence aims to maximise reliability and maintainability to the extent that this is cost-effective. Earlier and more systematic attention is paid to the R and M, and demonstrated achievement of R and M requirements is linked to contract payments. This approach has helped MOD achieve significance improvements compared with earlier generations of equipment, thereby saving costs and 478
  enhancing operational effectiveness. It is not possible to quantify the total yearly savings resulting from this R and M initiative.

  Gulf Veterans Medical Assessment Programme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relocation of the Gulf veterans medical assessment programme following the forthcoming closure of RAF Wroughton. [5315]

  Mr. Soames
  The Gulf war medical assessment programme is currently being relocated to the central medical establishment, Kelvin house, 32–34 Cleveland street, London W1P 6AU. The physical move will take place during the next week, and routine appointments will be available in January, after a necessary period of adjustment to re-establish the programme's facilities.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to his Department of the Gulf veterans medical assessment programme to date. [5317]

  Mr. Soames
  The assessments are funded from within my Department's normal secondary care programme and cannot be identified separately.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical tests were made on examinees under the Gulf veterans medical assessment programme. [5318]

  Mr. Soames
  All tests offered to individuals coming forward for assessment are tailored to the particular requirements of each patient after considering the medical and occupational history, the reported symptoms and clinical signs found on detailed initial examination. Possible tests include: a full blood assay, urinalysis, X-Ray, or CT/MRI scan, electrocardiograph, endoscopy and vitalograph studies. Further tests or referrals are available when required.

  Aircraft Training (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the(a) total Royal Air Force training hours, (b) total NATO training hours and (c) total non-RAF and non-NATO training hours flown over Scotland in the past 12 months. [4981]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Service Costs
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost per service person, including equipment, land, buildings, training and personnel expenditure for the(a) Army, (b) Royal Navy, (c) Royal Marines and (d) Royal Air Force. [4984]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: This information is not available in the form requested.

  Service Housing Stock
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of Stae for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact on the housing market of his plans to sell off his Department's service housing stock. [4977]
  479
  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: The large majority of the properties transferred will initially be rented back by MOD to meet service accommodation needs. Our proposal will conduce to a more efficient release of surplus properties by MOD over time. Whether those empty properties are then sold, re-let or redeveloped will be a matter for the future owner of the stock, who will no doubt have regard to market demand at the time.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Cleveland. [3562]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: The following empty dwellings are owned by my Department in each parliamentary constituency in Cleveland:

  Hartlepool: 3

  Langbaurgh: 1.

  All four of these dwellings have been unoccupied for more than six months and are in the process of being sold.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Essex. [3554]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: The following empty dwellings are owned by my Department in each parliamentary constituency in Essex:

  Number

  Braintree

  109

  Chelmsford

  1

  Southend East

  13

  South Colchester and Malden

  228

  Seven of the properties in Southend, East, 34 properties in South Colchester and Malden and the one vacant in Chelmsford are all in the process of being sold. Information on properties unoccupied for six months or more is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Cheshire. [3555]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: The following empty dwellings are owned by my Department in each parliamentary constituency in Cheshire:

  City of Chester: 31

  Tatton: 4

  Warrington South: 24.

  All the vacant properties in Tatton and seven of those in the city of Chester are in the process of being sold. Information on properties unoccupied for six months or more is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwelling owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been
  480
  unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Bedfordshire. [3556]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: The following empty dwellings are owned by my Department in each parliamentary constituency in Bedfordshire:

  Mid Bedfordshire: 55

  South-West Bedfordshire: 54.

  Of the vacant properties in South-West Bedfordshire, 35 are in the process of being sold. Information on properties unoccupied for six months or more is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Greater Manchester. [3558]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: The following empty dwelling are owned by my Department in each parliamentary constituency in Great Manchester:

  Ashton-under-Lyne: 4

  Bury South: 7

  Heywood and Middleton: 1

  Manchester Withington: 1

  Manchester Wythenshawe: 9

  Stretford: 3.

  One of the vacant properties in Ashton-under-Lyne and all in Manchester, Wythenshawe and Stretford are in the process of being sold. Information on properties unoccupied for six months or more is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Derbyshire. [3559]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: My Department owns no dwellings in Derbyshire.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Kent. [3560]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: The following empty dwellings are owned by my Department in each parliamentary constituency in Kent:

  Number

  Ashford

  12

  Canterbury

  14

  Dover

  223

  Folkestone and Hythe

  142

  Gillingham

  106

  Gravesham

  20

  Maidstone

  21

  Medway

  176

  Sevenoaks

  15

  South Thanet

  34

  Tunbridge Wells

  2

  481
  All vacant properties in Gravesham, Medway and Tunbridge Wells and 113 of the vacant properties in Dover are in the process of being sold. Information on properties unoccupied for six months or more is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Avon. [3561]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 4 December 1995]: The following empty dwellings are owned by my Department in each parliamentary constituency in Avon:

  Number

  Bath

  1

  Bristol East

  1

  Bristol North-West

  2

  Bristol West

  3

  Northavon

  3

  Wansdyke

  1

  Weston-Super-Mare

  76

  Information on properties unoccupied for six months or more is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many dwellings owned by his Department are(a) currently unoccupied and (b) have been unoccupied for six months or more in each parliamentary constituency in Hampshire. [3557]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 4 December 1995:]: The following empty dwellings are owned by my Department in each parliamentary constituency in Hampshire.

  Number

  Aldershot

  255

  Basingstoke

  5

  East Hampshire

  83

  Eastleigh

  1

  Fareham

  29

  Gosport

  281

  Havant

  7

  New Forest

  3

  North-West Hampshire

  128

  Portsmouth North

  66

  Portsmouth South

  45

  Romsey and Waterside

  54

  Winchester

  84

  All the vacant properties in Basingstoke, Eastleigh and New Forest, and 33 of those in North-West Hampshire are in the process of being sold. Information on properties unoccupied for six months or more is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Agency Locations
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the principal locations of(a) the
  482
  Army Base Repair Organisation, (b) the Meteorological Office, (c) the Military Survey, (d) the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency, (e) the RAF Training Group Defence Agency, (f) the Pay and Pensions Agency, (g) the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation, (h) the Defence Accounts Agency and (i) the Defence Animal Centre; and how many (i) civilian and (ii) uniformed personnel are employed at each location. [4349]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: This is a matter for the agencies concerned. I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brigadier J. R. Drew to Dr. David Clark, dated 11 December 1995:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the principal locations of a number of Defence Agencies, including the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO), and how many staff, military and civilian, are employed at each location.
  I have enclosed a table which gives the location of all the ABRO workshop sites and offices and the numbers employed at each, as at 1 November 1995. These range from major workshop facilities such as those at Donnington and Bovington to small offices arranging the repair of equipment under contract by industry. I have enclosed an information pack about the agency which includes the Annual Report and Accounts 94/95, the Corporate Plan 1995 and a brief history.
  I hope that you find this useful.

  Army Base Repair Organisation—location of sites and staff

  Location

  Civilian staff

  Military

  Andover

  170

  4

  Aldershot

  170

  —

  Arborfield

  13

  —

  Ashford1

  170

  —

  Belfast

  8

  —

  Bovington

  453

  2

  Bristol

  4

  —

  Cardiff

  4

  —

  Catterick

  159

  —

  Chilwell

  3

  —

  Colchester

  140

  —

  Donnington

  1,019

  —

  Droitwich

  4

  —

  Liverpool

  2

  —

  Manchester

  5

  —

  Oakington

  4

  —

  Old Dalby1

  395

  —

  Plymouth

  3

  —

  Salisbury

  6

  —

  Sennybridge

  17

  —

  Stirling

  162

  —

  Warminster

  347

  —

  York

  5

  —

  Total

  3,263

  6

  1 These workshops are due to close as part of the agency rationalisation of workshop capacity.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Dr. David Clark, dated 11 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about principal locations of certain MOD organisations.

  (a) The principal location of the Meteorological Office is at Bracknell, Berkshire

  (b) 1238 people are employed at Bracknell

  (c) All are civilians.

  483
  Letter from Brigadier A. J. Hoon to Dr. David Clark, dated 11 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of the Military Survey Defence Agency principal locations and the number of Agency staff at each of these locations as this matter falls within my area of responsibility.
  Please find attached a table which shows a list of our principal locations with a breakdown of the civilian and service staff employed by the Agency at each of these locations on 31 Oct 95.
  I hope you find this information useful.

  Military Survey defence agency principal locations and staff

  Serial

  Location

  Military1

  Civilian1

  Totals1

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  1

  Feltham

  30

  641

  671

  2

  Tolworth

  0

  78

  78

  3

  Guildford

  1

  25

  26

  4

  Hermitage

  264

  69

  333

  5

  Germany1

  76

  39

  115

  6

  Total

  371

  852

  1,223

  Notes:

  1 Staff numbers represent the total number of people employed (full and part time) in the Military Survey Defence Agency at each location on 31 October 1995.

  2 Germany staff were transferred into the Agency on 1 April 1995. Most civilian staff in Germany are Locally Employed Civilians (LECs) and are not part of the Home Civil Service.

  Letter from Air Vice-Marshal R. H. Kyle to Dr. David Clark, dated 11 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you asked for details of the principal locations of the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency and how many uniformed and civilian personnel are employed at each location, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility.
  The information you requested is listed as an attachment to this letter. The figures are as at 30 September 1995, which is the most recent date for which centrally held figures are available.
  As a result of the end of the Cold War and a reduction in the perceived threat, and in common with other elements of the Ministry of Defence, the Agency is in the process of rationalising its operations and reducing in size. This is expected to lead to the closure of RAF Carlisle, RAF Quedgeley and RAF North Luffenham over the next 3 years. In addition, the number of personnel in the Agency will reduce to approximately 2,400 uniformed and 5,400 civilian staff by 1999.
  I hope that this information meets your requirements.

  Attachment:

  1. List of RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency principal
  locations and personnel Numbers.

  List of the RAF Maintenance Group Defence Agency Principal locations and personnel numbers–30 September 1995

  Unit

  Uniformed personnel

  Civilian personnel

  RAF Brampton

  79

  62

  RAF Cardington

  —

  121

  RAF Carlisle

  12

  533

  RAF North Luffenham

  563

  137

  RAF Quedgeley

  777

  205

  RAF Sealand

  421

  1,171

  RAF St. Athan

  2,539

  1,417

  RAF Stafford

  697

  734

  RAF Armament Support Unit

  316

  5

  Total

  4,634

  4,385

  484
  Letter from Air Commodore A. A. Nicholson to Dr. David Clark, dated 11 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence on the principal locations for a number of military organisations and the numbers of people employed at each location. The details for the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency are:

  Number of People Employed1,2

  Principal Locations

  Military

  Civilian

  Headquarters staff and other training units

  Royal Air Force Innsworth, Gloucester

  162

  398

  Other Training Units

  18

  333

  Major training stations and training units

  Royal Air Force Cosford, Shropshire

  895

  3450

  Royal Air Force Cranwell, Lincolnshire4

  817

  3353

  Royal Air Force Halton, Buckinghamshire

  782

  3291

  Royal Air Force Linton on Ouse, North Yorkshire

  342

  3176

  Royal Air Force Locking, Avon

  454

  3236

  Royal Air Force St. Athan, South Glamorgan5

  193

  130

  Royal Air Force Shawbury, Shropshire

  320

  3177

  Royal Air Force Valley, Gwynedd

  830

  238

  Notes:

  1 Projected figures for end-Financial Year 1995–96 (as at 31 March 1996).

  2 Figures do not include trainees.

  3 Figures include casual and part-time employees.

  4 Figures are for Training Group resources only at Royal Air Force Cranwell.

  5 Figures are for Training Group resources only at Royal Air Force St. Athan.

  I am sending a copy of this letter to the Agency's owner, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Personnel and Training Command.

  Letter from Captain W. S. Graham to Dr. David Clark, dated 11 December 1995:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, which sought locations and personnel numbers employed within the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility.

  Address

  Civilian personnel

  Service personnel

  RNAY Fleetlands, Gosport, Hants PO13 0AA

  1,194

  10

  RNAW Almondbank, Perth PH1 3NQ, Scotland

  366

  1

  Total

  1,560

  11

  Letter from P. J. Trevelyan to Dr. David Clark, dated 11 December 1995:

  DEFENCE ACCOUNTS AGENCY
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the principal locations of my Agency and the numbers of staff employed at each location.
  The Defence Accounts Agency operates from five locations in the UK: two in Bath; and one each at Cheadle Hulme, Liverpool and

  485
  Worcester. The numbers of staff currently employed at each location are as follows:

  Number

  Bath (Pinesgate West)

  119

  Bath (Warminster Road)

  294

  Cheadle Hulme

  277

  Liverpool

  641

  Worcester

  167

  Total

  1,498

  These are all civilians—the Agency does not employ uniformed personnel.
  You may also wish to note that the Agency is currently restructuring following its first three year review as a Defence Agency (Defence Accounts Agency Annual Report and Accounts 1994–95—HC Paper No. 542 refers). Some restructuring has already occurred and is reflected in the information given above. The remainder entails demerger into two separate agencies: the Defence Bills Agency and the Pay and Personnel Agency. This is expected to occur early in the New Year. Both organizations will continue to operate from their existing sites, ie: the Defence Bills Agency at Liverpool; and the Pay and Personnel Agency from Bath, Cheadle Hulme and Worcester, as listed above.

  Letter from Colonel A. H. Roache to Dr. David Clark, dated 11 December 1995:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about locations and staff numbers in Defence Agencies. This falls within my area of responsibility.
  The Defence Animal Centre operates from a single site at Melton Mowbray in Leicestershire and retains a training area at RAF Syerston in Lincolnshire. The number of staff employed as at 01 Nov 96 was 135 military and 48.5 civilian.

  Contamination
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of all Ministry of Defence estates in Scotland where(a) radioactive, (b) fuel and (c) other types of contamination is at a level that is above the maximum allowable level for a civilian residential area. [4983]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: There are no Ministry of Defence sites in Scotland where land contamination has been identified as posing a significant risk to health and safety or the environment and therefore requiring decontamination. Remediation work at RAF Lossiemouth following an accidental oil fuel spillage in April is continuing and will be completed shortly.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received on his policy on competitiveness. [3289]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" has been widely welcomed by industry. Major representative bodies such as the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Chemical Industries Association, as well as many major companies, have all expressed their support.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress of the deregulation initiative as it affects(a) legislation in the United Kingdom and (b) directives from Europe. [3291]

  Mr. Freeman
  Recent progress on deregulation includes the passing into law of the first two deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Many other deregulatory changes are being made by secondary legislation and administrative action. I have been pressing the case for deregulation in the European Community. There has been a significant decline in the number of new Commission proposals for legislation in 1996. I am urging the Commission to make a commitment at the forthcoming European Council to improve the quality of future legislation and review existing European legislation.

  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what analysis he has made of the likely effects of the Government's campaign of deregulation on United Kingdom competitiveness. [3305]

  Mr. Freeman
  As we made clear in our second White Paper on competitiveness, deregulation is central to improving United Kingdom competitiveness. Unnecessary requirements stand in the way of market entry, innovation, investment and jobs. We have a programme for repealing or amending well over 1,000 regulations and are on target to have dealt with over 500 by the end of the year. We are also taking action to ensure that new regulations are introduced only where really justified and are enforced in a business-friendly way.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to involve small firms in his campaign to reduce the burden of regulation. [3307]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have recently met a number of small firms representative bodies about deregulation. The deregulation task force includes a number of members drawn from the small firms sector. Small firms must also now be consulted as part of the compliance cost assessment procedure on new regulatory proposals to make sure they will not be disproportionately affected. The Prime Minister recently launched a series of seminars for small firms which is providing another channel for them to make their views known to us. I am also keen to hear direct from small firms about the problems they are facing and am issuing them an invitation to write to me.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his Department's policy is on employee protection matters in co-ordinating the Government's deregulation policy. [3299]

  Mr. Freeman
  Deregulation is aimed at achieving better regulation and is not about removing necessary protection, whether for employees, or, for example, consumers or the enviornment. For deregulation orders made under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, the responsible Minister must give details of how any necessary protection under existing legislation will be maintained.
  487
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contacts he has had with industry about the Government's campaign on deregulation. [3309]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government are advised by the deregulation task force about businesses priorities for deregulation and I have regular contact with the chairman, Francis Maude. The task force published its first report in September and of 52 recommendations the Government accepted 46 in whole or in part. In addition, I discuss deregulation with various representative bodies of industry and individual industrialists from time to time.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to discuss the Molitor report on deregulation with the European Commission. [3304]

  Mr. Freeman
  I discussed the Molitor report and the United Kingdom's objectives for European deregulation with the Commission on Monday 11 September and Thursday 23 November. I expect to continue these discussions next year.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many regulations which are now identified as suitable for repeal under the deregulation initiative were brought in by the Ministry of Defence between 1983 and 1986, the Department of the Environment between 1990 and 1992 and the Department for Trade and Industry between 1992 and 5 July 1995. [3781]

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of regulations for the dates in question are as follows:

  Ministry of Defence: 0

  Department of the Enviornment: 0

  Department of Trade and Industry: 3.

  Ministerial Priorities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are his current priorities. [3292]

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his priorities. [3287]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  To promote the competitiveness agenda, the deregulation initiative and the effective administration on the services for which my Department is responsible.

  Desk-top Diary System
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when his new desk-top diary system will be ready for use; and what the final cost of introducing it will be. [3293]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The strategic diary is now operating; the infrastructure on which it runs has cost about £150,000 to set up. Additional costs will be incurred as it is developed.

  Government Policy Cabinet Committee
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the objectives are of the Cabinet Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy. [3294]
  488
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  As the title suggests, the Committee considers matters relating to the co-ordination and presentation of Government policy.

  Civil Service Morale
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of morale in the civil service. [3296]

  Mr. Willetts
  Morale in the civil service is best maintained by allowing staff to perform to the best of their abilities in the career they have chosen. This Government's civil service reforms enable staff to focus their attention on delivering high-quality public services: this is the best way of satisfying both them and the users of their services.

  Government Policies
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy for the co-ordination of the Government's long-term strategies. [3297]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  We are pursuing economic prosperity and security for all, based on an enterprise economy; creating a nation of opportunity reflecting the Government's values of choice, ownership and reward; upholding decent common-sense values in the pursuit of law and order and justice; providing the people of Britain with first class public services; and reflecting pride in our nation and its place in the world.

  "Competing for Quality"
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what are the latest figures for efficiency savings resulting from the "Competing for Quality" programme. [3298]

  Mr. Freeman
  The results for the period April 1992 to March 1995 were published in the "Government Opportunities" special report in June. This report is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Special Advisers
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what reviews he has undertaken on the pay and conditions of service of special advisers. [3290]

  Mr. Willetts
  We are implementing the Nolan recommendation that special advisers should be subject to the same scrutiny as other civil servants in respect of business appointments which they propose to take up within two years of leaving service. We are also considering changes in their pay arrangements to take account of changes in the civil service pay structure.

  Science Cabinet Committee
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Cabinet Committee on science last met; and how frequently he expects meetings to take place. [3295]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Issues relating to science and technology now come under the remit of the ministerial Committee on Competitiveness.

  Publicity Material
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many identical copies of an advertisement for the bus and coach driving manual were sent on the same day to Barton Accessories in Moreleigh road, Harbertonford, Totness, South Devon, in the same post, and for what reason; what is HMSO's policy regarding duplication of publicity information; and if he will make a statement on the cost of duplication by HMSO. [5031]

  Mr. Willetts
  As this question concerns a purely operational matter, I have asked the chief executive of HMSO to write direct to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mike Lynn to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 8 December 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your question (No 43N) to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about duplicate mailings from HMSO.
  I am sorry that the Manager of Barton Accessories had to suffer no less than nine envelopes containing identical information, including a letter signed by Steven Norris recommending an HMSO publication.
  As you probably know, it is common commercial practice to buy in mailing lists in order to reach specialised markets. HMSO brought this one, on an electronic disk, from a company specialising in passenger carrying vehicles. It has become clear to us that this particular list contained a number of duplications, and we have complained to the firm about it. They have apologised profusely, and waived all their charges.
  I recognise that this is little consolation to your constituent, but I am grateful to you for bringing the matter to my attention.

  Former Prime Ministers (Funding)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what funding Lady Thatcher continues to receive from Her Majesty's Government for her private office and staff costs; how much she has received to date since she ceased to be a Member of this House; and if he will make a statement. [4488]

  Grade levels 1 to 5 change between 1 April 1979 and 1 April 1995

  Departments and their agencies

  Grade 1

  Grade 2

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Grade 5

  Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  —

  -1

  -5

  -4

  -13

  Cabinet Office and Central Statistical Office1

  -3

  -3

  -7

  +4

  -13

  Central Office of Information

  —

  —

  —

  -2

  -3

  HMSO

  —

  —

  -1

  —

  -9

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Treasury1

  -1

  -5

  -1

  +1

  +13

  Customs and Excise

  —

  -1

  -2

  -1

  -13

  Government Actuary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  +1

  Inland Revenue

  —

  -1

  -7

  -16

  -15

  Department of National Savings

  —

  —

  -2

  +2

  -1

  National Investment and Loans Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  —

  +1

  —

  +3

  +5

  Royal Mint

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -2

  Paymaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Defence

  +1

  -19

  -47

  -20

  -76

  Education and Employment1

  —

  -5

  -6

  +1

  -18

  Environment and National Heritage1

  -1

  -4

  -23

  -10

  -71

  HSE/HSC

  —

  —

  —

  +1

  +2

  Ordnance Survey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  +5

  Office of Water Services2

  —

  —

  +1

  —

  +4

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  —

  —

  —

  +1

  -17

  Overseas Development Administration

  —

  -3

  —

  -2

  -1

  Health and Social Security1

  +1

  -2

  -20

  +3

  -26

  490
  Mr. Freeman
  All former Prime Ministers are eligible to receive an allowance to assist them with the continuing heavy burden of office and secretarial costs arising from their special position in public life. The allowance is similar in purpose and amount to the parliamentary office costs allowance, but is paid in respect of public, not parliamentary, duties.

  The maximum amount of the allowance available to former Prime Ministers during the current financial year is £42,754, plus £4,275 for contributions to pension schemes of members of staff whose salaries are paid from the allowance.

  I do not think it right to disclose the amounts of this allowance claimed by individual former Prime Ministers, any more than the House discloses details of claims by individual Members under the office costs allowance.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the reduction in the range of departmental responsibilities since 1979; and what staff savings have been made in each Department of State at each level from assistant secretary upwards, including redundancies announced but not yet implemented, together with the reduction in the numbers of Ministers. [4337]

  Mr. Freeman
  Departmental responsibilities are a matter of public record, set out in the relevant edition of the "List of Ministerial Responsibilities" and elsewhere.

  Changes between 1 April 1979 and 1 April 1995 in the number of staff at each of grade levels 1 to 5 are shown in the table. Organisational and other changes between those dates limit comparability, but some approximate groupings of Departments and agencies have been made. Numbers of planned reductions by grade and method of release are not centrally available.

  There were 82 Ministers, excluding Law Officers and Whips, in January 1979; there are 84 at present.
  491

  Grade levels 1 to 5 change between 1 April 1979 and 1 April 1995

  Departments and their agencies

  Grade 1

  Grade 2

  Grade 3

  Grade 4

  Grade 5

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  —

  —

  —

  -1

  -2

  Home Office and HM Prison Service

  —

  -1

  —

  -2

  +37

  Lord Chanceller's Department

  —

  -2

  -9

  +7

  +9

  HM Land Registry

  —

  +1

  +1

  —

  +5

  Public Record Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  +2

  OFLOT2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  +2

  Northern Ireland Office

  —

  —

  —

  +2

  -3

  Scotland

  Scottish Office

  —

  -2

  -8

  +4

  -18

  Scottish Court Service

  —

  —

  —

  +1

  -1

  General Register Office-Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -1

  Registers of Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  +1

  +1

  Scottish Record Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trade and Industry and Transport1

  -4

  -12

  -16

  +9

  -4

  ACAS

  —

  —

  —

  +1

  -3

  Office of Electircity Regulation2

  —

  —

  +1

  —

  +6

  Office of Gas Supply2

  —

  —

  —

  +1

  +2

  OPRAF2

  —

  —

  +1

  —

  +6

  Office of the Rail Regulator2

  —

  —

  —

  +1

  +4

  Wales

  Welsh Office

  —

  —

  -1

  +5

  -6

  Other Civil Departments

  Civil Service Pay Research Unit3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -1

  Charity Commission

  —

  —

  -1

  +3

  —

  Crown Estate Office

  —

  —

  -1

  —

  -1

  Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal

  —

  —

  +2

  +5

  +22

  Export Credit Guarantee Department

  —

  —

  -2

  —

  —

  Intervention Board

  —

  —

  +1

  —

  +2

  Legal Secretariat

  —

  +1

  —

  +1

  +4

  Lord Advocate's Department

  —

  —

  +3

  —

  +1

  Office of Fair Trading

  —

  —

  -2

  —

  +1

  Privy Council Office

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Serious Fraud Ofice2

  —

  +1

  +1

  +1

  +8

  Treasury Solicitor

  —

  —

  —

  +3

  —

  All Departments

  Total numbers 1979

  41

  177

  594

  242

  2,547

  Total numbers 1995

  34

  119

  448

  258

  2,411

  Change

  -7

  -58

  -146

  +16

  -136

  Notes:

  1 Departments involved in major functional changes.

  2 Departments in 1995 with no equivalent in 1979.

  3 Departments in 1979 with no equivalent in 1995.

  HMSO (Privatisation)
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the individuals and organisations he has consulted about the implications for the service provided to the House of the proposed privatisation of HMSO; and if he will make a statement; [5252]

  (2) what further consultations he plans about the implications for the service provided to the House of the proposed privatisation of HMSO. [5253]

  Mr. Freeman
  I, my colleagues and officials have consulted management and staff at HMSO, including at the Parliamentary Press, my advisers Coopers and Lybrand and those responsible for the existing arrangements in the House and in the other place on this matter. In addition, I gave evidence on the proposed 492
  privatisation of HMSO to the Finance and Services Committee on 21 November.

  Parliament is HMSO's most important customer and the Government attach great importance to ensuring that all its requirements would be fully met by privatisation. My intention is therefore that all of these consultations would continue throughout any sale process, and I have invited those responsible for the existing arrangements in the House and the other place to be involved in the privatisation, including advising me on the selection of the preferred bidder.

  GP Forms
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many forms relating to general practice he plans to abolish in the next year; and how many of these have been introduced since 1979. [3119]

  Mr. Malone
  I have been asked to reply.
  493
  Implementation of the "Patients not paper" recommendations for fewer, better forms will abolish 20 individual forms, of which three are new since 1979. General practitioners will have to complete about 15 million fewer forms a year as a result.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Data Protection Registrar
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications have been made by Government Departments to the Data Protection Registrar in the course of the last three years. [3306]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand from the Data Protection Registrar that information about the number of applications for registration from Government Departments is not readily available. The registrar has, however, identified 802 register entries relating to Government Departments headed by members of the Cabinet or other Ministers. Registration is for a period of three years.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the actual or estimated number of(a) applicants for political asylum in the United Kingdom and (b) persons not applicants but dependent on them, broken down to show those currently residing in (i) Tower Hamlets, (ii) Hackney, (iii) other parts of London, (iv) the west midlands, (v) the west riding, (vi) the north-west, (vii) the north-east and (viii) elsewhere in England and Wales. [4605]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 31 October 1995, 66,655 principal applicants were awaiting an initial decision on their asylum applications. It is estimated that these applicants have approximately 20,000 dependants.

  Information on the places of residence of people currently seeking asylum is not held centrally.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making under his proposals in the Asylum and Immigration Bill to ensure he is regularly briefed on human rights and political conditions in overseas countries, with particular reference to those countries he designates as not giving rise to serious risks of persecutions; and what arrangements he is making to consider representations that certain countries should be(a) included and (b) excluded from such designation. [4610]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Conditions in countries of origin are continuously monitored by the asylum division on the basis of information from a wide range of sources including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and non-governmental organisations. We are always prepared to consider representations.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy(a) to publish regularly reports which give profiles of human rights and political conditions prevailing in particular countries, (b) to list those countries on which home country reports are held, (c) to place all home country
  494
  reports and revisions in the Library and (d) to ensure that the reports are available to immigration law practitioners and human rights organisations; and if he will make a statement. [4612]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Asylum applications will continue to be considered on the particular facts of each case. Summary background briefs on Ghana and Nigeria have been sent to the immigration appellate authorities, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and other interested organisations.

  The Nigeria brief is being updated; when this has been done, both briefs will be placed in the Library and any further such briefs will be made available in the same way.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the official statements and (b) documents other than those contained in the Asylum and Immigration Bill relating to the measures and methods that Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt in respect of current problems of asylum and immigration; and if he will list for each (i) change and (ii) innovation the information his Department has (1) obtained and (2) evaluated relating to its practicality and efficiency. [4745]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have made available to the House a list of background papers which are relevant to the Asylum and Immigration Bill.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received on the Asylum and Immigration Bill; and how many have been in whole or in part opposed to the Bill. [5272]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have received a substantial amount of correspondence about our asylum and immigration proposals expressing a wide range of views. To date, 43 representations have been received from members of the public in favour of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, and 38 against.

  Exclusion Orders
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders have been withdrawn since August 1994; and under what powers and against whom those exclusion orders were imposed. [4618]

  Mr. Howard
  Forty-one exclusion orders have been revoked or allowed to lapse since 31 August 1994. Thirty-six orders remain in force. All these orders were made under the provisions of part II and schedule 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It is not our practice to identify those excluded.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the names of the individuals who are currently subject to exclusion orders, (b) their nationality, (c) the parts of the United Kingdom from which they are excluded and (d) under what powers the person was excluded; and if he will make a statement. [4617]

  Mr. Howard
  It is not our practice to identify those excluded, but all those subject to exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are believed to be citizens of this country or the
  495
  Irish Republic or both. Thirty-two people are currently excluded from Great Britain under the Act, and four from the United Kingdom. None is excluded from Northern Ireland alone. These orders were made under part II and schedule 2 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

  Parole Board Hearings
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the parole board will conduct an oral hearing into the applications for release for Irish prisoners who had served 20 years of their sentences by July 1995. [4616]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Discretionary lifer panels of the parole board will hear these cases on 12, 13 and 14 December 1995.

  Fine Defaulters
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons who had defaulted on a fine were jailed in England and Wales during 1994; and what was the average sentence length; [3437]

  (2) how many persons have been jailed in England and Wales following default of a fine to date during 1995. [3438]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 11 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about fine defaulters.
  Provisional information shows that 22,469 people were received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of a fine in 1994. The average time imposed was around 18 days.
  Provisional information for January-October 1995 shows that 17,650 people were received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for non-payment of a fine.
  On 31 October 1995, the last available date for which figures are available, there were 414 fine defaulters in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of(a) members of staff and (b) other officially approved visitors to prisons in England and Wales who have been caught seeking to take illegal drugs into prisons in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [4500]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated II December 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 (a) members of staff and (b) other officially approved
  496
  visitors to prisons in England and Wales who have been caught seeking to take illegal drugs into prisons in each of the last three years.
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if a person convicted of attempting to smuggle drugs into a prison in England and Wales is allowed to make visits to prison inmates. [4504]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 11 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about whether a person convicted in attempting to smuggle drugs into a prison in England and Wales is allowed to make visits to prison inmates.
  Guidance on visits policy is contained in Rules 33, 34 and 37A of the Prison Rules and corresponding Rules 10, 11 and 13 of the Young Offender Institution Rules. Standing Order 5A and Circular Instruction 11/1991 to governors sets out in more detail the arrangements which should apply.
  There is no blanket policy to refuse permission for persons convicted of smuggling drugs into prisons to visit prisoners in prisons in England and Wales. It would be extremely difficult to enforce any such policy and it would be prohibitively costly for the Prison Service to extend the vetting procedures already in force for persons applying to visit category A prisoners to all family and friends wishing to visit prisoners throughout the prison estate. However, governors already have discretion to refuse visits on the grounds of security, good order or discipline, or in the interests of the prevention or discouragement of crime. A governor may use this discretion where a visitor is recognised to he an ex-prisoner convicted of drug offences or other serious crimes, or someone known to be involved with drugs or has already been found trying to smuggle illicit substances into a prison visits area. Alternatively, where security or control considerations require, the governor can stipulate that a closed visits room or visits box is used.
  Under the arrangements for category A prisoners, prospective visitors are invited to complete a form and to submit two passport photographs. The local police force is asked to verify the photograph, to make checks concerning previous convictions and to provide any other information which may be of importance in relation to security. Previous convictions, by themselves, do not automatically preclude approval of an application but discretion can be exercised given all the known facts.
  The Learmont report into prison security makes a number of recommendations to improve the supervision of visits for prisoners. These are under consideration. In addition, mandatory closed visits were introduced in June this year for those few prisoners who are category A exceptional risk. As part of its drugs strategy programme, the Prison Service intends to conduct a pilot study in a sample of prisons making it mandatory to impose a closed visit for any person found using or trafficking in drugs.

  Departmental Employees Statistics
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3968]

  Mr. Howard
  For information on consultants employed by my Department relating to the financial year 1994–95, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for
  497
  Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 12 July 1995, Official Report, column 597. For information prior to 1994–95, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Darlington on 23 March 1994, Official Report, column 1223, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), the then Under-Secretary of State, for the Home Department.

  A list of outside organisations employed by the Department since 1990 and the purpose of their employment as well as total payment made to them could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  For information on individual employees, copies of the civil service staff in post summary tables for 1990 through to 1995 can be found in the Library. Each employee is involved in assisting the Department to attain its aims and objectives as set out in the departmental report. Pay bill figures for individuals employed by the Department are as follows.

  Year (Outturn)

  £million

  1990–91

  886

  1991–92

  986

  1992–93

  1,104

  1993–94

  1,115

  1994–951

  1,182

  1Estimated outturn.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female remand prisoners in each year since 1991 were single mothers; how many of these subsequently received a custodial sentence in each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement. [4300]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 11 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many female remand prisoners were single mothers; how many of these subsequently received a custodial sentence in each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement.
  No information is held centrally on this subject. However, a study of mothers in prison was conducted in November 1994 by the Home Office Research and Planning Unit. 470 remanded women (unconvicted and unsentenced) were interviewed. Of these, 75 (16 per cent) were single mothers.
  No information is available about the number of remanded single mothers who subsequently received a custodial sentence.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time spent on remand in custody by(a) male and (b) female defendants before trial in each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement. [4299]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  498
  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 11 December 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 average time spent on remand in custody by (a) male and (b) female defendants before trial in each year since 1991.
  This information was provided in a written answer to Mr Jim Cunningham MP (Coventry South East) on 5 December (Col 210).

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of the prison population in England and Wales who had not been sentenced to imprisonment but were awaiting(a) trial or sentencing, (b) trial and (c) sentencing on 1 January 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively; and if he will make a statement. [4297]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 11 December 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 total number of the prison population in England and Wales who had not been sentenced to imprisonment but were awaiting (a) trial or sentencing, (b) trial and (c) sentencing on the 1st January 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994 respectively.
  The available information relates to the remand population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on the last day of the month. Information has therefore been provided in the attached table for 31 December in all years since 1990.

  Population of untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners in prison service establishments1 England and Wales on 31 December 1990–1994

  On 31 December

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  All remand

  1990

  7,444

  1,598

  9,042

  1991

  8,184

  1,697

  9,881

  1992

  6,718

  1,772

  8,490

  1993

  8,388

  2,375

  10,763

  1994

  8,771

  2,709

  11,480

  1Includes those held in police cells.The population at the end of the year is depressed by the christmas/new year holiday; the magnitude and timing of the temporary effect can vary from year to year.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of(a) male, (b) female and (c) all remand prisoners on the 1 January of each year since 1991; how many in each case (i) did and (ii) did not receive a custodial sentence; and if he will make a statement. [4309]

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

  Letter front A. J. Butler to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 11 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking what was the total number of (a) male, (b) female and (c) all remand prisoners on the 1st January of each year since 1991; how many in each case (i) did and (ii) did not receive a custodial sentence.

  499
  The available information relates to the remand population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on the last day of the month. Information has therefore been provided in the attached table for 31 December in each year since 1990.
  Information on the outcome at court for these prisoners is not available. Details of the outcome at court for remand receptions are given in table 2.5 of the 1993 edition of "Prison Statistics, England and Wales", Cm 2893, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of(a) male, (b) female and (c) all prisoners in England and Wales on 1 January of each year since 1991; and if he will make a statement. [4308]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 11 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about what was the total number of (a) male and (b) female and (c) all prisoners in England and Wales on the 1st of January each year since 1991.
  The available information relates to the population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on the last day of the month. Information has therefore been provided in the attached table for 31 December for each year since 1990.

  Muhammed Naviede
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the(a) closed and (b) open prisons Muhammed Naviede has been held in since his prison sentence was imposed; [4502]

  (2) which body is funding the private medical treatment being given to prison inmate Mohammed Naviede at St. Thomas's hospital, London; what has been the weekly cost of treatment; and when it is expected to conclude; [4501]

  (3) what has been the number of prison officers and the hours they have spent guarding Mohammed Naviede, while at St. Thomas's hospital; what has been the total cost to date; and who is responsible for paying this cost. [4503]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 11 December 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about Mr Mohammed Naviede, who is at Brixton prison.
  Mr. Naviede was convicted and sentenced on 7 July for fraud. Since this date he has been detained at Brixton prison and no decisions have been made to transfer him to open conditions.
  Mr. Naviede was admitted to St. Thomas's Hospital as a NHS patient on 30 August. He elected to have the private treatment available at this hospital. The costs of the private care were not met by the Prison Service and we are, therefore, unable to comment upon who paid for the medical treatment and what the weekly costs were.
  500
  Mr. Naviede was at St. Thomas's Hospital until 18 September. Prison officers guarded him for the entire period. A total of six prison officers were deployed for each 24 hour period in line with standard security practice.
  The Prison Service is responsible for paying for the staffing costs involved in the escort and guarding of prisoners. Approximately £11,500 was spent on staffing resources for this period. The same costs would have been incurred had Mr. Naviede received National Health Service treatment.

  Director General of the Prison Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to appoint a permanent Director General of the Prison Service; and what procedures have been instituted to vet applicants for the post of Director General of the Prison Service; [3262]

  (2) what criteria will be used to judge applicants for the post of Director General of the Prison Service; and what priority will be accorded to independence of judgment. [3263]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 5 December 1995,Official Report, column 204.

  EU Research and Development
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the indicative contributions to the EU budget in respect of research and development for his Department in 1993–94. [1912]

  Mr. Howard
  Table 2.1 of the statistical supplement to "Forward Look of Government-funded Science, Engineering and Technology 1995" contains indicative figures for the United Kingdom's contributions to the European Community budget in respect of research and development. Departments' policy responsibilities arc subject to change and can vary from year to year. My Department currently has an 0.07 per cent. share of the indicative contribution of the United Kingdom in respect of this part of the Community's budget.

  Ministerial Broadcasts
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions during the parliamentary Session 1994–95 when he gave broadcast interviews on radio or television in respect of his ministerial responsibilities, indicating for each date and the main topic under headings of(a) the BBC Radio 4 "Today" programme, (b) other sound broadcasts and (c) television broadcasts. [4467]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: During the parliamentary Session 1994–95 I gave a great many broadcast interviews in response to requests from the media. These interviews covered a wide range of Home Office responsibilities.

  Detailed information is not available in the form requested.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Income
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what income is received annually by the Church Commissioners from non-church building based congregations. [3323]

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners do not receive income directly from congregations. They do receive income from dioceses towards clergy stipends, which is then paid out directly to clergy with their monthly stipend payments. This income is mainly derived from parishes, but the commissioners have no information on individual parish contributions to such sums.

  Turnbull Commission
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations the Church Commissioners will be making to Lambeth palace concerning the report of the Turnbull commission on the future of the Church of England. [3325]

  Mr. Alison
  The commissioners welcome the aim of improving the machinery of the Church at national level in support of the ministry and mission to the whole nation and look forward to taking a constructive part in the debate on the Turnbull report and its vision.

  The board of governors has identified three key principles which need to be safeguarded in the planning and implementation of the proposed structures. These are:

  (i) the important Church/state link, which is exemplified in the commissioners' constitution, in recognition that the Church of England is the established Church;

  (ii) the impartiality which the commissioners deliver in the discharge of many of their responsibilities, especially those under the Pastoral Measure 1983; and

  (iii) the need within the timetable for adequate consultation and detailed planning to ensure that any change is right for the Church and delivers a national service as good as, or better than, that provided now.

  Arising from these principles are a number of important matters which will need to be addressed including the protection and handling of the commissioners' charitable responsibilities and the interplay between asset management and distribution, for example, the balance between their pensions liabilities and the support of the active ministry.

  These concerns have been transmitted to the archbishops orally and in writing. In addition, the commissioners are represented on the archbishops' advisory group which is following up the Turnbull report.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the 502
  consequences of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government concerning arrangements for asylum and immigration to cease to pay existing benefit to certain categories of person after 8 January 1996, on the administration and finances of local authorities for support of families with children required by section 17 of the Children Act 1989. [4613]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Proposals on social security payments to asylum seekers and other persons from abroad were presented to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 11 October. The committee has carried out a public consultation on these proposals and has received representations from many individuals and organisations, including housing associations and local authorities. The committee has evaluated those responses and we are currently studying its report. The effect on local authority responsibilities under the Children Act will be taken into account in the preparation of the Government's reply.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 21 November,Official Report,column 454, if he will make it his policy to review past legislation in respect of additional burdens imposed by regulations implementing European directives. [5069]

  Mr. Burt
  It is the policy of this Department to ensure that we do not gold-plate European directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the UK. We take every opportunity to look at existing legislation in the light of this policy.

  Survey on Women, Pensions and Divorce
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to publish the DSS-commissioned survey on women, pensions and divorce. [4990]

  Mr. Heald
  We expect to receive the final draft reports by the end of March 1996 and will publish the findings soon afterwards. Preliminary results of the research should be available to the Department by the end of this year.

  Maternity Grant
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many maternity grants from the social fund were paid out in each quarter of 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995, in each region of the United Kingdom. [5144]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Information is available by area directorate only and will be placed in the Library. Information about Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Child Care Disregard
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was his Department's original estimate for the numbers of lone parents who would he eligible for the child care disregard in 1995–96; and how many lone parents are currently receiving the child care disregard.[5271]
  503
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  As at 31 July 1995, 19,000 lone parents were receiving the child care disregard.1

  Original estimates were that, in the long run, 150,000 families would gain from the new help. Provision was made in the expenditure forecasts based on around 100,000 gainers from the child care disregard in 1995–96 of whom the majority were lone parents. This estimate recognised the uncertainty of behavioural effects and the pace at which they occur. These effects are occurring more slowly than anticipated. We regularly revise our estimates in the light of new data.
  1Source: Family Credit 5 per cent. sample of awards.

TREASURY

  Civil Service Accounting Practices
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to review civil service accounting practices. [3308]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government are implementing resource accounting and budgeting across Government Departments. Details are set out in the White Paper "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money", Cm 2929, published in July 1995.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the overshoot or undershoot in the public sector borrowing requirement in each year since 1992 with respect to the Red Book estimate for(a) the subsequent year up to 1996–97 and (b) two years up to 1997–98. [5145]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The table gives the requested figures.

  Forecast and outturn figures for the public sector borrowing requirement

  £billion

  Source

  Period

  Forecast

  Outturn

  Error

  FSBR March 1992

  1992–93

  28.1

  36.3

  -8.2

  1993–94

  32

  45.4

  -13.4

  FSBR March 1993

  1993–94

  50.1

  45.4

  4.7

  1994–95

  44

  35.9

  8.1

  FSBR November 1993

  1994–95

  37.9

  35.9

  2.0

  1995–96

  30

  —

  —

  FSBR November 1994

  1995–96

  21.5

  —

  —

  1996–97

  13

  —

  —

  FSBR November 1995

  1996–97

  22.4

  —

  —

  1997–98

  15

  —

  —

  Note:

  The November 1994 FSBR figures are those published in the revised tables, January 1995, following the decision to leave the rate of VAT on domestic fuel and power at 8 per cent. and the further Budget measures announced on 8 December 1994.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of families with 504
  children with taxable incomes below the income tax threshold but above the lower earnings limit for national insurance; and if he will estimate the number of families with children who pay tax only at the lower rate. [79]

  Mr. Jack
  It is estimated that in 1995–96 about 250,000 families with children—defined as single parents and married couples with children—have no income tax liability but pay national insurance contributions. This figure includes people who have earnings for only part of the financial year. About 400,000 families with children are liable to income tax only at the lower rate. The estimates are based on information projected form the 1993 family expenditure survey and are therefore provisional.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the disposable income of households in(a) the lowest decile and (b) the highest decile, in 1994–95, for households with (i) one adult, (ii) one adult, two or more children, (iii) one man, one woman and one child, (iv) one man, one woman and two children, (v) one man, one woman and three children, (vi) two adults, four or more children, (vii) three adults, one or more children and (viii) four adults, one or more children, following table 34 in the Central Statistical Office family spending report for 1992. [5009]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The deciles for 1994–95 corresponding to those in table 34 of the report on the family expenditure survey for 1992 are given in the table. The figures are estimates from the FES, and are subject to sampling variations. The figures have been rounded to the nearest pound.

  Average weekly disposable income (£)

  Lowest decile point

  Highest decile point

  One adult

  62

  302

  One adult, two or more children

  87

  242

  One man, one woman and one child

  141

  604

  One man, one woman and two children

  194

  662

  One man, one woman and three children

  145

  593

  Two adults, four or more children

  1—

  1—

  Three adults, one or more children

  246

  688

  Four adults, one or more children

  1—

  1—

  1Figures are not available as there are too few households in the sample to provide reliable estimates.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the disposable income of households in(a) lowest decile and (b) the highest decile in 1994–95 in actual terms per week, and as a percentage of the median for (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) Greater London, following table 34 in the CSO family spending report for 1992. [4958]

  Mrs. Knight
  The deciles for 1994–95 corresponding to those in table 34 of the report on the family expenditure survey for 1992 are given in the table. The figures are estimates from the FES, and are subject to sampling variations. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10p.
  505

  Average weekly disposable income (£)

  As a percentage of the median

  Lowest decile

  Highest decile

  Median

  Lowest decile

  Highest decile

  United Kingdom

  76.40

  565.10

  247.60

  30.9

  228.2

  Greater London

  75.50

  698.90

  265.10

  28.5

  263.6

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to table 9.7, how many adults in retired households participating in the family expenditure survey for 1994–95 were(a) dependent only on state pensions/income support and (b) dependent on state, occupational or personal private pensions from two or more sources; what was the average value of that income by gross income decile group; and what was the average weekly amount. [5011]

  Mrs. Knight
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to remove the obligation on individuals to produce a certificate in order to qualify for VAT on fuel at the rate of 8 per cent. for domestic users; and if he will make a statement. [5250]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many estates in each county in England were allowed conditional exemption from inheritance tax on grounds of public access to land for the most recent year for which figures are available. [3782]

  Mr. Jack
  In 1994–95 there were 18 estates in the United Kingdom where land and buildings were designated and given conditional exemption.

  A breakdown of this total by county would identify counties where there were fewer than five designations. As this would compromise the normal rules on taxpayer confidentiality, I regret that I cannot provide the information requested.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will bring forward the date for the introduction of the new inheritance tax threshold to the date of his Budget statement.[4491]

  Mr. Jack
  The proposed increase in the inheritance tax threshold replaces the much smaller increase which would otherwise be due under statutory indexation from 6 April 1996.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the average real rate of interest for each year since 1975. [4330]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Real interest rates can be calculated in a number of ways, depending on the choice of nominal interest rate and the measure of inflation. Table 47 of "Economic Trends" annual supplement, Central Statistical Office, gives a number of possible 506
  measures of the nominal interest rate. Figures for various measures of inflation can be calculated from data in the same CSO publication.

  Import Penetration
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the figure for import penetration for all the manufactured items covered by table 15.10 of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics". [4749]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The 1994 information is being prepared for publication and will be included in the December issue of the "Monthly Digest of Statistics".

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the Government monitor imports of manufactures; what is the target for publication of figures for import penetration in the "Monthly Digest of Statistics"; what has been recent performance against target; and if he will make a statement. [4558]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 7 December 1995]The Government use a range of figures to monitor the imports of manufactures. For example, aggregate figures on the imports of manufactures are published each month by the Central Statistical Office in the first releases on the balance of UK visible trade. More detailed statistics on trade with non-EC countries are published monthly in Business Monitor MM20, with corresponding statistics on trade with EC countries published quarterly in Business Monitor MQ20, both of which are published by HM Customs and Excise.

  The CSO aims to make all data available in the public domain as soon as possible. The import penetration figures are published in the "Monthly Digest of Statistics" on this basis. The 1994 data will be published in the December issue; this issue will include a number of presentational improvements since the previous publication.

  Home Income Plans
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current tax relief on mortgage interest for home income plans. [4956]

  Mr. Jack
  Tax relief for interest paid by someone over 65 who takes out a loan, secured on his or her home, to buy a life annuity—often called a home income plan—is given at the basic rate of income tax. This is currently 25 per cent.

  VAT (Energy Efficiency and Supply)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the reasons for imposing different rates of VAT on energy efficiency and energy supply. [5013]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Any extension of the existing unique reduced rate of VAT on energy supply would add to the burden on business in the administration and collection of VAT. Moreover, adjustment to the VAT
  507
  structure by way of a reduced rate for certain goods would be an inefficient means of addressing an objective such as energy efficiency.

  Building Societies Acts
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish the draft legislation on the reform of the Building Societies Acts; how long the consultative period will be; and if he will make a statement. [4846]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government intend to publish a draft Building Societies Bill for three months' consultation early in the new year, with the aim of introducing new legislation during the life of this Parliament. The draft Bill will amend the Building Societies Act 1986.

  Stamp Duty (Houses)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the yield in the last available financial year from stamp duty in respect of house sale and purchase. [4962]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The yield from stamp duty on residential property in 1994–95 is estimated at £520 million.

  Homeworking
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the amount of homeworking in Lancashire.

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  This information is not at present readily available. All the information collected in the labour force survey will be released at county level following the publication of the full summer 1995 results in December 1995. However, the LFS includes questions about homeworking only in the spring and autumn quarters, so the information requested will not be available until the autumn 1995 results are published in March 1996.

  External Trade Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to restore the annual supplement to the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics". [4559]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 7 December 1995]The "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" is the responsibility of the Central Statistical Office which has no plans to produce annual supplements to this publication.

  Residential Care Costs
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of elderly people who will not now sell their homes to pay for long-term care. [4858]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: Clearly the measures that my right hon. and learned
  508
  Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget will benefit a large number of people. Raising to £16,000 the level of assets below which people can get some help for long-term care, and increasing to £10,000 the level below which they make no contribution at all, will help all those of modest means who need long-term care.

ENVIRONMENT

  OECD Report
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of Stae for the Environment what assessment he has made of the 1993 OECD report on environmental policies and competitiveness. [1154]

  Mr. Clappison
  I have noted the OECD report with interest. It is a balanced report which examines a number of important issues. We remain committed to promoting the use of economic instruments to achieve our environmental goals, where this is appropriate. In the case of the landfill tax we have used the revenues raised by an environmental tax to reduce other distortionary taxes on employment. However, in considering the scope for new environmental taxes it is important to judge each case on its merits.

  Process Guidance Notes
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account was taken of the effects on environmental technology manufacturers, of the postponement of the upgrading deadlines in process guidance notes PG 6/7(91), PG 6/8(91), PG 6/13(91), PG 6/14(91), PG 6/15(91), PG 6/16(92), PG 6/18(92), PG 6/22(92), PG 6/28(92) and PG 6/32(92). [3107]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 29 November 1995]: The deferral of the upgrading deadlines for all the listed process guidance notes will allow time for a thorough review; the Department was conscious of potential effects on environment technology manufactures.

  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment what independent assessment he received of the cost estimates provided to his Department by the industry sectors directly affected by process guidance notes PG 6/7 (91), PG 6/8 (91), PG 6/13 (91), PG 6/14 (91), PG 6/15 (91), PG 6/16 (92), PG 6/18 (92), PG 6/22 (92), PG 6/28 (92) and PG 6/32 (92); and by whom such assessments were made. [3124]

  Mr. Jones
  All the listed process guidance notes, published in 1991–92, were drafted by environmental health officers seconded to the Department who took account of all information provided by industry consultees. The notes are now being reviewed and any cost estimates received will be carefully assessed. In particular, account will be taken of two studies being undertaken by consultants for my Department and for the Department of Trade and Industry into the costs of reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds from solvent-using industrial sectors.

  Housing Associations (Tax Changes)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment (1) what discussions he has held with(a) local authorities considering a large-scale voluntary transfer of housing and (b) non-charitable housing associations set up as a consequence of a large-scale voluntary transfer proposal about the potential impact on their business plans of his proposal to withdraw tax relief grant in April 1997; [4280]

  (2) what consideration he gave to the impact on housing association rents of his proposal to withdraw tax relief grant from non-charitable housing associations; [4238]

  (3) what assumptions he has made about the number of non-charitable housing associations which may alter their constitution and seek charitable status as a consequence of his proposal to withdraw tax relief grant in April 1997; [4279]

  (4) what consultation he has undertaken with non-charitable housing associations, their tenants, their lenders and other interested parties before deciding to discontinue their entitlement to tax relief grant; [4277]

  (5) what discussions he has held with large-scale voluntary transfer housing associations about the potential impact on their business plans of the proposed withdrawal of tax relief grant in April 1997. [4281]

  Mr. Curry
  In deciding that tax relief grant for non-charitable housing associations should be discontinued from April 1997, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary legislation, the Government were aware that withdrawal would in many cases necessitate some adjustment to their business plans and finances. The Government none the less took the view that it was not appropriate for non-charitable associations to continue to have this financial benefit in the context of the Government's proposals to allow other bodies to compete for funds to support the provision of social housing.

  My Department will be talking in detail to the National Federation of Housing Associations and other bodies concerned about the proposals.

  Decisions on whether to seek charitable status are a matter for individual associations. Housing associations' rents depend on many factors, including the efficiency of their development and upkeep of property, and their management costs.

  Sheffield City Council
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total number of planning applications made by Sheffield city council for each of the last three years and the total number of public inquiries for each application; how many he has called in; and if he will make a statement. [4099]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department does not collect separate information on applications made by local authorities. However, Sheffield city council has provided the following figures on applications made by it:

  1992–93 (from mid-July): 42

  1993–94: 74

  1994–95: 72.

  510
  No Sheffield city council applications have been called in during these three years and no public inquiries have therefore been held.

  Green Belt
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further guidance he has given on PPG2 to local authorities to define the criteria for redesignation of green belt land. [4086]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have not published any further planning policy guidance on green belts since the revised PPG2 was issued earlier this year. Green belt boundaries can be altered only in exceptional circumstances.

  Planning Applications
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total number of planning applications for each of the last five years; how many in each year have been called in; if he will express those called in as percentage of the total number each year; what criteria are used for calling in by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [4087]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested is as follows (England figures):

  Applications received

  Applications called in

  Percentage of applications called in

  1990–91

  530,358

  132

  0.02

  1991–92

  508,948

  140

  0.03

  1992–93

  461,982

  101

  0.02

  1993–94

  479,409

  99

  0.02

  1994–95

  479,188

  167

  0.03

  My right hon. Friend's policy for calling in planning applications is set out in the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on 26 January 1995, Official Report, columns 314–15.

  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines his Department has issued to local authorities to ensure full public awareness of planning applications lodged; and if he will make a statement. [4085]

  Mr. Jones
  Advice to local authorities on publicising planning applications is given in the Department's circular 15/92.

  Regional Offices
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to harmonise the terms and conditions of employees' working in the integrated regional offices who are employed by different Departments. [4507]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The four Departments responsible for the government offices in the regions are seeking as far as possible to harmonise personnel management practices in the offices and are discussing proposals with management staff and the trade unions.
  511
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the total number of staff in each regional government office on(a) 1 October 1994 and (b) 1 October 1995; and in each case how many of those staff held temporary promotions. [4319]

  1 October 1994

  1 October 1995

  Government office

  Number of staff on temporary promotion

  Number of staff

  Number of staff

  Number of staff on temporary promotion

  NE

  308

  27

  297

  30

  NW

  355

  8

  323

  8

  YH

  338

  37

  318

  45

  M

  165

  —

  169

  1

  WM

  351

  33

  326

  31

  EM

  264

  25

  233

  18

  ER

  189

  14

  184

  16

  SW

  247

  25

  251

  23

  SE

  231

  12

  220

  14

  L

  340

  10

  323

  17

  Vehicle Pollution
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are currently involved in the research into pollution from fuel emissions with particular reference to the emissions of PM10s; and if he will make a statement. [3302]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Departments of the Environment and of Transport have established a collaborative programme of research with industry into emissions of PM10 from vehicles. The aim of the first part of the programme was to design a test methodology and a measurement programme for PM10 in vehicular exhaust. This was achieved through the participation of experts from over 25 organisations in the project, including the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, individual companies and universities. The second phase will measure the emissions of PM10 from a variety of road transport vehicles. My Department has also established a programme to measure emissions of PM10 from industrial sources. Results from both these research programmes are expected in 1996–97.

  Climate Change Panel
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the inclusion of practitioners' cost-benefit analysis in the intergovernmental panel on climate change on the public perception of the scientific objectivity of the panel. [3747]

  Mr. Clappison
  The contribution of cost-benefit analysis to the assessment of man-made climate change is only one of the many issues being addressed by the intergovernmental panel on climate change. The second assessment report is to be considered at a meeting of the panel in Rome from 11 to 15 December.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy for United Kingdom representatives at the intergovernmental panel on climate change meeting in Rome from 11 to 15 December, to oppose the inclusion in the IPCC's second assessment report of cost-benefit analysis material based
  512
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The table shows total numbers of staff in each of the government offices on(a) 1 October 1994 and (b) 1 October 1995. It also shows how many of those staff held temporary promotions at those dates.

  on differing values for the lives of people in richer and poorer countries. [3748]

  Mr. Clappison
  Reservations on the cost-benefit analysis of climate change involving the differential evaluation of a statistical life are already reflected in the summary for policy makers of the report of WGIII of the IPCC, which was approved in Montreal in October.

  The meeting of the intergovernmental panel on climate change in Rome, 11 to 15 December, will consider the policy maker's summaries to all three working group reports, and agree an overall executive summary.

  Newham (Funding)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his oral answer of 30 November,Official Report, column 1343, concerning the funding of the London borough of Newham, he will make a statement on the areas, or total, of overspending referred to in his answer. [4704]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend was explaining to the hon. Member that under our provisional capping criteria Newham's permitted budget increase for 1996–97 is less than that of Westminster because Newham's budget this year is some 1.3 per cent. above its standard spending assessment whereas Westminster's is some 12 per cent. below.

  Our proposals for 1996–97 mean that Newham's SSA per head will be one of the highest in the country. If it decides that spending on education should be below the amount which we have made available, that is a matter for it.

  Housing Action Trusts
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the planned financial allocation in the financial year 1995–96 in respect of each housing action trust; and in each case, what proportion of total housing action trust spending these allocations represent; [4826]
  513
  (2) what has been the annual financial allocation to each housing action trust in each year since their start; and, in each case, what proportion of total housing action trust spending these allocations represent. [4827]

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Housing action trust

  Grant-in-aid £million

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  Grant-in-aid £million

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  Grant-in-aid £million

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  Grant-in-aid £million

  Percentage of gross expenditure

  Estimated Grant-in-aid –million

  Percentage of estimated gross expenditure

  Castle Vale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.3

  100

  6.4

  55

  12.0

  68

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  0.2

  100

  16.0

  83

  13.7

  71

  18.0

  78

  North Hull

  9.8

  98

  14.5

  93

  26.5

  94

  27.4

  91

  17.0

  84

  Stonebridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.9

  100

  3.0

  60

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.6

  100

  6.9

  71

  10.0

  81

  Waltham Forest

  0.3

  95

  11.8

  78

  25.0

  98

  36.7

  94

  30.0

  90

  Total

  10.1

  98

  26.5

  86

  78.4

  93

  92.0

  83

  90.0

  81

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the estimated total cost to public funds of each housing action trust completing its agreed programmes, giving the figures(a) in total and (b) for each trust. [4828]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  For North Hull housing action trust, the total cost to public funds is estimated to be about £115 million. For the other trusts, the estimated costs to public funds of the housing development and/or refurbishment programmes envisaged in the studies preceding the establishment of each HAT were as follows:

  Housing action trust

  Date established

  Estimated development cost £ million

  Castle Vale

  1993

  130

  Liverpool

  1993

  130

  Stonebridge

  1994

  100

  Tower Hamlets

  1993

  65–85

  Waltham Forest

  1992

  160–170

  The trusts and my Department are currently reviewing estimates of trusts' lifetimes, costs and the balance of their funding in the light of updated assessments of their housing and other regeneration activities and the scope for engaging private finance to help meet their objectives. We plan to complete these reviews during 1996–97.

  Building Research Establishment
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which consultancy group has been appointed to advise him on the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment; what are its terms of reference; when it will report; and which organisations are being consulted. [4809]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) on 30 November 1995,Official Report, column 799, in which I stated that PA Consulting had been appointed to advise on the options for transferring the Building Research Establishment to the private
  514
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The grant in aid allocations to each housing action trust and the percentages these represent of each trust's total expenditure in each year from their start, including estimates for 1995–96, are as follows:

  sector. I also refer her to the answer which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State (Sir P. Beresford) gave to the hon. Member for Greenwich on 21 November 1995, Official Report, column 93, indicating that he had placed in the Library a copy of the specification issued to all the consultants invited to tender.

  The consultants have been asked to report by 31 January 1996. They are at present finalising a list of organisations whom they propose to consult. I shall write to the hon. Member when their list is complete.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to issue guidance to local authorities with regard to a hedgerow evaluation system against which the most important hedges could be evaluated and retained under the Environment Act 1995; and if he will make a statement on how he proposes local authorities fund the administration of such hedgerow schemes. [5029]

  Mr. Clappison
  Before introducing a scheme for the protection of important hedgerows under the Environment Act 1995, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is required to consult all interested bodies, including those representing local authorities, on the detailed arrangements. As part of that exercise, we shall consult on the criteria to be used by local authorities in order to identify those important hedgerows which should be retained on the grounds of their historical importance or their values to the wildlife or landscape of an area; and on a system for evaluating hedges against these criteria. Before reaching decisions on the overall level of the local government finance settlement for 1996–97, the Secretary of State has taken into consideration any new financial burdens on local authorities, as well as potential efficiency savings.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made with the single regeneration budget; when he will he announcing the
  515
  results of the second bidding round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund; and if he will make a statement. [5596]

  Mr. Curry
  The single regeneration budget is making an unprecedented contribution to local regeneration. Resources for the single regeneration budget for 1996–97 and the two subsequent years will total nearly £3.8 billion. Of that total, over £1.3 billion will go to support schemes approved under the challenge fund. The remainder will support on-going initiatives and existing commitments under programmes taken into the single regeneration budget including English Partnerships, urban development corporations, housing action trusts, city challenge and estate action.

  Round 1 of the challenge fund, under which some 200 schemes were approved, started in April 1995. These schemes stand to attract, over their lifetime of up to seven years, some £1.1 billion in challenge fund support, and some £2.5 billion in private sector investment.

  Round 2 of the challenge fund built on the success of round 1 and has attracted a wide range of high quality bids. We have decided to approve 172 bids. Many of those were unsuccessful in round 1 and were greatly improved and successfully resubmitted by local partnerships for round 2. On initial estimates, the successful bids should attract over their lifetime over £1 billion in challenge fund support, and some £2.5 billion in private sector investment. Details of the successful individual bids will be published tomorrow, and will be placed in the Library of the House and circulated to hon. Members.

  Taken together, the schemes approved under rounds 1 and 2 of the challenge fund should create or safeguard 500,000 jobs, support over 80,000 new businesses, complete or improve nearly 170,000 homes and support over 20,000 voluntary and community groups. Over a third of these schemes are specifically directed towards ethnic minority communities.

  Following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget statement, provision totalling £250 million has been made for third and fourth rounds of the challenge fund. The third round will operate on the same lines as round 2. It will be launched next year for schemes starting from April 1997, with planned resources of £50 million in 1997–98 and £150 million in 1998–99. Resources for later years will be determined in the light of subsequent public expenditure settlements.

  Waste Strategy
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the waste strategy for England and Wales. [5657]

  Mr. Gummer
  The waste White Paper, "Making Waste Work: A strategy for sustainable waste management in England and Wales", will be published on 12 December. It builds on the ideas set out in the sustainable development strategy, published in January 1994. The strategy aims to improve the way we manage our waste. Only by taking responsibility for the waste we produce can we ensure that our environment is protected both now and for future generations.
  516
  Copies will be available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to issue a further draft of statutory guidance to the Environment Agency on its objectives, including the contribution it is to make towards the achievement of sustainable development. [5658]

  Mr. Clappison
  Together with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is today issuing for consultation a draft of the statutory guidance which we must give to the Environment Agency about its objectives and about the contribution which it can make towards achieving the goal of sustainable development. To put that guidance in context, we are also issuing a more general document which restates the principles of sustainable development and offers a commentary on the duty which the agency has to take account of likely costs and benefits, including those to the environment.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many wind farms currently operate in the United Kingdom; and how many are planned over the next three years. [4715]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  At 30 September 1995, 37 wind projects, including 28 wind farms, were operating in the United Kingdom through contracts made under the first two renewables non-fossil fuel obligation orders for England and Wales, the first Northern Ireland NFFO order and the first Scottish renewables order—SRO. Up to three more wind farms are likely to become operational under NI-NFFO 1. The second NI-NFFO order has yet to be made. It is too early to estimate how many more wind farms under SRO-1 will become operational.

  Of the 31 wind farm contracts made under NFFO 3 for England and Wales, about 20 are expected bo be commissioned; none is yet operating. In addition, 24 smaller wind projects under 1.6 MW DNC were offered NFFO contracts, none of which has yet been commissioned.

  I announced in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on 2 November 1995, Official Report, columns 441–44, the proposals for a fourth NFFO order for England and Wales for a further 400 to 500 MW of renewables-generated electricity. As part of these proposals, the Government are considering separate bands for new generating stations including one for wind power split into two bands catering for large wind farms and for small cluster/single machines. The order is expected to be made in 1997. Also on 2 November 1995 I announced proposals for a second Scottish renewables order for 70 to 80 MW of renewables-generated electricity. As part of these proposals, the Government arc considering four separate bands for generating stations including one for wind power. The order is expected to he made in 1996.

HEALTH

  Occupational Health
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated as to the effectiveness of occupational health programmes in the workplace leading to (i) greater productivity, (ii) less sick leave, (iii) higher rates of retention of staff and (iv) better working relationships; and if he will make a statement. [3753]

  Mr. Horam
  Health promotion is one aspect of occupational health which falls to the Department. The Department of Health set up the workplace task force which evaluated the available research on health promotion programmes in the workplace. As a result, last month the Department published a resource pack for employers and will shortly be setting up a workplace health advisory team which will assist small and medium-sized firms to provide health promotion in the workplace.

  Departmental Employees
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those(a) consultants, (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3959]

  Mr. Horam
  Information about each consultant and outside organisation employed by the Department of Health since 1990 and the total payments to them could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Details of individuals employed by the Department are contained in the civil service staff post summary tables, copies of which are available in the Library. Staffing costs since 1990 can be found in the relevant copies of the departmental report.

  The purpose of employing consultants, outside organisations and individuals was and is to assist the Department in achieving its aims and objectives as set out in the departmental reports.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all health authorities with effect from 1 April 1996. [4063]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on 23 November,Official Report, column 331, concerning the new health authorities.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the budget for each health authority in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96. [4966]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: 1994–95 final revenue cash limits and 1995–96 initial revenue cash limits for each district health authority will be placed in the Library.

  Breast Cancer
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent on breast cancer research in each year since 1989–90 by the Government. [4004]
  518
  Mr. Malone
  The figures are shown in the table:

  Thousands

  1990–91

  3,220

  1991–92

  2,139

  1992–93

  3,791

  1993–94

  3,948

  1994–95

  4,284

  Committee on Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) at what date and time the Committee on Safety of Medicines met to consider safety issues relating to the third generation oral contraceptive; [4301]

  (2) at what date and time papers relating to potential safety concerns about third generation oral contraceptives were first made available to all members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [4302]

  Mr. Malone
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines met on Friday 13 October at 10 am to consider the issues relating to third generation oral contraceptives. The papers for the meeting were dispatched to all members of the committee at 4 pm on 11 October by express courier service and were received by members at 10.30 am the following morning. Prior to this, some members of the CSM and expert external advisers had met on 10 October to consider the papers. Some advisers were also provided with each element of the data as it became available and a series of meetings were held to discuss the evidence as it evolved between June and October.

  Prior to the availability of the new epidemiological evidence on third generation oral contraceptives, the CSM had reviewed the safety of third generation oral contraceptives and gestodene-based oral contraceptives in particular on three occasions, in 1989, 1991 and 1995.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the costs, including travel costs and emoluments, of supporting the sub-committees of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, for each year since 1991. [4306]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested in respect of the sub-committtees of the Committee on Safety of Medicines—biologicals, chemistry, pharmacy and standards, pharmacovigilance and safety and efficacy—is as shown in the table for each financial year since 1990–91. The figures include members' fees, travel, hotel, and other miscellaneous costs.

  1990–91: £116,265.26

  1991–92: £120,427.43

  1992–93: £113,874.82

  1993–94: £121,778.89

  1994–95: £92,741.42.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the names, professional appointments, date of first appointment to the Committee on Safety of Medicines and the total duration of membership of each member of the Committee on Safety of Medicines as at 1 October; [4304]

  (2) how many members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines have a qualification in epidemiology. [4303]
  519
  Mr. Malone
  The membership of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and information requested is shown in the table. Dr. Janet Darbyshire has a formal epidemiological qualification and in addition Professor M. D. Rawlins, chairman, and Professor M. J. S. Langman have extensive experience in pharmacoepidemiology.

  Name

  Professional appointment

  Appointed

  Duration until 1 October 1995

  Professor M. D. Rawlins (Chairman)

  Pharmacology— Newcastle University

  January 1980

  15 year 9 months

  Professor A. M. Breckenridge

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology— Liverpool University

  January 1981

  12 years 9 months

  Dr. Kate L.Costeloe

  Reader in Neonatal Paediatrics, University of London Medical College

  January 1981

  2 years 9 months

  Dr. Janet H. Darbyshire

  Head of MRC's HIV Clinical Trials Centre

  January 1993

  2 years 9 months

  Hon. Consultant in Thoracic Medicine and Hon. Senior Lecturer in Epidermiology, University College

  London Medical School

  Professor D.S.Davies

  Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology at Royal Postgraduate Medical School Hammersmith Hospital

  January 1993

  2 years 9 months

  Professor Anne Ferguson

  Professor of Gastroenterology and Head of Department of Medicine —Edinburgh University

  January 1993

  2 years 9 months

  Professor A.T.Florence

  Dean of the School of Pharmacy— London University

  January 1981

  14 years 9 months

  Professor A.M.Geddes

  Head of Department of Infection— Birmingham University

  January 1993

  2 years 9 months

  Professor E.C.Gordon-Smith

  Professor of Haematology—St. George's Hospital Medical School, London

  January 1990

  5 years 9 months

  Professor K.Gull

  Director of the Research and Graduate School, School of Biological Sciences, Manchester University

  January 1993

  2years 9 months

  Professor H.S.Jacobs

  Professor of Reproductive Endocrinology, University College and Middlesex School of Medicine

  January 1984

  11 years 9 months

  Dr.W.A. Jerrett

  General Practitioner—Glamorgan

  January 1987

  8 years 9months

  Dr.B.J. Kirby

  Consultant Physician and Deputy Director of the Postgraduate Medical School—Exeter University

  January 1993

  2years 9 months

  Miss Gillian C.N. Lachelin

  Reader and Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist — University College and Middlesex School of Medicine

  January 1993

  2 years 9 months

  Professor M.J.S. Langman

  Professor of Medicine and Dean of the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry—Birmingham University

  January 1987

  8 years 9 months

  Dr.A.V.P. Mackay

  Medical Director of the Argyll and Bute

  January 1993

  2 years 9 months

  NHS Trust and McIntosh Lecturer in Psychological Medicine—Glasgow University

  Professor J.M. Midgley

  Professor of Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Chemistry-Strathclyde University

  January 1990

  5 years 9 months

  Professor B.K. Park

  Professor of Pharmacology and Therapeutics— Liverpool University

  January 1993

  2 years 9 months

  Professor J.C. Petrie

  Professor of Clinical Pharmacology— Aberdeen University

  January 1993

  2 years 9 months

  Professor A.Li Wan PO

  Professor of Clinical Pharmaceutics— Nottingham University

  January 1993

  2 years 9 months

  Professor Anne E. Tattersfield

  Professor of Respiratory Medicine— Nottingham University

  January 1993

  2 years 9 months

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the remuneration which the chairman and members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines received in respect of their work on the committee the last year for which figures are available. [4307]
  520
  The committee consults as necessary other disciplines not represented on the committee, including experts in epidemiology, and when the need arises co-opts them on to the committee as "members for the day". The sub-committees of the Committee on Safety of Medicines additionally provide a range of expertise which may not be represented on the main committee.

  Mr. Malone
  For the financial year 1994–95, the chairman received £2,358 in attendance and preparation fees and the members received among them £34,294 in attendance and preparation fees in respect of 11 one-day meetings. In addition, the chairman and members were
  521
  reimbursed their travel, hotel and other miscellaneous cost.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statutory provisions govern the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [4305]

  Mr. Malone
  The Committee on Safety of Medicines is a committee established by Ministers under powers in section 4 of the Medicines Act 1968. The committee was established by the Medicines (Committee on Safety of Medicines) Order 1970, S.I. 1970/1257, to give advice—with respect to safety, quality and efficacy—on medicinal products for human use and to promote the collection and investigation of information about adverse reactions, to enable such advice to be given.

  The Medicines Commission and Committees Regulations 1970, S.I. 1970/746, made under powers in schedule 1 to the Medicines Act 1968, provide inter alia for the terms of office of members of committees established under section 4.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the numbers and cost of elderly patients blocking hospital beds. [4403]

  Mr. Bowis
  Patients' discharge from hospital may be delayed for a variety of reasons. We do not hold central statistics for patients who may be occupying a bed unnecessarily.

  Medical Ethics
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the code of practice published by the British Medical Association entitled "Advance Statements About Medical Treatment"; and if he will make a statement. [4535]

  Mr. Horam
  The code of practice was drawn up for health professionals, by a multi-professional group under the auspices of the British Medical Association, in response to a recommendation by the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics. Little representation has been made to the Department of Health about this code.

  Childrens' Hospices
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that local health authorities meet the Government's target of 50:50 funding for children's hospices; and if he will make a statement on the future of children's hospices. [4549]

  Mr. Bowis
  The 50:50 target is no longer relevant, since funds have been built into health authorities' cash allocations to enable them to decide the level of funding required to meet the needs of their resident population for hospice services. Childrens' hospices are now able to benefit from health service funding through the contracts health authorities and general practitioner fundholders can make with service providers in both the national health service and the voluntary sector.
  522
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to encourage local health authorities to provide childrens' hospices with regular financial payments. [4547]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have funded a £5 million programme of pilot projects over five years to determine the type of services of most benefit to children with life-threatening illnesses and their families. The projects include services provided by childrens' hospices. The evaluation of the programme will help health authorities and general practitioner fundholders contract for the range of services necessary to meet the needs of locally resident children and their families.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average percentage of childrens' hospices' incomes derived from local health authority contributions. [4548]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases were on in-patient waiting lists in England on(a) 30 September and (b) the latest date for which figures are available. [4495]

  Mr. Horam
  Provisional figures show that on 30 September 1995, the latest date for which information has been published, 1,041,025 people in England were waiting for in-patient or day case treatment at national health service hospitals.

  Health Service Commissioner
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which bodies other then aggrieved patients are able to submit complaints to the health service ombudsman for investigation. [4496]

  Mr. Horam
  The health service commissioner can investigate complaints from a person or body other than the aggrieved patient in certain circumstances. Complaints can be accepted from someone acting on behalf of the patient if it is clear the patient supports the complaint or is not capable of doing so. If, for instance, the patient has died or is incapable of making a complaint, complaints can be accepted from a close family member—preferably the next of kin. Complaints can also be accepted from a representative or adviser, who may be a national health service employee, if there are good reasons why a family member cannot make the complaint. The commissioner can also accept complaints from NHS bodies such as health authorities.

  District Health Authority Meetings
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to permit community health council representatives attending meetings of district health authorities to speak and to have their observations recorded in the public minutes. [4515]

  Mr. Horam
  All district health authority meetings arc open to members of the public. The chairman of the authority will decide whether members of the public will be permitted to make representations during the course of proceedings.

  Employment of Children
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from whom he has received representations in support of the proposal in his Department's consultation document "Employment of Children" to relax the law relating to children's employment. [4920]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have not as yet received any representations on the consultation document.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to extend the health care payments proposed for patients in nursing homes to cover disabled people who choose to live in residential homes. [4796]

  Mr. Bowls
  We have no plans for health care payments in either type of home.

  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many disabled persons entered residential homes in each of the last three years. [4795]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the degree of disability of individuals on entry to residential homes is not available centrally. Most people entering residential care would be regarded as having a significant degree of disability or dysfunction.

  Medical Confidentiality
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses he received in relation to his discussion paper concerning medical confidentiality; what plans he has to bring forward proposals to protect medical confidentiality in the current Session of Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [5337]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 4 December,Official Report, columns 42–43.

  We received 175 responses to the consultative document "Confidentiality, Use and Disclosure of Information".

  Ambulance Response Times
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average response time for an ambulance on a 999 call in the City of Durham constituency. [5128]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is not available centrally by constituency.

  Psychiatric Care
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made for(a) the inspections, (b) the drawing up of reports and the drawing up of recommendations to him by persons he appoints (i) directly and (ii) indirectly, in respect of private psychiatric hospitals where fees for patients are paid for by national health service purchasers. [4623]

  Mr. Bowls
  Private psychiatric hospitals are subject to registration and inspection by health authorities under part 524
  II of the Registered Homes Act 1984. The primary concern of the registering authority is to ensure that the level of care provided is sufficient and suitable to meet the needs of individual patients.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what public funds have been paid to Partnerships in Care in respect of psychiatric treatment for patients paid for by purchasing bodies of the national health service in the financial year 1994–95; and if he will list the number of establishments concerned and the approximate number of patients for whom fees were paid; [4622]

  (2) what public funds have been expended in respect of Mr. Stephen Laudat arising from his residential treatment at Kneesworth hospital. [4621]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available centrally and it is not the practice to give details of the cost relating to the care of individuals.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the names and locations of the secure hospitals establishments(a) owned and (b) run by the firm Partnerships in Care, used by national health service purchasers, indicating for each (i) the number of beds, (ii) the number occupied by national health service patients and (iii) the number of qualified psychiatrists on the staff; [4606]

  (2) what is the minimum number of persons with qualifications in psychiatric medicine that he requires, in full-time equivalent, to be on the staff of private psychiatric hospitals providing secure accommodation for national health service patients; and if he will indicate the nature of the qualifications required. [4620]

  Mr. Bowis
  Under the Registered Homes Act 1984, health authorities are required to register and inspect all mental nursing homes including privately owned secure hospitals in their catchment area. The Act requires that the health authority must satisfy itself that the home provides sufficient and suitable professional, technical, ancillary and other staff having regard to the size of the home and the number, age, sex and condition of the patients therein. Information about individual establishments is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which trusts and health authorities have now implemented the care programme approach for people discharged from psychiatric hospitals; and which have not. [5060]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have asked health authorities and trusts to ensure, as a matter of urgency, that the care programme approach is applied to all patients who have been accepted for care by the specialist psychiatric services. The latest reports suggest that this objective will largely be achieved by March 1996.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 21 November, Official Report, column
  525
  454, if he will make it his policy to review past legislation in respect of additional burdens imposed by regulations implementing European directives. [5068]

  Mr. Horam
  It is the policy of my Department to ensure that we do not add any unnecessary burden when implementing European directives in the United Kingdom. We will take every opportunity to look at existing legislation in light of this policy.

  Anti-smoking Campaigns
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cost of the current campaigns by the Health Education Authority in England designed to encourage people to stop smoking in the current financial year; if he will make a statement on(a) the overall campaign and (b) the television advertising campaign; and if he will identify separately the costs of (b). [4860]

  Mr. Horam
  In the 1995–96 financial year, the Health Education Authority's budget for anti-smoking activity is £6,492 million.

  The national smoking education campaign is designed to reduce the prevalence of cigarette smoking by preventing uptake among young people and motivating and assisting those in low-income groups, in particular parents and pregnant women, to give up.

  The television commercials which will run from 26 December will cost £2.768 million.

  Performance-related Pay
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the assessment of performance-related pay for family health services authority officials has taken into account changes in the number of GP fundholders in the FHSA area. [5059]

  Mr. Malone
  It is for individual national health service employers to set the aims and objectives for employees for the purpose of performance-related pay.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the available evidence on the connection between bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob dementia in humans. [4934]

  Mr. Horam
  The independent Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee provides the Government with an expert assessment of the scientific evidence as it develops. There is no current scientific evidence that BSE can be transmitted to humans or that eating beef causes CJD.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has on changes in the level of incidence of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease over the last 10 years. [4935]

  Mr. Horam
  The national Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease surveillance centre in Edinburgh investigates the 526
  incidence and epidemiology of CJD cases in the United Kingdom, paying particular attention to occupation and eating habits, to establish whether there has been any change in the pattern of the disease since the advent of BSE. There continues to be no evidence of an emerging CJD epidemic. The United Kingdom incidence of CJD is comparable to countries in Europe and elsewhere, with no or very little BSE.

  Information on the incidence of CJD in the UK since 1985 is contained in the fourth annual report of the national CJD unit published on 5 October 1995, copies of which are available in the Library. The latest provisional figures for 1995 so far indicate that the incidence will be lower than in 1994.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 4 December,Official Report, column 42, on what date his Department first informed the Federation of Tour Operators about the outbreak of legionnaire's disease in Kusadasi; and if he will place in the Library copies of the letters sent to the Federation of Tour Operators and the Association of British Travel Agents. [5398]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has an agreement with the Association of British Travel Agents that notifications about outbreaks of disease will be sent to it and it, in turn, will notify the travel industry. The Department first wrote to the Federation of Tour Operators about the outbreak of legionnaire's disease in Kusadasi on 29 September, although informal contact had been made by telephone a day earlier. Copies of the letters to ABTA and the FTO will be placed in the Library.

  Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is (i) the procurement route for the tendering exercise for the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy and what were the dates on which(a) the tender was announced, (b) information was made available, (c) expressions of interest had to be received, (d) organisations to be invited to tender were selected and informed and (e) tenders had to be submitted; and (ii) if all the procedures complied with the regulations set out by the European Union. [5278]

  Mr. Horam
  The tender exercise was announced in The Lancet and the Health Service Journal between 26 and 28 October 1995. The deadline for expressions of interest was 10 November. Every respondent to the advertisements was sent a statement of requirements on 13 November and was invited to attend a briefing meeting on 21 November. A full invitation to tender was issued to those who attended the briefing meeting.

  A sift of responses to preliminary questions in the statement of requirements took place on Friday 24 November and organisations were informed in writing and by telephone on that day. Those remaining in the exercise have been asked to submit completed tenders by Friday 15 December.

  I can confirm that the procedures comply with the regulations set out by the European Union.
  527
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the stillbirth rate, excluding foetal deaths at 24 to 27 weeks of gestation registered since 1 October 1992, (b) the neonatal mortality rate and (c) the post-neonatal mortality rate in England and Wales in each of the last 20 years; and what was the change in each rate in each of the periods (i) 1975 to 1980, (ii) 1980 to 1985 and (iii) 1985 to 1990 and in each single year since 1990. [5274]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the tables.

  Stillbirth, neonatal and post-neonatal mortality rates1 England and Wales 1975–94

  Stillbirths2

  Neonatal

  Postneonatal

  1975

  10.3

  10.7

  5.0

  1976

  9.7

  9.7

  4.6

  1977

  9.4

  9.3

  4.5

  1978

  8.5

  8.7

  4.5

  1979

  8.0

  8.2

  4.6

  1980

  7.2

  7.7

  4.4

  1981

  6.6

  6.7

  4.4

  1982

  6.3

  6.3

  4.6

  1983

  5.7

  5.9

  4.3

  1984

  5.7

  5.6

  3.9

  1985

  5.5

  5.1

  4.0

  1986

  5.3

  5.3

  4.3

  1987

  5.0

  5.1

  4.1

  1988

  4.9

  4.9

  4.1

  1989

  4.7

  4.8

  3.7

  1990

  4.6

  4.6

  3.3

  1991

  4.6

  4.4

  3.0

  1992

  4.3

  4.3

  2.3

  1993

  4.4

  4.2

  2.1

  1994

  4.4

  4.1

  2.1

  1Stillbirths per 1,000 live and still births.Neonatal and postneonatal mortality per 1,000 live births.

  2Stillbirths of 28 weeks gestation or more.

  Percentage changes in stillbirth, neonatal and post-neonatal rates, England and Wales 1975–1994

  Stillbirths1

  Neonatal

  Post-neonatal

  1975 to 1979

  –22.8

  –23.2

  8.4

  1980 to 1984

  –21.2

  –27.6

  12.0

  1985 to 1989

  –15.2

  –11.6

  13.2

  1990 to 1994

  –4.6

  –9.7

  38.2

  1990 to 1991

  0.9

  –4.3

  9.2

  1991 to 1992

  –8.2

  –1.8

  23.7

  1992 to 1993

  2.7

  –3.1

  6.5

  1993 to 1994

  0.3

  –0.8

  4.6

  1Stillbirths of 28 weeks gestation or more.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were his Department's objectives in establishing the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy; what mechanisms were established to ensure that the objectives were achieved; what evaluations have been done of the inquiry; and if he will place in the Library such reports of evaluations which have been undertaken. [5276]

  Mr. Horam
  The confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy was established to:
  investigate the circumstances of stillbirths, neonatal and post-neonatal deaths;identify avoidable factors and seek their remedy:and to improve understanding and clinical practice.528
  No evaluations have yet been completed. It is too soon to demonstrate any direct effect on infant and perinatal mortality.

  The reports of the inquiry are a tool for improving understanding and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the full costs to his Department and to the inquiry of the tendering process for the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy. [5279]

  Mr. Horam
  The tender process for the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy is still in progress. A record of identifiable costs is therefore not yet available.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff have been employed on work for the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy in each year(a) centrally, (b) in the NHS regions and districts and (c) elsewhere. [5277]

  Mr. Horam
  The central secretariat of the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy had four members of staff in the period 1992 to 1994 and five members of staff from the end of 1994 to present. Regional/district figures are not available for the years 1992 to 1994. In the current year there are approximately 30 people engaged in the inquiry's work at regional level. There is a large number of other people in the NHS who contribute to the inquiry, but no figures are available. There are no data on the number of people employed on the various special projects.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department established the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy; and how much money was(a) allocated to and (b) spent on the inquiry in each year since it was established, showing separately the sums (i) for central organisation and analysis, (ii) allocated to NHS regions and districts, by region and (iii) allocated for other purposes. [5275]

  Mr. Horam
  I shall let the hon. Member have such financial information as is available as soon as possible.

  Venous Thromboembolism
  Mr. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the levels of risk of venous thromboembolisms per 100,000 women per year for(a) smoking and (b) non-smoking (1) women not using (i) oral contraceptives, (ii) second generation oral contraceptives, (iii) oral contraceptives containing desogentrol or gestodene and (2) in pregnancy. [5146]

  Mr. Malone
  Smoking is not clearly established to he a factor which affects the risk of venous thromboembolism. This is in contrast to its important effect on the risk of arterial disease associated with the use of oral contraceptives.

  The approximate levels of risk of venous thromboembolism in women according to use of oral contraceptives and pregnancy are shown in the table.
  529

  Risk of venous thromboembolism (per 100,000 women per year)

  No use of OCs

  5

  Use of second-generation OC

  15

  Use of OC containing

  30

  desogentrol or gestodene Pregnancy

  60

  As indicated above, the levels of risk of venous thromboembolism are the same whether or not a woman smokes.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspectors appointed by himself or by a local authority whose duties include those set out in the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1995 are currently in post. [2390]

  Mrs. Browning
  For the purpose of the Animals and the Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1995 in England, 366 inspectors, of whom 241 are veterinary inspectors, have been appointed by my right

  1994

  51995

  1996

  NRA Region

  Fishing method

  1Number

  Duty

  Value

  1Number

  Duty

  Value2

  Proposed duty

  (England only)

  £

  2£

  £

  2£

  £

  Northumbria

  Coastal (N) drift and T nets

  30

  800.00

  24,026.00

  29

  800.00

  23,200.00

  995.00

  (N and Y)

  Coastal (N) drift nets

  31

  725.00

  21,750.00

  26

  725.00

  18,850.00

  975.00

  Coastal (N) T nets

  1

  470.00

  470.60

  2

  470.00

  940.00

  720.00

  Coastal (S) drift nets

  38

  725.00

  27,561.40

  34

  725.00

  24,650.00

  975.00

  Yorkshire

  Coastal drift nets

  15

  620.00

  9,306.00

  10

  620.00

  6,200.00

  661.00

  (N and Y)

  Coastal T or J nets

  23

  470.00

  10,810.60

  21

  470.00

  9,870.00

  720.00

  Anglian

  Drift nets

  44

  50.00

  2,219.20

  42

  50.00

  2,100.00

  67.00

  Other nets (various)

  28

  25.00

  708.40

  23

  25.00

  575.00

  55.00

  Thames

  Nil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southern

  Public seine nets

  2

  1.00

  2.00

  2

  1.00

  2.00

  55.00

  Woodmill seine net

  —

  —

  —

  1

  70.00

  70.00

  300.00

  Wessex (SW)

  Seine nets

  7

  147.00

  1,031.80

  7

  147.00

  1,029.00

  294.00

  Dip nets

  2

  47.50

  94.80

  0

  47.50

  0.00

  67.00

  Putcher ranks

  2

  —

  123.60

  2

  —

  123.60

  —

  150 Putchers (units of 50)

  (3)

  41.20

  —

  (3)

  41.20

  —

  67.00

  South West

  Seine nets (single river)3

  14

  120.00

  —

  14

  120.00

  —

  240.00

  Seine nets (single river)

  74

  120.00

  8,917.20

  69

  120.00

  8,280.00

  240.00

  Seine nets (double river)

  1

  190.00

  191.20

  1

  190.00

  190.00

  380.00

  Fixed Engine (Weir) Avon4

  1

  190.00

  —

  0

  190.00

  —

  190.00

  Fixed Engine (Trap) Lyn

  1

  190.00

  191.00

  1

  190.00

  190.00

  380.00

  Drift nets (Camel)

  7

  120.00

  842.60

  7

  120.00

  840.00

  240.00

  Severn Trent

  Lave nets (half season)

  21

  21.00

  441.00

  30

  21.00

  630.00

  42.00

  Lave nets (full season)

  19

  42.00

  798.00

  14

  42.00

  588.00

  84.00

  Seine nets

  5

  100.00

  506.80

  5

  100.00

  500.00

  200.00

  530
  hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The number of inspectors appointed by local authorities under the regulations is not held centrally.

  Animal Transport
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of returns he has received during 1995 from owners and charters of vessels on which animals have been carried from the United Kingdom indicating(a) the number of animals that have died, (b) the number of animals killed, (c) the numbers of animals seriously injured, (d) the total numbers of each class of animal shipped and (e) the cause of such deaths, slaughter or injury. [3842]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry has received no such returns.

  Fishing Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many different licences for instruments other than rod and line are required by law in order to fish in English rivers, what is the total licence duty received form each of these in each of the last two years, and if he will list the proposed increase in each licence for next year. [5032]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is given in the table. For the sake of completeness the table includes data on instruments used in tidal estuaries and the sea. Details of licence duties applicable to instruments for catching eels have not been included.
  531

  1994

  51995

  1996

  NRA Region

  Fishing method

  1Number

  Duty

  Value

  1Number

  Duty

  Value

  Proposed duty

  (England only)

  £

  2£

  £

  £2

  £

  Fixed engine ranks comprising:

  11

  —

  2,704.00

  10

  —

  1,554.00

  —

  4,150 Putchers (units of 50)

  (100)

  25.00

  —

  (57)

  25.00

  —

  55.00

  570 m of leaders:

  Leaders <90 m

  (3)

  33.00

  —

  (1)

  33.00

  —

  33.00

  additional 20 m lengths

  (11)

  9.00

  —

  (10)

  9.00

  —

  9.00

  Putt (1 fixed engine)

  2

  3.00

  —

  2

  3.00

  —

  3.00

  Stop net (boat)

  0

  60.00

  —

  0

  60.00

  —

  80.00

  Topping net (R Trent)

  1

  2.00

  2.00

  1

  2.00

  2.00

  55.00

  Draft net (R Trent)

  1

  12.00

  12.00

  1

  12.00

  12.00

  55.00

  North West

  Haaf nets (Solway)

  165

  58.00

  9,570.00

  165

  58.00

  9,570.00

  116.00

  Cribs (Eden)

  2

  257.00

  514.00

  3

  257.00

  771.00

  301.00

  Fishing Baulk (Esk)

  0

  287.00

  0.00

  0

  287.00

  0.00

  301.00

  Drift nets (Cumbria coastal)

  4

  288.00

  1,154.60

  4

  288.00

  1,152.00

  538.00

  Drift nets (Ribble)

  6

  177.00

  1,065.40

  6

  177.00

  1,062.00

  354.00

  Haaf nets (Lune)

  26

  100.00

  2,600.00

  26

  100.00

  2,600.00

  200.00

  Drift nets (Lune)

  10

  288.00

  2,884.20

  10

  288.00

  2,880.00

  538.00

  Seine nets (Lune)

  1

  248.00

  249.00

  1

  248.00

  248.00

  496.00

  Crib (Derwent)

  1

  576.00

  576.00

  0

  576.00

  0.00

  576.00

  Lave nets (Kent)

  8

  100.00

  800.00

  8

  100.00

  800.00

  134.00

  Lave nets (Leven)

  6

  100.00

  600.00

  6

  100.00

  600.00

  134.00

  Key:

  1Numbers represent the number of licensees, except for data in parentheses which represent numbers of licensed components on which duty is payable.

  2 Value includes 20p for each netsman endorsed on a licence.

  3Taw and Torridge rehabilitation scheme in operation. Licensees agreed not to fish in 1994 and 1995 and were not charged for their licences.

  4Licence for Avon fixed engine bought by the NRA. Not used.

  5Provisional data.

  Source:

  1994 data—NRA Fisheries Statistics 1994.

  1995 and 1996 data—NRA.

  Milk
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he is having with his European counterparts to increase the permitted amount of milk Britain is allowed to produce to enable British producers to make yoghurt, cheese and clotted cream. [5033]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have advocated the leasing of milk quota across member state frontiers as a means of allowing quota to migrate to those parts of the Community, like the United Kingdom, where milk can be produced most efficiently. Our EC partners and the Commission do not share our enthusiasm for reforming this aspect of the EC quota regulations, but we will continue to press the case whenever the opportunity arises.

  Potato Marketing Scheme
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the recent consultation on the proposal to bring the potato marketing scheme to an end; and if he will make a statement. [5527]

  Mr. Boswell
  There were 24 responses to the consultation from a wide range of interests. Some of the organisations that responded either opposed the Government's decision to revoke the scheme or expressed disappointment with it, while others supported revocation. There was, however, widespread support for an industry body funded by a statutory levy to succeed the Potato 532
  Marketing Board, and it will be for the board to develop appropriate proposals, if that is what growers wish. Several respondents stressed the importance of introducing a lightweight EU regime for potatoes, and we again pressed for early progress on this at the Agriculture Council on 29 and 30 November. A copy of the consultation document, together with the list of responses, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  In accordance with section 25(1) of the Agriculture Act 1993, we shall tomorrow lay an order before both Houses specifying 1 July 1996 as the beginning of the revocation process. This would mean revocation of the scheme on 30 June 1997, as previously planned.

  Paignton Zoo
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the extension to Paignton zoo; [4043]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of compliance with the procedures followed under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 in respect of the extension to Paignton zoo; and if he will make a statement. [4044]

  Mrs. Browning
  [Holding answer 7 December 1995]: No approach has been made to the Ministry in connection with the extension at Paignton zoo.

  Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, English Nature is responsible for the issue of licences for the purpose of any development as defined in section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned. [4252]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 7 December 1995]: MAFF Ministers has been issued with digitally based mobile telephones which provide greater security features than their analogue counterparts since the beginning of July this year. We have had no cases of mobile telephones being cloned since then.

  There have been four cases of mobile telephones used by MAFF Ministers being cloned within the last 18 months. These all occurred within the last 12 months. Those concerned were the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldgrave), the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), the then Parliamentary Secretary, my noble Friend the Earl Howe, and the current Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning).

  Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes he proposes in respect of the regularity of inspections carried out by his officials of calves and sheep being exported through Dover. [4743]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: My officials are maintaining the practice of carrying out regular checks on calves and sheep at the port of export.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many horses, ponies and donkeys have been licensed for export from the United Kingdom since 1 January 1995 to(a) France (b) Belgium and (c) the Netherlands. [4747]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: Figures on the issue of licences, between 1 January and 30 November 1995, for the export of horses, and ponies and donkeys intended for breeding, riding or recreation are shown in the table. The include transhipments from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but exclude thoroughbred horses which may be exported for racing or breeding with certification issued by a steward or the secretary of the Jockey Club:

  Destination

  Horses

  Ponies

  Donkeys

  France

  480

  74

  1

  Belgium

  317

  111

  20

  Netherlands

  329

  131

  none

  Source:

  MAFF animal welfare records.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications to export horses, ponies and donkeys from the United Kingdom have been rejected by him since 1 January; and how many animals were covered by these rejected applications. [4746]
  534
  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: We do not record these figures. Between 1 April and 30 October 1995 the Ministry received more than 2,200 applications. When considering applications the Ministry takes into account the purpose of the journey and the welfare arrangements. During the course of these considerations a number of applications are then withdrawn by the applicant or not proceeded with.

  Horse Sales
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of compliance with the provisions of the Welfare of Horses at Markets (and Other Places of Sale) Order 1990 in respect of horse sales in Henley in Arden market; and if he will make a statement. [4744]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: Horse sales are held at the market on a monthly basis and there has been a regular assessment of compliance by both the state veterinary service and the local authority. In reports submitted so far this year there has been no evidence of unnecessary suffering. The Ministry, however, continues to give advice to both the market and local authority on the standards to be observed.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the circumstances of the birth, feed history and date of death of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy case in June 1993, referred to in his answer of 31 October 1995,Official Report, column 200. [4970]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 8 December 1995]: The animal was born on 17 June 1993, of a dam which was culled in 1994 when 10 years old and showed no symptoms of BSE. The suspect was slaughtered on 11 August 1995, and is known to have been fed on concentrate feed. We are currently tracing the feed ingredients, although the material consumed by this animal will clearly no longer he available for analysis.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Loans
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what costing her Department has(a) made and (b) commissioned for the collection of student loan repayments through the national insurance system. [3925]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on 4 December 1995,Official Report, column 119.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her Department's estimate of the cost of(a) teaching and (b) research assessment exercises to be conducted by the Higher Education Funding Council (England) in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 and (iv) 1998–99. [4321]
  535
  Mr. Forth
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England determines the conduct of these assessments and what proportion of its running costs should be spent on them. I am asking the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will break down the £5 million estimate of administration costs for the nursery scheme; on what experience the estimates were made; and how the notice for tender was publicised. [4490]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The estimated cost of inspection and administration in phase 1 of the nursery voucher scheme is based on: training inspectors for phase 1; inspections of that phase; training of inspectors in preparation for full implementation in phase 2; and the contract to administer the scheme in phase 1, which was awarded after competitive tender.

  Advertisements inviting contractors to express an interest in tendering for the voucher contract were placed in a number of national newspapers, the Times Educational Supplement, The Economist and "Government Opportunities".

  Ofsted
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will give a breakdown of the Ofsted budget for 1995–96; and if she will make a statement. [4514]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Car Leasing and Subsistence Rates
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list members of staff in(a) the Department for Education and (b) the Department of Employment in June 1995; what the subsistence rates prevailing in each Department (i) were and (ii) are currently; what were the car leasing arrangements in each former Department; and how many of the staff in each former Department were receiving lease cars or car leasing support. [4819]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  At 30 June 1995 there were 2,020 staff in the Department for Education and 4,721 staff in the Employment Department.

  The United Kingdom subsistence rates for staff in the former Department for Education and Employment Department are as follows and are still current.

  Allowance

  DFE system/rates

  ED system/rates

  Day subsistence

  Absence over 5 hour

  £4.25

  £4.25

  Absence over 10 hours

  £9.30

  £9.30

  Absence over 12 hours

  £13.55

  £13.55

  536

  Allowance

  DFE system/rates

  ED system/rates

  Overnight subsistence (24 hour rates)

  Staying in a hotel

  Use of hotel list offering discount. A fixed rate of London £ elsewhere £60 is paid

  Actual cost of B&B arranged through booking agent plus £20.50(tax free) and an additional £7.50 (taxable)

  Staying with friends/relatives or making arrangements

  £25.00 tax free

  £35.00 tax free

  Neither the former ED nor the DFE had leased cars in June 1995. The Department for Education and Employment has no leased cars currently. In the former Employment Department, and currently in the Department for Education and Employment vehicles have been purchased for official use. Staff who travel at least 5,000 miles each year on official business may be allocated an official car, which they are permitted to use for private purposes, in return for a monthly payment.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the most recent statistics available for(a) the average amount paid out per pension under the teachers' superannuation scheme,(b) the number of pensioners currently receiving pensions under the teachers' superannuation scheme on a region-by-region basis, (c) the average age of the recipients of pensions under the teachers' superannuation scheme for each year since 1988 and (d) how many people have left the scheme to date to take up private pensions. [4821]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The average amount paid out per pension under the teachers' superannuation scheme at 31 October 1995 was £6,144 per annum. The number of pensioners currently receiving pensions under the teachers' superannuation scheme at 31 October 1995 was 367,961. A regional analysis could be produced only at disproportionate cost. The average age of recipients of pensions under the teachers' superannuation scheme at 31 October 1995 was 66 years. Figures for earlier years are not available. Information on the number of teachers who have left the scheme to take up private pensions is not collected.

  English-medium Schools Abroad
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what supervision her Department exercises over schools abroad which use English as a language of teaching and which prepare children for English GCSE and A-level examinations. [4800]

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children were in receipt of free school meals, by region, in each of the last five years. [4922]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information on the take-up of free school meals in maintained schools in England in the years 1991 to 1995 is shown in the following table:
  537

  Pupils taking free school meals in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools by region in England 1991–95

  Position in January each year

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  11995

  North

  80,111

  88,703

  95,102

  99,500

  101,456

  North West

  165,598

  191,052

  207,690

  217,154

  218,516

  East Anglia

  20,844

  27,657

  33,369

  35.868

  36,607

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  102,672

  120,243

  130,571

  136,066

  137,382

  West Midlands

  110,564

  133,311

  148,944

  155,509

  154,062

  East Anglia

  57,511

  68,415

  78,212

  83,624

  85.763

  Greater London

  136,456

  169,787

  196,965

  219.229

  230,650

  Other South East

  95,582

  134,528

  167,783

  184,492

  185.469

  South West

  52,075

  68,272

  82,690

  85,684

  84.932

  England

  821,413

  1,001,968

  1,141,326

  1,217,126

  1,234,684

  1Provisional.

  Mobile Classrooms
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under which items of their budgeted provision governors of grant-maintained schools may make capital purchases of mobile classrooms. [4607]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  A grant-maintained school may make capital purchases of mobile classrooms using its formula or named capital allocations, or its annual maintenance grant.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by how much the proposed budget for the assisted places scheme was underspent in the years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. [5034]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 24 October 1995,Official Report, column 623, for the years up to and including 1994–95; 1995–96 is still in progress.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils benefited in the years 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 from the assisted places schemes. [5035]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) on 24 October 1995,Official Report, column 623, and to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on 4 December 1995, Official Report, column 117.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment on 21 November 1995,Official Report,s column 454, if she will make it her policy to review past legislation in respect of additional burdens imposed by regulations implementing European directives. [5065]

  Mr. Forth
  It is the policy in the Department to ensure that we do not gold-plate European directives by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the United Kingdom. We will take every opportunity to look at existing legislation in the light of this policy.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice she has offered to the Funding Agency for Schools regarding publicity for agency proposals to open new grant-maintained schools; what financial limits are imposed in each case; and if she will make a statement. [5251]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My Department issued general guidance, in circular 23/94, regarding consultations prior to the publication of statutory proposals. The Funding Agency for Schools is under a statutory duty to consult on its proposals to establish new grant-maintained schools. It is for the agency to decide what are appropriate consultations in the light of guidance from the Secretary of State and to determine expenditure accordingly.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the allocation to individual programmes in Northern Ireland of the public expenditure totals announced on 28 November. [5433]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  In his unified Budget statement on 28 November my right hon. and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced total public expenditure planning figures for the Northern Ireland programme. I have now decided on the allocations to individual programmes as shown in the following table. Copies of a more detailed statement have been placed in the Library. These allocations reflect my assessment of how best to distribute the Northern Ireland public expenditure totals in response to local needs and circumstances.

  £ million

  Programme

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Northern Ireland Office:

  Law, Order, Protective and Miscellaneous Services

  858

  860

  850

  Northern Ireland

  Departments

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, Fisheries and

  Forestry Services and

  Support

  149

  150

  140

  539

  £ million

  Programme

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Industry, Trade and

  Employment

  483

  480

  470

  Energy

  58

  60

  60

  Roads and Transport

  176

  170

  180

  Housing

  248

  270

  270

  Environmental and

  Miscellaneous Services

  243

  250

  220

  Law, Order and Protective

  Services (Fire Service)

  43

  40

  40

  Education, Arts and

  Libraries

  1,404

  1,430

  1,430

  Health and Personal Social

  Services

  1,578

  1,620

  1,630

  Social Security

  Administration

  162

  160

  160

  Other Public Services

  59

  60

  60

  NI Block (excluding Social

  Security Benefits)

  5,461

  5,560

  5,510

  Social Security Benefits

  2,383

  2,480

  2,590

  NI Block

  7,844

  8,040

  8,100

  National Agriculture and

  Fisheries Support

  165

  170

  170

  NI Programme

  8,009

  8,210

  8,270

  Notes:

  1Figures are rounded to the nearest £1 million in 1996–97 and to the nearest £10 million in 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  2The figures to 1996–97 will form the basis for preparation by Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office of main estimates for the coming year. These will be presented to Parliament in due course.

  3 Northern Ireland will also receive additional resources for the extra spending which will result from the Budget measures to help meet the costs of long-term care.

  Table 1: Community background—percentage of strength

  RUC regular

  Full-time reserve

  part-time reserve

  Year

  CB1

  CB2

  Year

  CB1

  CB2

  Year

  CB1

  CB2

  1990

  89.32

  7.75

  1990

  90.27

  5.45

  1990

  95.05

  3.92

  1991

  89.33

  7.72

  1991

  89.78

  5.82

  1991

  94.92

  4.09

  1992

  89.38

  7.91

  1992

  89.15

  6.08

  1992

  94.97

  3.91

  1993

  89.14

  7.90

  1993

  88.60

  6.28

  1993

  95.03

  3.74

  1994

  89.22

  7.77

  1994

  88.30

  6.44

  1994

  94.16

  4.50

  November 1995

  89.06

  7.91

  November 1995

  88.36

  6.33

  November 1995

  93.40

  5.20

  Notes:

  1. Information relating to community background is not available prior to 1990.

  2. The latest figures regarding force strength are at 1 November 1995.

  3. CBI refers to perceived community background—Protestant, CB2 refers to perceived community background—Roman Catholic.

  Table 2: Recruitment—percentage male and female

  RUC regular

  Full-time reserve

  Part-time reserve

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Year

  Male

  Female

  1985

  92.3

  7.7

  1985

  100.0

  0

  1985

  100.0

  0

  1986

  91.4

  8.6

  1986

  100.0

  0

  1986

  81.2

  18.8

  1987

  89.8

  10.2

  1987

  100.0

  0

  1987

  59.2

  40.8

  1988

  82.7

  17.3

  1988

  81.5

  18.5

  1988

  65.4

  34.6

  1989

  78.2

  21.8

  1989

  95.2

  4.8

  1989

  44.5

  55.5

  1990

  75.8

  24.2

  1990

  91.2

  8.8

  1990

  58.4

  41.6

  1991

  85.6

  14.4

  1991

  89.8

  10.2

  1991

  45.7

  54.3

  1992

  76.5

  23.5

  1992

  81.8

  18.2

  1992

  45.1

  54.9

  1993

  78.7

  21.3

  1993

  90.1

  9.9

  1993

  47.3

  52.7

  1994

  71.1

  28.9

  1994

  76.9

  23.1

  1994

  76.4

  23.6

  1995

  70.9

  29.1

  1995

  75.0

  25.0

  1995

  46.0

  54.0

  Notes:

  1. Information relating to community background is not available prior to 1990.

  2. The latest figures regarding force strength are at 1 November 1995.

  3. CBI refers to perceived community background—Protestant. CB2 refers to perceived community background—Roman Catholic.
  540
  4The EU peace and reconciliation programme has been provisionally allocated to the individual programmes and is included in the figures above. The allocation set aside for the partnership measure is for the time being included with the enviromental and miscellaneous services figures.

  Road Safety Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the recommended staffing level for road safety education officers; and what is the current number of staff in post. [2718]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no recommended staffing levels for the road safety education officer service within Northern Ireland. The current number of staff in post is 13.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of state for Northern Ireland (1) what have been the percentage of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have been Protestant and Catholic in each of the past 10 years; [3530]

  (2)what have been the percentages of men women who have been recruits to the Royal Ulster Constabulary for each of the past 10 years; [3528]

  (3)what have been the percentage of men women in the Royal Ulster Constabulary in each of the past 10 years; [3527]

  (4)what have been the percentage of recruits to the Royal Ulster Constabulary who have been Protestant and Catholic for each of the past 10 years. [3529]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is in the tables.
  541

  Table 3: Force strength—percentage male and female

  RUC regular

  Full-time reserve

  Part-time reserve

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Year

  Male

  Female

  1985

  92.1

  7.9

  1985

  100

  0

  1985

  82.4

  17.6

  1986

  92.1

  7.9

  1986

  100

  0

  1986

  82.7

  17.3

  1987

  92.2

  7.8

  1987

  99.9

  0.1

  1987

  80.6

  19.4

  1988

  91.9

  8.1

  1988

  99.0

  1.0

  1988

  78.6

  21.4

  1989

  91.7

  8.3

  1989

  98.7

  1.3

  1989

  75.9

  24. I

  1990

  91.4

  8.6

  1990

  98.5

  1.5

  1990

  74.0

  26.0

  1991

  91.4

  8.6

  1991

  98.0

  2.0

  1991

  71.7

  28.3

  1992

  90.7

  9.3

  1992

  96.4

  3.6

  1992

  70.7

  29.3

  1993

  90.3

  9.7

  1993

  96.2

  3.8

  1993

  69.5

  30.5

  1994

  90.0

  10.0

  1994

  95.5

  4.5

  1994

  66.8

  33.2

  November 1995

  89.6

  10.4

  November 1995

  95.2

  4.8

  November 1995

  65.0

  35.0

  Notes:

  1. Information relating to community background is not available prior to 1990.

  2. The latest figures regarding force strength are at 1 November 1995.

  3. CBI refers to perceived community background—Protestant, CB2 refers to perceived community background—Roman Catholic.

  Table 4: Recruitment—percentage community background

  RUC regular

  Full-time reserve

  Part-time reserve

  Year

  CB1

  CB2

  Year

  CB1

  CB2

  Year

  CB1

  CB2

  1990

  87.36

  7.14

  1990

  87.70

  11.40

  1990

  92.03

  7.96

  1991

  86.67

  7.14

  1991

  81.81

  12.30

  1991

  90.43

  9.57

  1992

  87.41

  9.26

  1992

  87.41

  9.26

  1992

  91.67

  2.78

  1993

  79.71

  6.76

  1993

  79.61

  8.55

  1993

  89.19

  8.11

  1994

  86.80

  6.60

  1994

  77.31

  7.56

  1994

  88.04

  9.09

  1995

  77.71

  15.43

  1995

  86.36

  6.82

  1995

  86.10

  10.70

  Notes:

  1. Information relating to community background is not available prior to 1990.

  2. The latest figures regarding force strength are at 1 November 1995.

  3. CBI refers to perceived community background—Protestant, CB2 refers to perceived community background—Roman Catholic.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what records are kept of the geographical origins of recruits to the Royal Ulster Constabulary; and if he will publish them. [3531]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No records are kept of the geographical origins of recruits.

  Church Attacks
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those Chief Constable's certificates issued since 1 January 1990 relating to attacks on Protestant churches and halls and Catholic churches and halls. [3538]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the Compensation Agency has produced a list of 182 Protestant and Roman Catholic church properties for which it has received a Chief Constable's certificate since 1 January 1990. I have arranged for a copy of this list to be placed in the Library.

  Discussions (Irish Republic and USA)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each occasion since 1990 when reproductive health, population control or access to abortion and contraception, have been discussed by officials of his Department with representatives of(a) the Irish Government and (b) the Government of the United States of America; and if he will make a statement on the nature of each discussion indicating to what extent
  542
  it referred to (a) the receipt of United States aid and (b) the peace process. [3985]

  Mr. Moss
  There have been no such discussions.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those(a) consultants (b) outside organisations and (c) individuals employed by his Department in each year since 1990, indicating the purposes of their employment and the total payments made to them. [3970]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Information in relation to consultants covering the financial years 1990–91 to 1994–95 has been placed in the Library. This is recorded under four categories—general management consultancy, information technology, privatisation and next steps. Total payment amounts are shown where this would not breach commercial confidentiality but is omitted in the cases of single contracts (marked ⋆). The other information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all statutory instruments in respect of health services from his Department for the present Parliament. [4050]

  Mr. Moss
  Full details of the statutory rules made to 31 December 1994 are shown in the annual volume of "Statutory Rules", a copy of which is available in the Library.
  543
  The list of the statutory rules in respect of health and personal social services made since 1 January 1995 is as follows:

  Northern Ireland statutory rules 1995 (1 January 1995 to 6 December 1995)

  Statutory rules number

  6

  Causeway Health and Social Services Trust (Establishment) Order (NI) 1995 (11 January)

  16

  Optical Charges and Payments (Amendment, Regulations (NI) 1995 (23 January)

  56

  General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1995

  (28 February)

  83

  Dental Charges (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1995 (9 March)

  95

  Health and Personal Social Services (Superannuation) Regulations (NI) 1995 (15 March)

  114

  Optical Charges and Payments (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (NI) 1995 (22 March)

  115

  General Ophthalmic Services (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1995 (22 March)

  124

  Health and Social Services Trusts (Originating Capital Debt) (Amendment) Order (NI) 1995 (23 March)

  126

  General Medical and Pharmaceutical Services (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (NI) 1995 (27 March)

  135

  Charges for Drugs and Appliances (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1995 (29 March)

  138

  Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1995 (30 March)

  142

  Eastern Ambulance Service Health and Social Services Trust Dissolution Order (NI) 1995 (30 March)

  143

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Services Trust (Establishment) Order (NI) 1995 (30 March)

  144

  Health and Social Services Trusts (Originating Capital Debt) Order (NI) 1995 (31 March)

  211

  Welfare Foods (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1995 (23 May)

  286

  Health and Personal Social Services (Assessment of Resources) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1995 (18 July)

  305

  Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1995 (3 August)

  306

  Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (Variation) Order (NI) 1995 (3 August)

  351

  Armagh and Dungannon Health and Social Services Trust (Establishment) Order (NI) 1995 (4 September)

  358

  Optional Charges and Payments (Amendment No. 3) Regulations (NI) 1995 (8 September)

  361

  Travelling Expenses and Remission of Charges (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (NI) 1995 (12 September)

  397

  Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency (Establishment and Constitution) Order (NI) 1995 (18 October)

  402

  Charges for Drugs and Appliances (Amendment No. 2) Regulations (NI) 1995 (19 October)

  421

  United Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust (Establishment) Order (NI) 1995 (8 November)

  422

  Altnagelvin Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust (Establishment) Order (NI) 1995 (8 November)

  423

  Foyle Health and Social Services Trust (Establishment) Order (NI) 1995 (8 November)

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all NHS trusts(a) as of 30 November 1995 and (b) with effect from 1 April 1996. [4062]

  Mr. Moss
  At 30 November 1995 the following NHS trusts had been established in Northern Ireland.

  Royal Group of Hospitals and Dental Hospital HSS Trust

  Ulster North Down and Ards Hospitals HSS Trust

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  Green Park HSS Trust

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  North Down and Ards Community HSS Trust

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  Causeway HSS Trust

  Northern Ireland Ambulance Service HSS Trust

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  United Hospitals HSS Trust

  Altnagelvin Hospitals HSS Trust

  Foyle HSS Trust.

  In addition, the following units were approved for trust status on 8 November 1995 and will he established when a chairman has been identified:

  Sperrin Lakeland

  Homefirst.

  It is anticipated that they will become fully operational on 1 April 1996.

  US Financial Assistance
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total amount of financial assistance made available by the United States of America, either directly or through the International Fund for Ireland, to assist with the regeneration of Northern Ireland, and to what extent that aid is governed by those aspects of section 104(d) of the United States International Development and Food Assistance Act 1978 which requires that all nations receiving United States foreign assistance must take steps to reduce their rate of population growth; and if he will make a statement. [3984]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There has been no direct financial assistance made available by the United States of America to assist with the regeneration of Northern Ireland. The United States of America has contributed a total of $250 million to the International Fund for Ireland over the period 1986 to 1995 inclusive. Under the terms of the agreement establishing the fund approximately three quarters of its resources are to be disbursed in Northern Ireland. The US contributions to the fund are governed by the US Anglo-Irish Support Act 1986 and fall outside the terms of section 104(d) of the US International Development and Food Assistance Act 1978.

  Forensic Science Laboratory
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory was launched as a next steps agency. [5432]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I launched the Northern Ireland forensic science laboratory as a next steps agency on 1 September 1995, to be known as the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland. The agency will continue to supply a wide range of forensic services to the RUC and the courts in Northern Ireland. The agency published its framework document and corporate and business plan in September and copies of both have been placed in the Library.

  EC Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 21 November,Official Report, column 454, if he will make it his policy to review past legislation in respect of additional burdens imposed by regulations implementing European directives. [5070]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Within the NI departments, there is no such existing policy at the present time, but legislation influenced by EC directives is progressed on a parity basis with Great Britain. Any initiatives taken by Great Britain Departments to review past legislation implementing European directives which impose additional burdens will be closely monitored by departments.

  Rugby League
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) financial; and (b) other assistance to rugby league is made available by the Northern Ireland Sports Council. [4993]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. Rugby league has no governing body to which financial or other assistance could be made.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many ministerial visits have been undertaken by each Minister in his Department between 6 July and 1 December; and how many and what percentage of these have involved the Minister travelling abroad. [4228]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding reply 6 December 1995]: Ministers have spent the following numbers of days out of the office, each of which may have involved more than one visit:

  Travelling abroad

  Ministerial visits (Days)

  (Days)

  Percentage

  Sir P. Mayhew

  25

  2

  (8.0)

  Mr. M. Ancram

  24

  2

  (8.3)

  Sir J. Wheeler

  23

  3

  (13.0)

  Baroness Denton

  95

  20

  (21.1)

  Mr. M. Moss

  48

  1

  (2.1)

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many times mobile telephones used by Ministers in his Department have been cloned during(a) the last six months, (b) the last 12 months and (c) the last 18 months; and which Ministers within his Department have had their mobile telephones cloned; [4264]

  (2) how many mobile telephones there are available in his Department for the use of Ministers. [4263]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 7 December 1995]: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) both had their mobile telephones cloned within the last 12 months.

  The five Northern Ireland Ministers have mobile phones fitted in their official London cars. There are also additional telephones carried by private secretaries which are available for use by Ministers as necessary.

WALES

  Council Tax
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to maintain the current differential between council tax bills in Wales and England. [4293]

  Mr. Hague
  In some years it will be necessary for local authorities to raise a greater proportion of their revenue locally. The actual level of council tax will be set by local authorities but I expect there to be a large differential between council tax levels in Wales and England for the foreseeable future.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the organisations which have sent him responses to the draft planning policy guidance for Wales. [3423]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The organisations are as follows:

  Clwyd county council

  Dyfed county council

  Gwent county council

  Gwynedd county council

  Mid Glamorgan county council

  Powys county council

  South Glamorgan county council

  West Glamorgan county council

  Assembly of Welsh Counties

  Aberconwy Borough Council

  Alyn and Deeside District Council

  Blaenau Gwent Borough Council

  Cardiff City Council

  Carmarthen District Council

  Ceredigion District Council

  Colwyn Borough Council

  Cynon Valley Borough Council

  Delyn Borough Council

  Dinefwr Borough Council

  Dwyfor District Council

  Glyndwr District Council

  547

  Islwyn Borough Council

  Monmouth Borough Council

  Montgomeryshire District Council

  Neath Borough Council

  Newport Borough Council

  Ogwr Borough Council

  Port Talbot Borough Council

  Preseli Pembrokeshire District Council

  Radnorshire District Council

  Rhondda Borough Council

  South Pembrokeshire District Council

  Swansea City Council

  Taff-Ely Borough Council

  Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council

  Wrexham Maelor Borough Council

  Ynys Mon/Isle of Anglesey Borough Council

  Anglesey County Council

  Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council

  Caerphilly County Borough Council

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire County Council

  Cardiff County Council

  Cardiganshire County Council

  Flintshire County Council

  Neath and Port Talbot County Borough Council

  Rhondda Cynon Taff County Borough Council

  Wrexham County Borough Council

  Brecon Beacons National Park

  Pembrokeshire Coast National Park

  Snowdonia National Park

  Newport Friends of the Earth

  Friends of the Earth, Cymru

  Tai Cymru/Housing for Wales

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments

  of Wales

  The House Builders Federation, South Wales

  British Retail Consortium

  Cycle Campaign Network

  Cardiff Cycling Campaign

  Cardiff Chamber of Commerce, Trade and Industry

  Aberdare and District Chamber of Trade and Commerce

  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Welsh Historic Gardens Trust

  The Royal Town Planning Institute

  Association of Welsh RIGS Groups

  Society of Welsh District Planning Officers

  The Sports Council for Wales

  Chief Officers of Recreation and Leisure

  Land Authority for Wales

  Regional Technical Officer for North Wales Waste Management Group

  Mandix

  The Crown Estate

  Mr. Brian Thomas and Pontypridd Market Company

  Barratt South Wales

  NFU in Wales

  National Rivers Authority, Welsh Region

  Severn Trent Water

  548

  Severn Estuary Strategy Group

  The Civic Trust for Wales

  Wales Tourist Board

  Royal Society of Architects in Wales

  The Commission for Local Administration in Wales

  The Ramblers Association

  Wales Wildlife and Countryside Link

  Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, and for:

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  The Welsh Wildlife Trusts

  Wales Association of Community and Town Councils

  Welsh Chamber of Trade and Commerce

  Ramblers' Association

  Youth Hostels Association—Wales

  WWF UK (World Wide Fund for Nature)

  Council for National Parks

  Field Studies Council (Cymru)

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust

  British Horse Society

  Plantlife

  Gower Society

  Friends of the Earth Cymru

  Open Spaces Society

  National Federation of Women's Institutes

  Farmers' Union of Wales

  Countryside Council for Wales

  The Country Landowners Association

  Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust

  Metropolitan Borough of Wirral

  Hafod Trust

  Joint Committee of the National Amenity Societies

  The Georgian Group

  The Victorian Society

  The Twentieth Century Society

  Rescue: The British Archaeological Trust

  Coventry University, School of The Built Environment Healey and Baker for:

  Alliance and Leicester Society

  Nationwide Building Society

  Abbey National plc

  Bradford and Bingley Building Society

  Beazer Homes plc and Beazer Homes (Wales) Ltd.

  British Aggregate Construction Materials Industries

  Sand and Gravel Association

  Federation of Small Businesses

  G. L. Hearn and Partners (for Tesco Stores Ltd.)

  Disability Wales

  Cheshire County Council

  Dyfed Archaeological Trust

  Gwynedd Archaeological Trust

  The Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust

  Play Wales, Chwarae Cymru

  Urban Design Group (Wales)

  Chester City Council

  Tony Thorpe Associates (for Vodafone Ltd.)

  MVM Planning (for British Rail Property Board)

  Aaron and Partners

  Ideal Homes

  549

  Boots The Chemists

  Western Planning

  Railway Development Society Wales

  The Garden History Society

  ICOMOS UK

  Terry Adams Ltd.

  National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors

  Acoustic Consultants Limited

  Institute of Field Archaeologists

  Shawater Ltd.

  Council for British Archaeology

  Council for British Archaeology Wales

  The Football Association of Wales

  Association of Conservation Officers

  Association of Local Government Ecologists

  Association of County Archaeological Officers

  The Gower Society

  Sears plc

  Welsh Wildlife Trusts

  Sainsbury' s

  Safeway Stores plc

  Tesco Stores Ltd.

  Cambrian Council of Welsh Motor Cycle Clubs

  Department of National Heritage

  St. Quintin Chartered Surveyors

  British Gas Properties

  Historic Buildings Council For Wales

  The National Trust

  Liberal Democrats Wales

  Clwyd Ornithological Society

  CVCP (Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom)

  Welsh Water

  Deeside Urban Wildlife Group

  Deeside Naturalists Society

  Dee Estuary Strategy

  Ancient Monuments Board For Wales

  The British Association for Shooting and Conservation

  SCAUM (Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers)

  A number of individuals also responded.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the written responses his Department has received to the draft planning policy guidance for Wales. [4400]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to the statement of the Secretary of State for the Environment of 21 November,Official Report, column 454, if he will make it his policy to review past legislation in respect of additional burdens imposed by regulations implementing European directives. [5072]
  550
  Mr. Hague
  It is the policy of my Department to ensure that we do not add any unnecessary burden when implementing European directives in the United Kingdom. We will take every opportunity to look at existing legislation in the light of this policy.

  Welsh Regional Consumer Committee
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the Welsh customer services committee of the Office of Water and Sewerage, in relation to the impact of water and sewerage service customers of the agreed takeover of South Wales Electricity. [5417]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The Director General of Water Services has, jointly with the Director General of Electricity Supply, issued a consultation paper on the issues raised by the bid by Welsh Water plc for South Wales Electricity plc. The views of the Welsh customer services committee will be taken into account by the DGWS in formulating his advice to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Training for Work
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultation he has had with the chairman of the Welsh training and enterprise councils concerning flexibility between the last day of training and the first day of employment in the approval and funding for outcome and output-related payment methods under training for work schemes for the long-term unemployed. [5421]

  Mr. Hague
  None. However, with effect from 27 March 1995 arrangements have been agreed with training and enterprise councils in Wales for outcome-related payments to be made in respect of training for work trainees who get a job within six months of leaving the programme.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring systems he has available to him and what proposals he has to improve the monitoring systems with respect to the output and outcome of related funding methods for training for work schemes in respect of the numbers of former training for work trainees still in work three months or longer after completing their training for work training programmes; and if he will make a statement. [5420]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department's agreement with training and enterprise councils requires them to retain evidence of job outcomes achieved by training for work trainees, for whom a job outcome payment may he payable. A payment can be made in respect of a trainee gaining employment within six months of leaving the programme.

  The administrative arrangements for training for work in 1996–97 are currently under review and my officials are in consultation with training and enterprise councils about potential changes to the programme.

  Welsh Water
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to removing the 15 per cent. maximum shareholding in Welsh Water. [5414]
  551
  Mr. Hague
  None. This is a matter for the shareholders.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimates he has made of the effects on financial markets of the 15 per cent. maximum shareholding rule incorporated in perpetuity by his Department into the articles of association of Welsh Water plc at the time of privatisation. [5415]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Welsh Development Agency concerning the funding of already signed contracts for commencement during the period November 1995 to 31 March 1996, and the consideration of abrogation; and if he will make a statement. [5422]

  Mr. Hague
  None. These are operational matters for the agency.

  Departmental Correspondence
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Western Mail as regards the form of publication of letters from Ministers and civil servants on behalf of Ministers and signed as approved by the relevant Minister; what proposals he has to clarify the distinction between the responsibility of Ministers for instructing and approving letters and civil servants for drafting and dispatching letters; and if he will make a statement. [5419]

  Mr. Hague
  It is standard practice across Whitehall for letters dictated by or approved by a Minister to be signed by a civil servant on behalf of the Minister in his absence. This is always made clear on the letter and is used to avoid delays in transmission. This happened with the letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Member for Clwyd North-West (Mr. Richards) printed in the Western Mail on 4 December. The newspaper incorrectly carried the name of the civil servant rather than that of my hon. Friend whose letter it was. When the error was pointed out by an official the Western Mail carried a correction the following day.

  It is also standard practice for officials to provide advice to Ministers on matters of official business, including letters.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of the original letter, relating to the health service in Wales, published in the Western Mail on 4 December in the name of the Welsh Office civil servant Richard Morgan. [5255]

  Mr. Hague
  I am today placing a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Child Abuse
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he is able to announce his decision on whether there should be an inquiry into the various allegations of child abuse in north Wales and if he will make a statement.
  552
  Mr. Richards
  On 5 May the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), appointed Miss Nicola Davies QC to undertake an examination of relevant papers held by the various agencies concerned and to advise on whether an inquiry was required.

  Upon the evidence contained in the documents examined Miss Davies has recommended that a public inquiry cannot be justified. The documents held by the North Wales police do contain allegations of abuse but the majority of the allegations relate to the period 1980 to 1988. The police investigations were triggered by letters from Clwyd and Gwynedd county councils and all the issues raised in those letters were properly investigated. With limited exceptions, children in care after 1989 were not interviewed by the police. Since 1989 there has been a radical revision of existing procedures.

  An inquiry into events prior to 1989 would be primarily of historical interest. The documents examined by Miss Davies do not demonstrate that the problems of the pre-1989 period have continued. In the absence of such core evidence Miss Davies feels unable to recommend that reasonable grounds exist which would provide the basis for a public inquiry.

  However, she has concluded that there should be a detailed examination of the practices and procedures of the social service departments of both Clwyd and Gwynedd county councils and of private homes in those areas to ensure that they are adequate and working effectively. She has recommended that this work he undertaken by an independent person experienced in social work and child care. This person should:

  (a) examine documents held by the statutory agencies and all the private agencies in Clwyd and Gwynedd who provide residential care for children which are relevant to such provision for the period 1991 to the present. The purpose of the examination would be to scrutinise the procedures and to comment on their adequacy and effectiveness; such an examination should address the following issues:

  (i) management, supervision and monitoring of staff at all levels;

  (ii) personnel procedures, recruitment of staff, induction, probationary periods, promotion, redeployment of staff, training plans for staff of residential homes, overall planning and individual profiles;

  (iii) implementation of care planning and review process, examination of children's records for supporting documentation;

  (iv) implementation of complaints procedures for children and staff; assessment of child protection procedures;

  (v) assessment of all books, diaries and logs kept in the various homes;

  (vi) the understanding of the various procedures and systems on the part of staff, parents, children and carers. Such procedures to include planning and review, children's rights, complaints, advocacy and independent visitors.

  (b) interview any individual whose knowledge and experience is deemed to be of relevance to such an investigation. The interviewing of any such individual would be in private;

  (c) investigate the area of foster care;

  (d) investigate the units in Clwyd county council and Gwynedd county council responsible for registering and inspecting homes.

  553
  I accept Miss Davies' conclusion that no case for a public inquiry has been established. That is the basis upon which I am proceeding unless any new compelling factor should come to light.

  I am also accepting Miss Davies' other recommendations and am appointing, under section 80 of the Children Act 1989, Miss Adrianne Jones to head this examination.
  554
  Miss Jones is to start work immediately. I shall he asking her, in addition, to advise me upon the proposedpractices and procedures of the six new unitary authorities in north Wales who will take over full responsibility for social services matters in April 1996.

  I am grateful to Miss Davies and to all of the various agencies who co-operated fully with her.

  I have arranged for Miss Davies' conclusions and recommendations to be placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

National Health Service: Mixed-sex Wards
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action has been taken and what progress has been made to eliminate mixed-sex wards in National Health Service hospitals following the launch of the new Patient's Charter on 18th January 1995.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, we issued guidance to the NHS in March this year about implementing the revised Patient's Charter. We have carried out a survey into local policies, standards and design of wards. The results will be published shortly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is she aware that there is still a great deal of concern about mixed-sex wards, not only among individual patients but also on the part of the Patients Association? Will the Minister tell the House what methods are being used to monitor the elimination of mixed-sex wards? Can she say whether Nightingale wards have now been eliminated? If not, how long will it be before they are? Are separate toilet and washing facilities available? What about new hospitals: does their planning and construction take into account the need for single-sex facilities for everyone who wishes them?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very much aware that people are extremely concerned about mixed-sex wards. Nightingale wards were last built in 1948 and no new ones have been built since then. The present situation is monitored through health authorities and their contracts. We are also monitoring centrally through the survey that I mentioned. Regarding toilet and washing facilities, there is a requirement on trusts to ensure that these are separate.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is it not a fact, however, that, under new hospital designs going back at least 20 years, there are adequate facilities? Is it not the older hospitals that lack such facilities? Will my noble friend confirm that, although everyone is concerned about mixed-sex wards and most people do not like them, there is a difference between a long-stay ward and a short transit stay in, for instance, a recovery room or in intensive care, where other matters are paramount?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is correct. There are now "bays" in place which are, in effect, self-contained compartments. They are still described as single wards because there are a number of such bays within one ward. They provide the privacy and dignity that people want, although they are part of a single ward. There are areas, such as intensive care and day surgery, where it is perhaps inappropriate to ensure that the sexes are separated, since the length of stay is likely to be hours rather than days.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister agree with me that it is unsuitable for a young woman in her 20s to be the only female in a ward with five men? The person to whom I refer was asked if she would go into such a ward and was so frightened that her operation would be put back that she agreed. She said that she hated every single moment. That was at Odstock Hospital, near Salisbury.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are occasions when it is not possible to ensure that people have their wish to be in a single-sex ward. The situation is put to them and they can then choose to wait for the next available bed in a single-sex ward. They do not go to the bottom of the list; they are still treated very quickly.
There is another side to this issue. According to at least one survey, some 20 per cent. of patients were not even aware that they had been in a mixed-sex ward.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Cumberlege: I know, my Lords, the mind boggles. Indeed, some female patients stated that they preferred a mixed-sex ward; they found it therapeutic and believed that it aided their recovery.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, will the Minister agree that, although a minority of patients may feel as she describes, the vast majority are unhappy about this situation? Is she aware that at the recent AGM of the Patients Association that I attended I was surprised to find speakers from different parts of the country referring to new facilities that did not allow for single-sex provision, although I believe it was one of the understandings of the new Patient's Charter? Is it possible for the Department of Health to ensure, through the contracting process, that new facilities offer this choice? If it is not possible, is it not unfortunately another sign of the fragmentation of the NHS about which we on these Benches are so concerned?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, our guidance is quite clear: certainly new facilities should enable dignity and privacy. In that we include bays for single sexes. The guidance is issued. It is up to health authorities, when they let their contracts, to ensure what the position is. However, there are old hospital buildings where it is very difficult to accommodate people's wishes.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as the questioning continued, I have become more concerned about this issue? It seems that the National Health Service accepts mixed-sex wards as a norm. That, in fact, is completely outside the

1095
recommendations of the Patient's Charter. Is she aware that of the 1,000 letters that I have received about this matter, not one single letter was in favour of mixed-sex wards? Certainly nobody suggested to me that it was therapeutic to be treated in a mixed-sex ward—quite the reverse. Will she accept that very many patients told me that being in a mixed-sex ward retarded their progress? Indeed, one family blamed the mixed-sex ward for the death of a relative.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I very much respect the noble Lord's views and accept entirely the contents of the letters that he received. But there is a balance to be maintained. We want people to retain their dignity and have their privacy respected. That is what it says in the Patient's Charter. They are told what the situation is and are allowed to refuse such an admission, in which case they will receive the next admission in an appropriate ward. However, in some hospitals which do not have such accommodation that would mean that the patient would have to move to another hospital. Toilet facilities are different and we are very determined that they should be separated. The other part of the equation is clinical care. In 1992 the Audit Commission's report said that it was more important to have a single specialty ward than a single-sex ward in terms of the delivery of care and the quality of care provided.

Trans-European Network Projects
2.48 p.m
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the series of Trans-European Network projects designed to give Europe an integrated transport and communications infrastructure.
The Earl of Courtown: Yes, my Lords, we do.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply and note its brevity. I appreciate very much that these days in certain circles the term "integrated" is regarded as a dirty word. Nevertheless, do the Government agree that we need to have special transport strategies to enable us to take the greatest possible economic advantage of the single market? In particular, can the noble Earl say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that not only the south east of England but the whole of the United Kingdom can take advantage of, for example, the Channel Tunnel and the improved facilities in the Channel ports which are the gateway to Europe not only for south-east England but the whole of the United Kingdom?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the Government have a clear transport strategy. One of their main aims is to strike the right balance between healthy economic development, protecting the environment and sustaining future quality of life. However, the Government's role is not to tell transport operators what services to provide or to tell people where and how to travel.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is concern in Wales about the
1096
implications of these network projects? Can he give the House an assurance that the projects will extend so far as Fishguard in South Wales and Holyhead in North Wales?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the Fishguard rail link is not represented at present on the draft combined transport network as it is not used for the transport of unitised freight. British Rail believes that there is no immediate prospect of combined transport services being developed on that route.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether this matter has been discussed with the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office? If it has not been discussed, does he agree that that is an extremely serious situation? There will be a great deal of dissatisfaction in Wales when they hear what the noble Earl has said.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the Ireland-UK-Benelux road link project consists of a number of schemes which are in the road programmes of the Department of Transport, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office and which are at varying states of readiness. From this tranche of funds from TENs approximately £1.6 million in funding was obtained for this route in 1995.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong. Am I right to understand that two routes were planned from Felixstowe, one to finish at Fishguard and the other to end at Holyhead? Is not there also a fast route planned from Stranraer down to the M.6 at Carlisle? Does my noble friend have any more specific details on those three schemes?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his question. I should like to answer him fully. The priority projects for the United Kingdom will receive some £22 million, which is just over 15 per cent. of the total funds available for priority projects in 1995 and more than any other member state will receive from the EC fund. In addition to the £7 million for the west coast main line, the Channel Tunnel rail link will receive £13.6 million and schemes along the Ireland-UK-Benelux road link will receive a further £1.6 million. The United Kingdom will also receive another £360,000 for road traffic management.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, were very appropriate for the part of the world from which I come? Is he aware that there was great argument 30 years ago about the Channel Tunnel and a great deal of support came from the north of England, Wales and Scotland because it was believed that it would break down the barrier so that industrial goods and railway passengers could take a route straight down from Scotland and those other areas right to the heart of Europe? If the idea of the Channel Tunnel had merely been to enrich the south east of England, it would not have been well accepted.
Could I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware of the recent Motion carried in the European Parliament debate on the grand European network? That Motion

1097
stressed the need for top environmental standards and emphasised the importance of upgrading the west coast line which serves the Midlands, north-east England and Scotland. Can he also tell us the Government's view of the amendment which was carried requiring that a minimum of 40 per cent. of investment should be in railways and no more than 25 per cent. in roads? Have the Government considered that Motion which was carried in the European Parliament?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I cannot answer the exact question asked by the noble Lord. An efficient transport infrastructure is essential to national competitiveness. The road network is at the heart of our infrastructure, but the size and content of a national road programme must take account of the Government's overall policy and circumstances. We must contribute to the Government's commitment to keep a firm control on expenditure.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend able to confirm that the Channel Tunnel was in fact built without any help from Brussels? Also, are not the projects addressed by the Question more the fruit of European corporatist ambitions to rebuild their economy after the distress brought by socialist policies? Finally, can he confirm that the cost involved is £110,000 million and say how much of that the United Kingdom is expected to spend?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the Channel Tunnel was funded exclusively from private funds. The UK supports the objective of Article 129 of the Maastricht Treaty to realise the benefits of an efficient single market by developing networks in transport, telecoms and energy infrastructure.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, can the noble Earl confirm that scope exists for private, public and European investment? It is necessary for the strategy of this country to be in tune with that of the Continent so that we have the benefit of an integrated—if that is the right term—transport system that will benefit the economy of the whole of western Europe.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, Article 129c of the Maastricht Treaty states that:
"The Community … may support … projects of common interest financed by Member States".
The Commission and member states agreed that the intention was to support large infrastructure projects of common interest whether they were provided by the public sector or solely or jointly by the private sector.

BBC World Service
2.52 p.m.
Lord Donoughue Lord Donoughue asked Her Majesty's Government:
What will be the effect of the proposed cuts to the budget of the BBC World Service.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the reductions to the World Service were almost entirely to its capital allocation. The private finance initiative offers scope to
1098
make that up through greater use of private sector finance and expertise. There is also scope for greater efficiencies. The BBC World Service is a superb asset and will remain the world's leading international radio broadcaster. Meanwhile, BBC World TV News is growing rapidly, at no cost to the taxpayer.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, though he failed to come clean. The reduction must mean cuts in services because it involves a massive 20 per cent. cut in capital this year and further big cuts in both operating and capital next year in complete breach of the 1994 triennial agreement with the BBC. Is the Minister aware that one of his noble friends, when reflecting on his distinguished period as Foreign Secretary, concluded,
"When I was Foreign Secretary, I was told I had to save money on the Overseas Service of the BBC. I think that was really totally counter-productive and the money saved was trivial compared to the amount of damage done".>
Does the Minister disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the reductions are the most foolish and false of economies?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have done everything possible to keep the reductions to a minimum. Next year's percentage reduction is lower than that of the Foreign Office—3.1 per cent. compared with 7 per cent. for the Foreign Office as a whole.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, does the Minister realise that the importance of the World Service is that it is broadcast to 100 million listeners in foreign languages which most of our diplomats do not understand? It would be a great deal better to cut the diplomats, who are fairly useless in trade terms, and substitute for them the World Service. That would cost around £5 million a year and save us supporting a lot of diplomats who do not add much to the price of tea.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it is for the World Service to decide on the optimum mix of languages in consultation with the Foreign Office. We are confident that the World Service can maintain its essential front-line activity and further increase its audience penetration through the use of the private finance initiative.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the World Service makes a major contribution to international understanding and in doing so enhances the reputation of this country, can my noble friend confirm that the reductions will not in any way impair the service but there is simply a different way of financing it?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is merely an alternative method of financing the service.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I do not often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, but on this occasion I believe that he almost got it right? I agree with the Minister that the BBC World Service is superb, and widely recognised as such throughout the world. But if there must be a cut, would it not have been

1099
better, in terms of value for money, for there to have been a modest cut of the same size in the Foreign Office budget rather than in the budget of the World Service?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I agree that the World Service is a superb asset. There is no question of that. However, I pointed out that while there was a 3.1 per cent. cut in the World Service budget, there was a 7 per cent. cut overall for the Foreign Office.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as someone who has been stopped no less than six times in the streets of Hangzhou by Chinese anxious to practise the very good English that they learnt from the BBC World Service, nevertheless, will my noble friend entirely discount the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford? Over the 23 years that I have been travelling abroad commercially, I have recognised an astonishing improvement in the service of the Foreign Office which is now second to none in the world.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I welcome that comment. We believe that the Foreign Office is doing an excellent job backed up by the BBC World Service.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest in that a member of my family works for the World Service. But are not the Government going back on a contract entered into by them with the World Service? Was not there an agreement 10 years ago between the Foreign Office and the Treasury on the one side and the World Service on the other, to carry out the funding on a three-year basis? Have not the Government unilaterally reneged on the final year of the present triennium and are they not setting the figure for the first year of the next triennium unilaterally without negotiation?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is not true. There cannot be any absolute guarantee of funding three years ahead. The World Service would be the only public body that had that benefit and we cannot guarantee a three-year agreement.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in those circumstances is it not peculiar that the Government give a yearly guarantee by way of its vote in the Council of Ministers to millions being spent by the European Commission on propaganda throughout Europe, most of which does not rest on any discernible factual basis? That is at great cost to the taxpayer who receives literally nothing at all.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, that is a different question from the one appearing on the Order Paper. We were talking of a three-year, not a one-year guarantee.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the proposed funding cuts to the BBC World Service will affect key programmes and will be a
1100
disaster for all those countries who will no longer be able to listen to the reliable news always introduced by that old soldier's tune of "Lillibulero"?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, there is no suggestion that there will be a cut in services. The cut is in capital expenditure, and that cut will be made up through the PFI.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in what has been a most agreeable exchange so far. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is not due for a question.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in introducing the private finance initiative government Ministers on all occasions have said that it would not be a substitution for investment from the public sector? Is the Minister further aware that there is grave concern at the World Service? Can we read anything into the noble Lord's words that substantially the same programmes would be able to go out? That implied a cut.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe I have already said that it is up to the World Service, in discussion with the Foreign Office, to decide what programmes go out. We do not believe that there will be any substantial reductions in the programmes broadcast by the BBC World Service.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, in relation to what he said about there being no cuts in services, is he aware that the chairman of the BBC has stated that this will result in cuts in services? Is the noble Lord saying that the chairman of the BBC is not telling the truth?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not believe that is exactly what the chairman of the BBC said. What he said on 29th November was that he accepted that the BBC World Service could not be seen in isolation from the totality of the budget.

War Crimes Act 1991
3.1 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
In respect of each case now being investigated under the War Crimes Act 1991, when such investigation was initiated and when a decision will be taken on prosecution.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the Metropolitan Police inform me that they are currently investigating 11 Second World War crimes. Seven of these allegations were received from the Home Office on 28th May 1991 on the

1101
formation of the Metropolitan Police War Crimes Unit. The remaining four allegations were received on 9th August 1993, 8th December 1993, 21st January 1994 and 25th March 1994. The Crown Prosecution Service will take decisions as to possible prosecution once the investigations have been concluded.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend the Minister for what she was able to give us by way of reply and ask respectfully whether it is now accepted that the prospects of a fair trial in every one of these cases will be called in question on the application to stay proceedings for abuse of process of the court. In those circumstances, is it now accepted by the Government that, for the reasons advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge of Harwich, on more than one occasion on the Floor of your Lordships' House, some appellate process should now be introduced?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the question of a fair trial will loom very large in the minds of the Crown Prosecution Service and of the judge at a trial. But whether or not to apply for a stay of proceedings on the ground that the delay renders a fair trial impossible is a matter for the defendant and his legal representative in each case to consider. However, it would not be surprising if such applications were contemplated in these cases. As to my noble friend's other point as to whether there should be an appellate process against decisions to refuse such applications, we believe it is essential to minimise the scope for further delays in criminal trials, especially where delays have already occurred. A right of appeal against abuse of process decisions would create additional delays and is unnecessary. The defence already has a right of appeal at the end of the trial if the defendant is convicted.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the annual cost of these operations?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot give the breakdown but I can say that from the beginning of this process to the present day £5.5 million has been the total cost to the Metropolitan Police of pursuing these cases. The Crown Prosecution Service costs stand at £1.5 million.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how old are the oldest and youngest people under investigation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that the oldest is 84 and the youngest is 70.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the question of whether there would be a fair trial has been raised almost exclusively by a small knot of people who, for reasons which remain obscure, desire to see these appalling crimes committed during the Second World War obliterated from the public memory? Does she not further agree that to raise these questions now, when we are contemplating similar prosecutions for
1102
crimes not of the same magnitude but of the same character in the former Yugoslavia, is the height of irresponsibility?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. These are horrendous crimes. The victims of such crimes and the families of the victims of such crimes have indelibly imprinted on their memories the horror of these crimes. It is essential that we never concede the principle that simply the passage of time should be grounds for acquittal.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not a little unwise to describe crimes as "horrible" when they are still under investigation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not think there is any conflict here. The crimes were horrible. As to who committed them, that is a matter for the courts.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the Minister recall that a substantial majority in this House declined to give a Second Reading to the War Crimes Bill and acted wholly out of a desire to see that unfair trials were not possible? Does she realise that not only are the alleged crimes at least 50 years old but that the time between the starting of these examinations and the bringing of cases to court is already excessive? Is it not time that this controversial and long drawn-out process was brought to an end?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it would be quite wrong to ignore the overwhelming view of another place in this matter. This ground has been well covered in almost every question that has been answered in the debate and indeed was well covered as the Bill processed through this House. On the point of unfair trials, that really must be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service and the judge in the case. If it is deemed that a fair trial cannot take place, that must be a judgment of the Crown Prosecution Service in the first instance and the judges in the courts. If there is a conviction at the end of such a trial, anyone subject to a conviction is free to appeal.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to render unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation in the employment field, including discrimination as regards terms and conditions of employment; 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.—(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 16th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, the passage last month of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 paves the way for a new criminal injuries compensation scheme. The Act provides that a draft of the new scheme must be approved by an affirmative resolution of each House. The draft was laid on 16th November. It was approved by the other place on 6th December, and our task today is to decide whether this House should also approve it.
The criminal injuries compensation scheme was introduced in 1964. It provides compensation from public funds to blameless victims of crimes of violence and to those injured in attempting to catch criminals or prevent crime. Payment is made in recognition of the public's sense of responsibility for, and sympathy with, the innocent victim.
Under the current scheme, compensation has been assessed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on the basis of common law damages. That requires finely judged assessments of the degree of suffering and financial loss. That tends to make speedy decision-taking more difficult. It also makes it hard to predict and control the costs of the scheme. And those costs have been rising at an unsustainable rate, while the backlog of unsettled cases has, despite the best efforts of the board, continued to rise.
That was why we sought to introduce a new, tariff based scheme in 1994. That tariff scheme moved away from common law damages, and provided for payment to be made on the basis of a scale of awards for injuries of comparable severity, with the scale or tariff being based on awards made previously by the board.
However, in April this year the Judicial Committee of this House ruled that the introduction of the tariff scheme had been unlawful. That judgment, of course, related solely to the method of the tariff scheme's introduction, not to its intrinsic merits. The ruling necessitated the immediate withdrawal of the tariff scheme and the reinstatement of the former, common law damages based scheme. It also meant that some applicants were disadvantaged because they would have been treated more generously under the tariff scheme than under the reinstated scheme. These included, for example, some relatives of murder victims. The eligibility criteria in fatal cases were wider under the tariff scheme than under the common law damages scheme, allowing long term, but unmarried, partners of the deceased to qualify for an award, as well as the parents of a child of any age. But with the enforced reinstatement of the common law damages scheme, such applicants lost entitlement to award, an unfortunate consequence of the withdrawal of the tariff scheme necessitated by the Judicial Committee's judgment.
We remained firmly of the view that a tariff based approach was the right one. A tariff scheme is easier for victims to understand and is easier to operate. This means that applications can be dealt with more quickly. It also enables costs to be controlled and predicted more easily.
But the legal judgment did afford us the opportunity of taking a fresh look at the tariff approach. In doing so we took very careful note of the criticisms made of the earlier scheme, both in Parliament and elsewhere. We noted in particular the concern that too simple a tariff scheme could have a detrimental effect on those most seriously affected by their injuries. When, therefore, we invited Parliament to pass the Bill which would give statutory backing to a new tariff scheme, we sought to ensure that there were adequate powers to enable a number of very significant improvements to be made. Parliament clearly agreed with that approach; and we think the new, enhanced tariff scheme now proposed to be made under the new Act's powers fully addresses the major points of concern that have been expressed.
I think it might be helpful if I rehearsed briefly the principal features of the draft new scheme. All successful claimants will get a tariff award based on the injury suffered. But in addition, in more serious cases, victims will also receive extra compensation for loss of earnings and for special care. In fatal cases, payment will additionally be made for loss of dependency—that is, the breadwinner's income—and for loss of parental services. And reasonable funeral expenses will of course continue to be reimbursed.
We are doubling the maximum award under the old tariff scheme from £250,000 to £500,000, and we are making provision for recipients of higher value awards to opt for payment through the purchase of annuities: these arrangements are generally known as structured settlements. These can provide a stream of index-linked, tax-free payments, thereby considerably increasing the net value of the award. And your Lordships will recall that there was a provision in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act to extend the benefit of structured settlements to applicants under the current scheme whose claims had not yet been settled. The complementary change to the current scheme to permit that was made on 8th November, the same day as the Act received Royal Assent.
We issued a first draft of the new scheme in August. This was no small task. Because of the additional features in the new arrangements, such as loss of earnings, loss of dependency and care costs, we had to make it quite clear, and in language understandable to the layman, just what was meant by those rather imprecise terms and what would therefore qualify under the enhanced tariff scheme and what would not. That is why the new draft scheme has, of necessity, to be rather longer and more detailed than any of its predecessors.
The first draft of the new scheme was circulated widely to members of both Houses, and to interested individuals and organisations, including the police representative organisations, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, Victim Support, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Trades Union Congress, the Bar Council and the Law Society, the equivalent bodies in Scotland, and to many others. We then had meetings with a number of these organisations to discuss the proposals. We also received much useful feed-back in writing. The draft also helped to inform the debate during the Bill's consideration in this House where, as your Lordships will recall, discussion was accordingly

1105
often not so much on the provisions in the Bill itself, but on the terms of the draft scheme. That too provided much useful feed-back.
In the light of that wide, and most useful consultation exercise, we made numerous changes to the draft scheme. Among the most significant changes are greater consistency in the terminology used throughout the draft scheme; the inclusion of a table of contents and the more logical presentation of the scheme's provisions; the clarification of the criteria for waiving time limits and the provisions relating to loss of income; the costs of special care and fatal awards; and the provisions dealing with appeals.
We circulated a revised version of the draft scheme on 1st November. That was, of course, in time to inform debate during the final stages of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill, enabling Parliament to complete its consideration of the Bill in the full knowledge of the detailed terms of the scheme which would subsequently be proposed under its powers. In our view the new draft represented a very significant improvement on the earlier one. I am glad to be able to tell the House that that view seems to have been shared but more generally, since we received very little additional feed-back, and most of that was in the nature of seeking either clarification on, or suggesting minor amendment to, very small, technical points of detail. Nonetheless, it did help us to make one or two more minor changes to the draft scheme in the interests of clarity. But essentially the draft now before the House is the same as the one circulated last month and which Parliament had an opportunity to consider before it passed the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.
The draft scheme now before this House gives effect to Parliament's wishes as expressed in its passing of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995. It puts the necessary flesh on the bones of that Act and spells out clearly and unambiguously who can qualify for an award, how that award will be assessed and paid, and how dissatisfied claimants may appeal. It makes it clear how the scheme will be administered and sets out the lines of accountability. Once the draft scheme has been approved and the scheme made, the Act itself makes it clear that any subsequent change will also require parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure if the change affects a key feature of the scheme, and by the negative resolution procedure if the change relates to a more minor feature of the scheme. Thus, Parliament rather than the Executive, will always have the final say over each and every provision of the new scheme.
We believe the draft new scheme provides the right balance between the needs of victims and the interests of taxpayers. It has the benefits of a tariff-based approach, which will enable most claimants to get their money more quickly and without undue fuss. But it also ensures that the more seriously injured are generously catered for, by paying for loss of earnings and the costs of special care, and by making provision for structured settlements. It will remain a generous scheme too; the most generous anywhere in the world. I accordingly commend the draft scheme to the House.
1106
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 16th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committed]—(Baroness Blatch.)
3.18 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I am not sure whether one is speaking at a birth or at a wake because we are, of course, at the birth of the new scheme, but equally we are seeing the final stages of the death of the non-statutory scheme, which has been in existence in this country, with all party support, since 1964.
I should like to place on record, as I am sure my noble friend the Minister will agree, that that scheme over those 30-odd years, has been an enormous success. Without doubt it has been the finest scheme in existence in the world for the compensation of the victims of crime. Its strength has lain in the fact that it was based on the common law principles where each case was reviewed individually and the individual was compensated for the effect that the injury had had on the victim. As my noble friend knows, it was an attempt to ensure that those injured in crimes of violence were compensated as if they were the victim of a similar injury which would have taken them before the civil courts.
Sadly, that scheme is now to go. I accept—I have always accepted—that some change is required. The fact is that a scheme which started in a small way is dealing in the current year with some 70,000 applications and paying out something like £160 million in compensation. Over 1 million people in this country have received awards since the scheme began. I believe that there are two reasons for that growth. The first is, sadly, the growth in the volume of violent crime but there is now also far greater awareness of the victims' compensation scheme. The Government have encouraged that awareness and the police have been asked to let victims know their rights. Victim Support too has played a very important part. We should not witness the death of the non-statutory scheme without placing on record the fact that it has been enormously successful over those years.
So far as concerns the new scheme, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the atmosphere in the House today is somewhat different from that prevailing when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, first raised the matter after the publication of the original White Paper. Indeed, I remind my noble friend of the atmosphere here on the day the Government were defeated on this matter during the passage of the most recent criminal justice legislation.
The reason that the atmosphere has changed is that the scheme has greatly changed. I, for one, welcome those changes—although, sadly, the Government still stick to an inflexible tariff. One does not have to repeat again all the arguments against such a scheme, but at least the present scheme gets rid of what to my mind were the totally unacceptable features of the Government's original proposals. If those proposals had gone through, all the savings that are intended to be made would have been made at the cost of those most badly injured in any assault. By refusing to pay for loss

1107
of earnings and earnings capacity, as the Government had intended, all of those savings would have been borne by the worst injured.
I believe that those trades unions which chose to challenge that scheme by judicial review have had their actions thoroughly exonerated. The changes that have come about as a result of the defeat of that original scheme which was ruled unlawful by the Judicial Committee of this House are to the great advantage of future victims. However, it is sad that that had to be achieved in that way. If only the Home Office had been willing at an earlier stage to consult, to listen, to reflect and to amend its own proposals, taking account of the criticisms that were being made, I believe that it would have been possible to achieve a system which would have been acceptable to all parties, which would have achieved the Government's aims and which would, I suspect, have saved a great deal more than the present scheme will save. I repeat that I, for one, welcome the fact that the scheme that we are to introduce today avoids the worst features of the original White Paper.
Perhaps I may make three or four brief points about the scheme. First, I do not believe that the introduction of the scheme will be as simple and uncomplicated as the Home Office has implied from time to time. Although it is true that the tariff provides figures for a vast number of different types of injury, I still believe that it will be found in practice that many types of injuries are not covered by the current tariff. I hope and believe that my noble friend the Minister will ensure that the Government are willing to amend the scheme to take account of that fact.
Secondly, I still regret the fact that the Government have chosen a scheme which provides only one single amount for any particular type of injury. I accept that a large proportion of the work done by the present board can be achieved by a tariff scheme. I accept that the volume of work makes a movement in that direction necessary, but I still feel that if the scheme had provided a degree of flexibility by using bands of awards in some areas or allowing for differential movements around a central figure rather than providing only one figure for any particular type of injury, it would have been better able to take account of the different effects of the same injury on different people.
In particular, the Home Office should think again about the proposals relating to shock. It is difficult to deal with psychological injuries in the same way as physical injuries and by the provision of a single sum as is proposed in the scheme. I believe that it will be shown that those proposals are inflationary and will cost the Government a considerable amount of money.
Perhaps I may make two final points. I still believe that the proposals relating to those who suffer more than one injury are unfortunate. To say that because you receive two types of injury you should receive only 10 per cent. of the appropriate award for the second injury will in some cases be shown to be unfair. I hope that the Home Office will be prepared in any review to consider whether it cannot devise a system to ensure that a person who receives two totally separate injuries in the same assault is properly compensated for both.
1108
On the scheme and the tariff, I accept that the new scheme is based almost entirely on the scheme that has been operating in this country since 1964 as far as the rules of eligibility are concerned and I accept that, as my noble friend the Minister has said on many occasions, the tariff is a generous one. Indeed, in some cases I believe that the amounts at the bottom end are more generous than the common law awards which are given at the moment. I wish the scheme well and hope that it succeeds. I hope that it succeeds in the interests of those who are the unfortunate future victims of crime. However, I repeat that I very much hope that the Government will not close their minds to a willingness to look again at certain aspects of it and that they will recognise that a degree of flexibility in the awards available under the scheme would make it a considerably better scheme than the one that we have at the moment.
3.29 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, we are considering the scheme in the aftermath of the tragic death at the weekend of Mr. Philip Lawrence. To do so adds poignancy to the whole problem of criminal injuries and their escalation. It is a tragic fact that today we are all potential victims of criminal injuries. The scale of the tariff, to which I shall refer in a minute, shows the awful injuries that individuals can receive.
Once we had, in a sense, overcome the central question of the principle of the Bill—although, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, did, I want to make a passing reference to it—we concentrated in Committee on the details of the scheme. Of course we found that only by seeking to amend the Bill were we able to affect the outcome of the scheme. Even five weeks ago when we considered the Bill on Third Reading there were four important amendments—three moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and one by the Minister herself—all of which have been incorporated in the scheme. I am grateful to the Minister for doing what one would have expected her to do and honouring the undertakings which she then gave.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said about the scheme, and I cannot in any way dissent from the view that the figures may be generous in comparison to common law damages or that the scheme as a whole is very generous indeed. But looking at £15,000 for moderate brain damage, £25,000 for the loss of an eye and £30,000 for the loss of a leg below the knee, and reflecting upon someone who has been lucky enough to escape such injury, those figures still seem to be trifling. So in relation to those and other figures I hope that experience will be taken into account in bringing forward any amendments in due course.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one question to which I have not been able easily to find the answer. It relates to levels of inflation. Paragraph 4 of the scheme says that it will be kept under review. The only word omitted from that familiar phrase is the word "constant". However, I assume that there will be a constant review. But that does not indicate to what that review will lead in respect of bringing forward another order at a future

1109
date. How soon will the levels of inflation be reflected in changes to the scheme? Will it be annually when the rate of inflation is known or over a period of time? If there were no uprating for, say, three years then even with the present low levels of inflation the scheme would be devalued by about 10 per cent. It would be helpful if the Minister would tell the House how she expects that the uprating for inflation will take effect, and whether she can give an undertaking that at no time will the scheme fall significantly behind the current levels of inflation in terms of that uprating.
We on these Benches wish the scheme well. A tariff scheme has been agreed by the House. I, like the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, wish that there was more flexibility within it, a range of options open, or at least that it was a hybrid scheme whereby the great majority of items would be on tariff but there would be discretion for the others. But that is now water under the bridge. A decision has been made. I only hope that the Minister can say, not just with regard to inflation but with regard to experience of the scheme—it is bound to show, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, shortcomings over a period of time—that the scheme will be updated at significant intervals, so that if it is a good scheme it will not decline over a period of years.
3.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister opened the debate by giving a potted history of the sorry series of events that led us to this pass. I shall not go over that again, except to say that after all this is a new scheme, devised to replace the scheme which the Government had thought was too expensive. The effect of the scheme is to save, as I understand it, approximately £200 million a year. That may be the right thing to do, but it does not sit well for the Government to make that saving and yet to claim in speeches at the Conservative Party conference that the Conservative Party is the party of concern for the victims of crime. The two are not compatible. We are here because the Government wanted to save money and because they introduced an illegal scheme which had to be replaced by the present scheme. That is the fact of the matter.
Having said that, I echo the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, to the existing scheme which has carried on for over 30 years and which, as he said, was without doubt the best scheme of its kind in the world, and his recognition of the improvements which have been made by the Government over the past few months since the illegal, simple tariff scheme had to be abandoned. Those improvements are not unimportant. They include provision for compensation for loss of earnings and for future loss of earnings, a new provision for dependency in fatal cases, and improvements in payment for costs of care. Of course the structured settlements improvement is very much to be welcomed.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, at the very end, improvements were introduced to this scheme over and above the draft scheme which was circulated last month. We are grateful to the Minister for seeing to it that her undertakings on Third Reading were
1110
implemented, notably with respect to compensation for pension rights in paragraph 31(c); the inclusion of the Ogden Tables (the Government's actuarial tables) in paragraph 32; and for carers' loss of earnings in paragraph 35. Undoubtedly the Government have been responsive to parliamentary debate and criticism, and have behaved honourably towards the House.
But there are many things still wrong with the scheme. That the scheme is still inadequate is evidenced by the fact that it is not a scheme which could conceivably be generalised. It could not be adopted as a tariff-based scheme for other than criminal injuries. Surely the test must be that, if the scheme is right for criminal injuries, then it should be suitable for implementation for accidents at work, medical negligence, or any of the other accidents and injuries which occur. A superficial look at the scheme makes it clear that that is not the case.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred to the inadequacy of the provision for multiple injuries. To give just one example: if one loses one arm, the compensation is £40,000; if one loses two arms the compensation is £100,000; but if one loses an arm and a leg, which could be just as serious, if not more serious, the compensation is only £40,000 for the first injury and 10 per cent., or £4,000, for the second injury. That is clearly an anomaly which cannot be allowed to survive in the long term. The noble Lord referred to gaps in the tariff and the fact that there will be a considerable time before full payment is made, even if a gap in the tariff is recognised.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred rightly, when talking about fatal cases, to the tragic death of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster of St. George's School, on Friday last. If one looks at the scheme as it refers to compensation in fatal cases, it must be said that the scheme is not clear. Paragraph 37 provides:
"Where the victim has died in consequence of the injury, no compensation other than funeral expenses will be payable for the benefit of his estate".
Subsequent paragraphs go on to say:
"Where the victim has died since sustaining the injury, compensation may be payable",
to the spouse and children, and there are dependency allowances and so forth.
I believe that it is intended that the scheme will recognise the case of Philip Lawrence and that compensation will be paid. However, paragraph 37 does not state that. It may not mean what it states but it is not clear to the innocent observer and it may not be clear to those who are advising people under such circumstances. It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out exactly what is the situation in such cases.
Most important is the failure of the scheme to recognise differences between the seriousness of injuries as regards people of different ages and sex. We had many debates on that subject as the Bill proceeded. It became clear that, as evidence is available, it is physically possible to distinguish between the amounts in the tariff which would be payable, for example, in respect of the scarring of a young woman as compared with that of an old man. That could have been done

1111
because the evidence exists. The table would have been more complicated but it could have been in the tariff scheme. It is sad to discover that no response has been made to that absolutely vital element of flexibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred.
There are many other less important defects of the scheme. It does not deal with the issue of dominance as regards right or left-handed people and the effect of that if a hand or arm is lost. There is still a two-year time limit on applications instead of the previous three-year limit. However, the conditions for late applications have been improved. There is still inadequate provision for the loss of parental services. There is still inadequate provision for the unexceptional risks that are taken not only by firefighters but by those in the rescue services who help after a crime has been committed. Not enough has been done about psychological injury and about shock. We await the report of the Law Commission and hope that the Government will implement any recommendations. There is still inadequate provision for the case in which a child of rape is not kept by the mother but is aborted or adopted. And, of course, there is still inadequate provision for the first 22 weeks of loss of earnings for the 12 million people who do not have access to the statutory sick pay on which the scheme is predicated.
Finally, there is the curious silence in the Act about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which is given legal status only in the scheme. The purpose of that has been made explicit; it is to provide for market testing and possible privatisation at a later date. We repeat that the thought of such an element of the criminal justice system being put out to privatisation is as repugnant to us as is the privatisation of prisons. A Labour Government will certainly not allow such market testing for privatisation to take place.
With thanks for what has been done and with renewed concern about what has not been done and what could have been done, I confirm that we shall not be opposing the Motion.
3.44 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for all the points that have been made. I am not entirely surprised because I know that the scheme, as seen by other Members of this House, is not perfect in every respect. I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Carlisle back in his seat after what I know has been an uncomfortable time for him. The original scheme served victims of crime very well over many years. I take this opportunity to salute the work and dedication of my noble friend and members of the board over those years. As my noble friend suggested, some change was required and time moves on. Nevertheless, the new scheme will remain generous and will be fair both to victims of crime and to those who must pay.
I turn to the individual points made during the course of this short but important debate. My noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to a banding system and the introduction of more flexibility. We believe that flexible bands or other special treatment for special classes of
1112
injury are not appropriate for a straightforward tariff approach. It would simply be common law damages in all but name and it would reintroduce delays for comparatively small variations and provide endless scope for argument and appeal as to where on the band a settlement should be made.
My noble friend also referred to the lack of flexibility and the difficulty of making payments for recognising shock. It is important to point to the note to this scheme on the final page. Shock is referred to and clarified. It may be taken to include:
"conditions attributed to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Depression and similar generic terms covering such psychological symptoms as anxiety, tension, insomnia, irritability, loss of confidence, agoraphobia, pre-occupation with thoughts of self-harm or guilt, and related physical ones such as alopecia, asthma, eczema, enuresis and psoriasis. Disability in this context will include impaired work (or school) performance, significant adverse effects on social relationships and sexual dysfunction".
There are different categories for shock. There is a low payment of £1,000 for disabling but temporary mental anxiety, medically verified; or for a disabling mental disorder confirmed by a psychiatric diagnosis, which would give rise to a bigger claim, lasting up to 28 weeks, or over 28 weeks up to one year, and lasting for one year but not permanent; finally, a much larger award for a permanently disabling mental disorder confirmed by psychiatric prognosis. I believe that that recognises shock in all its forms.
My noble friend made a further reference which is important. It was to descriptions of injuries which are not contained within the scheme. There are mechanisms for recommendations to be made to my right honourable friend. If there were no appropriate description in the scheme, my right honourable friend has a mechanism for bringing to Parliament a change to the scheme that would recognise a new description of injury.
Reference was made to the formula for serious multiple injuries being too mean. In cases of multiple injury, the sampling exercise used to set the tariff showed clearly that most of the award was made for the most serious injury, with very little added for additional lesser injuries. That approach is also recommended in the Judicial Studies Board's guide to damages for personal injury, and the tariff accordingly adopts that approach. Once again, it reflects what happens under common law damages. I have dealt with the point made by my noble friend Lord Carlisle about injuries not described in the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred to the recent distressing case of the headmaster, Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence's family will be entitled to apply for compensation. They may do so at any time within two years of the offence. If they apply before 1st April 1996 the application will be dealt with under the common law damages scheme. If they apply after 1st April the application will be considered under the tariff scheme. Distressing as the case may be, I hope that that family will be well advised. It is a most timely reminder of the position of a victim in such circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, referred also to the scale of the award. Injuries in tariff are based on awards

1113
made by the board and therefore reflect what actually happens now in common law damages. We believe that that objective approach is better than a more subjective judgment.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to the fact that we need to keep under review the operation of the scheme. We recognise that. If in the light of experience it becomes apparent that change would be desirable, we shall lay proposals before the House. Those ideas may come from the authority itself as the scheme beds down.
The operation of the tariff levels was also referred to. The tariff levels have been left as they were when the earlier scheme was introduced on 1st April 1994. Those levels were based on board awards and they included an element for loss of earnings and special care, plus a generous allowance for inflation. Although we are now paying loss of earnings and special care in addition to the tariff award in more serious cases, we have not stripped away those elements from the tariff level, which are, therefore, higher than they would otherwise have been. Therefore, there is already a considerable cushion built into the tariff.
For the future, the intention will be to review the tariff bands every three years. We shall give further thought later as to how that review may be undertaken. The priority for now is to get the scheme up and running successfully. The elements of the award for loss of earnings and special care will of course increase automatically in line with wages and the cost of care.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the tariffs being unsuitable for other types of injury; for example, those at work. It is not meant to cover such situations. In other schemes someone is usually liable. There is a plaintiff and a defendant. In our scheme, the Government are not a defendant. They are merely making an award with taxpayers' money on behalf of society and our awards are based on what the board does. That is supposed to reflect common law damages.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to paragraphs 37 and 38 and asked whether the Lawrence case was covered. Paragraph 37 merely provides that, apart from funeral expenses, no compensation shall be payable for the benefit of the estate; that is, as opposed to individual qualifying claimants. The last part of paragraph 38 makes it clear that where the victim dies as a consequence of the injury, compensation is payable to qualifying claimants. Paragraphs 39 to 42 would cover Mr. Lawrence's family.
There seems to be a consensus that we have the broad parameters of the new arrangements right, even if there is some residual disagreement about one or two of the draft scheme's more detailed provisions. But I doubt that we should be able to devise a scheme to satisfy absolutely everybody unless funds were unlimited. It will remain the most generous scheme anywhere in the world. Given the constraints under which any responsible government have to operate, we believe that the new scheme is the best that can be devised. I commend the draft scheme to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill contains provision in four main areas: the setting up of the Scottish qualifications authority; pre-school education; school boards and placing requests. It is a balanced package of measures ranging from important improvements in the existing policies on school boards and placing requests, through the restructuring of the qualification and assessment arrangements in Scotland, to measures facilitating the implementation of our policies on pre-school education.
Part I of the Bill provides for the establishment of the Scottish qualifications authority which will take over the existing functions and assets of the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council.
It may help your Lordships if I relate some of the background to this proposal. The advantages of a single qualifications and assessment body for Scotland were examined as long ago as 1984. Responses to the consultation document School and Further Education in Scotland—A Single Examining Body? did not, however, provide a consensus in favour of this approach. The main argument against a combined body at that time was that other reforms should be allowed to bed-in before a merger was contemplated. SCOTVEC itself was then only in the process of forming.
The current major reforms of post-16 education in Scotland have provided a fresh impetus to examining this question. The "higher still" proposals envisage an enhanced and co-ordinated suite of qualifications for post-compulsory education in Scotland. They draw on the best practice of both existing organisations to provide a coherent, unified qualification system incorporating both academic and vocational strands of learning. This will improve the quality of education available to our young people. It will also promote parity of esteem between different branches of learning. It does, however, pose questions about the most appropriate structure to manage the system.
In March of this year we issued a consultation paper—Options for the Future Relationship between the Scottish Examination Board and the Scottish Vocational Education Council. The consultation showed strong support for a new single body from a wide range of interested parties. My honourable friend the Minister for Education at the Scottish Office announced in August of this year that the Government intended to bring forward the necessary legislation to achieve this.
I shall now explain in more detail the provisions setting up the Scottish qualifications authority—SQA. Clause 1 provides for the establishment of SQA and for the appointment of its members. Schedule I contains further provisions about membership, the chairman and chief executive and provisions on proceedings, staff and other matters. Together those provide most of the detailed constitutional arrangements for the new body.

1115
One area to which specific attention was drawn in consultation, however, was the constitution of the board of SQA. We wish to ensure arrangements that will enable a balance to be struck between the wide range of interests involved in education, training and employment. At the same time, arrangements must also reflect the need for an effective and flexible board.
Having considered what would be most effective, it is proposed that the new body shall have at least 16 but no more than 25 members. The Secretary of State would appoint between 12 and 15 members, including the chairman, while the SQA will be able to appoint between three and five members.
Clauses 2 to 8 provide the powers necessary for SQA to undertake the existing functions of SEB and SCOTVEC, in addition to administering the "higher still" assessment and awarding arrangements.
Clause 2 contains what might be described as the core functions of the SQA. Its central purpose is to devise qualifications, assess performance against standards and award qualifications. To allow the SQA to carry out those functions effectively, and in the best interests of Scottish education, a range of other functions must be conferred. The quality assurance provisions in Clauses 2 and 4, for instance, are vital to the maintenance and enhancement of standards in education.
We are well aware of the importance attached to such provisions, both by the existing bodies, and by all those involved in education and training, including students and employers. We are determined that the new organisation will be able to build on the success and high reputation of its predecessors.
One current function of SCOTVEC is to "accredit" qualifications. An example of these qualifications is Scottish vocational qualifications (SVQs) which are designed to take account of occupational standards drawn up by the industry lead bodies. SVQs, along with national vocational qualifications (NVQs), form part of a national framework of vocational qualifications. Special arrangements are made in the Bill for handling this work through the setting up of an "accreditation committee", of which a majority of the members will be neither members nor employees of the SQA. Arrangements of this type were envisaged in the consultation paper.
SCOTVEC and the Scottish Examination Board (SEB) draw their principal income from fees and charges for services provided. That will remain the case for the SQA. However, the Bill makes provision for the SQA to borrow money and for the Secretary of State to guarantee such loans. It also permits the Secretary of State to make grants and loans to the SQA. That will provide flexibility for the new body over the source of funding appropriate in particular cases.
In some areas, for instance, funding by grant will be appropriate, as in the five to 14 testing work currently undertaken by the SEB. The Bill also provides for the Secretary of State to determine the financial duties of the SQA. That was suggested in the consultation paper as a means of safeguarding the interests of the SQA's customers, particularly in relation to the level of fees.
1116
The Bill also makes provision for the SQA to have regard to the interests of persons using its services. That clearly has much wider implications for the relationship between the SQA and its customers than the setting of fees, and encompasses a wider concept of the customer than simply one who pays for services. We see this important provision as setting a clear directive for the SQA to embrace the needs of its customers in all its activities.
I turn now to the provisions in Part II of the Bill, dealing with education for children in the year before they start primary school. The provisions would enable us to fulfil in Scotland the Government's commitment to provide, over time and by means of a voucher scheme, education on at least a part-time basis in the pre-school year for all children whose parents want it. That is a national commitment. As was pre-figured in the gracious Speech, a forthcoming Bill is expected to put forward for England and Wales provisions similar to those here proposed for Scotland. Indeed, the proposed launch of the pre-five initiative in Scotland in August next year is intended to be implemented in England as early as April.
The key aim of the initiative is to stimulate an expansion in pre-five education in a way that sustains quality, broadens parental choice and supports a mixed economy of provision with the public, private and voluntary sectors all playing a part. Choice and quality lie at the heart of the proposals.
It is not, I think, necessary to persuade the House of the merits of pre-school education. The benefits to children—in terms of their intellectual, emotional and social development—are widely recognised. The Government believe it essential to develop provision in a way that puts the interests of the child first. Pre-school education must be qualitatively different from pre-school care.
We also believe it important to provide the opportunity for all parents to seek pre-five education for their children. For that reason, vouchers will not be means-tested but will be available to all parents of eligible children. The Government are also firm in their belief that parents, and not the providers of education, should decide what kind of pre-school provision is best suited to their child and to their own circumstances. Parent choice must be the watchword of the new system.
In July 1995, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that the Government's commitment to expand pre-school education would be fulfilled in Scotland by means of a new initiative based on vouchers. A similar announcement was made for England. There followed extensive public consultations. The responses showed widespread support for the expansion of pre-five education.
However, at the same time, there was real concern about the possible impact of vouchers on local authorities' own provision, and on relations between local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors. There was also anxiety over the quality of the new provision stimulated by vouchers; and a concern that vouchers alone would not generate many new places.

1117
I wish to acknowledge those concerns very openly. I also wish to comment at this stage on one of them and confirm the commitment of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to use the pilot year of the voucher scheme, starting in August 1996 in Scotland, to address and resolve those concerns.
Our critics say that we are promoting growth in pre-five places at the expense of quality. That is a serious misrepresentation of the Government's position. The voucher system will be supported by rigorous quality assurance arrangements, which I shall develop in detail in our later discussions on the clauses in the Bill. Suffice to say, at present, that providers, other than schools, wishing to enter the voucher arrangements will have to satisfy certain key criteria, including registration by the local authority under the Children Act 1989. They will also have to show that they understand, and have the capacity to deliver, educational outcomes.
It is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and other interested bodies on the documentation for entry to the voucher system. Once admitted to the voucher system, providers will have to show that they are capable of self-evaluation and self-improvement. All establishments eligible for grant in respect of pre-school education will be independently inspected. Quality will not be sacrificed to quantity in the expansion of pre-five education in Scotland.
I turn now to the clauses themselves. Clause 23 would enable the Secretary of State to pay grant to providers of education for children in the pre-school year. Categories of eligible children would be prescribed by order and thus open to parliamentary scrutiny. I note in passing that a much wider power to make regulations for paying grants to education providers already exists in Section 73 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.
To give Parliament an opportunity to debate the principle of this important new initiative, Clause 23 specifies the field within which grant is to be paid to providers, thus linking it explicitly with the provision of pre-school education.
Clause 24 would enable the Secretary of State to attach requirements to grants, including requirements relating to the quality of provision. Clause 25 would enable him to delegate his grant functions to cover the possibility that, at some future date, the Secretary of State may wish to assign certain decisions to another party—for example, to the voucher management company.
Clause 26 is a technical provision to enable the company issuing vouchers to obtain from the child benefit centre the names and addresses of parents of eligible children, so as to send them application forms for vouchers.
There are also two important provisions in Schedule 5. Paragraph 2, amending the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, would extend the inspection power of the Secretary of State so as to enable him to inspect any establishment which might receive a grant under Part II of the Bill. At present, the inspection power of the Secretary of State extends only to schools; the paragraph
1118
would bring within the scope of inspection any establishment entitled to redeem vouchers for pre-five education.
It is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that HM Inspectors of Schools should play a leading role in conducting, supervising and advising upon such inspections.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5, amending the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Act 1989, would facilitate the creation of nursery classes in self-governing schools, by ensuring that such a development did not trigger the complex requirements for consultation on changes to the characteristics of such schools.
I turn now to Part III of the Bill. Clauses 28 to 31, together with Schedule 4, amend the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. Boards were introduced in 1989 following implementation of the 1988 Act. They consist of parents, teachers and co-optees, with parents in the majority. In only six years, boards have become an established part of our education system. We want to build on that success and incorporate the experience of education authorities and boards.
In April 1995, we issued a consultation paper on possible changes. Our proposals received broad support and are reflected in the Bill's provisions. In brief, they would simplify electoral procedures; they would make it easier for parents to join a school board; and they would amend and clarify a number of provisions either because they could work better or because they had been shown to be ambiguous.
As to electoral procedures, at present authorities have to hold elections throughout the year. That is inconvenient for boards, it can be unsettling for parents and adds to local authority costs. We propose to regularise matters so that from 1997, when the next round of biennial elections is due, elections will be held at the same time—between 1st September and 30th November every other year.
A number of further amendments to the 1988 Act are proposed to clarify and improve the existing arrangements. They include the introduction of provisions on declaration of interest; provision, as clarification, to the effect that a member of staff who is employed at more than one school may vote and stand for election provided that he teaches at the school concerned for more than 40 per cent. of his time; and, as an extra opportunity for a board to secure its full quota of parent members, provisions allowing boards in certain limited circumstances to co-opt at most two parent members to fill vacancies until the next appropriate round of elections.
Amendments to the 1988 Act also include the extension of local councillors' rights to attend and to speak at meetings of boards; and provision to make it explicit that boards should be able to use any moneys unspent from their expenses budget at the end of a financial year for the benefit of the school.
Part IV, Clause 32, amends the placing request provisions in Section 28A of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. The placing request system enables parents as of right to choose which school they would like their

1119
children to attend. This Government believe firmly in maximum parental choice in schooling. Choice helps parents to fulfil their aspirations for their children and also acts as a driving force to improve standards.
Since the legislation on placing requests was introduced in 1981, the statistics show that the policy has been extremely successful. So far, over 270,000 requests have been made and over 90 per cent. have been agreed. We want this success to continue and will do nothing to detract from the underlying principle that parental choice should be maximised. Currently, places may not be reserved for children who are likely to move into the area served by a school after the usual cut-off date for decisions on admissions. Where a school is at capacity, pupils moving into the area during the school year, or before the start of a school year, may therefore find that they cannot get into their local school. This may not be a great problem where there is an alternative school within a reasonable distance, but it can lead to difficulties where the nearest alternative school is many miles away.
We therefore propose to enable education authorities to reserve a limited number of places for incomers. An authority would be able to retain only the number of places which would reasonably be required to accommodate pupils likely to move into the school's catchment area. We also propose that the Secretary of State should have the power to prescribe the maximum number of places which may be retained. In addition, it would be possible for places to be retained only where there was no other equivalent school within reasonable walking distance of the school for which the placing request had been made.
We also propose two other changes to the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. The first is the repeal of the word "general" in Section 2 of the Act and in similar regulation-making powers. Section 2 refers to regulations prescribing,
"the standards and general requirements which every education authority shall conform in discharging their functions under section 1 of this Act".
The change would make it clear that regulations could impose detailed requirements where appropriate and not merely to prescribe general principles. The second change, which local authorities themselves have sought, is to repeal the requirement for local authorities to seek the approval of the Secretary of State before commencing educational building works for new premises where the building cost exceeds £1 million.
This Bill would undoubtedly improve quality and choice. These are the key themes in the Government's overall programme. The establishment of the SQA will improve links between schools, colleges and training for employment. The amendments to the legislation on school boards will simplify and improve the way in which boards work, and the provisions allowing the Secretary of State to pay grants to providers of pre-school education will provide the opportunity for all parents to seek pre-five education for their children. These improvements in quality and choice in Scottish
1120
education will lead to a significant enhancement of the recognised high reputation of the Scottish system. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
4.14 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill. He will realise that the Bill requires a fair amount of elucidation, and more than is obvious from its published form. We shall take a great deal of time to examine what the Minister has said. I believe that the Minister accepted that the Scottish Examination Board is unlike every other quango in Scotland in that it has a representative structure laid down by Parliament under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Section 129(3) of the Act states,
"Regulations under this section shall make provision with respect to the membership of the Board and shall ensure that not less than four-fifths of the members of the Board are appointed by the Secretary of State from amongst persons nominated by, or by bodies appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of, the universities of Scotland, education authorities, governing bodies of central institutions, governing bodies of colleges of education, directors of education and teachers employed in educational establishments.".
Under this constitution representative bodies are able to make nominations for appointment to the SEB in the knowledge that a number of these nominees will be appointed. The same principle applies to the committees and subject panels of the SEB.
While there is much in favour in principle of the merger of the SEB and the Scottish Vocational Education Council the amalgamated body should have a representative structure along the lines of the SEB and should not just be another quango, increasing by two the number of quangos. At present the SEB board is not a strict quango in the sense that the Government use that term. However, regrettably, the Bill does not deliver this measure. Clause 1(4) provides for a body where something like three-quarters of the members are appointed directly by the Secretary of State, with no obligation on his part to consult with representative bodies and no concept of "constituencies" such as exists with the SEB. Scottish teachers are unlikely to be comfortable with a body constituted in this way or to feel any sense of ownership of it. During the later stages of the Bill we shall certainly seek to provide for some form of representative structure. What is vital is that the Government must give effective guarantees to ensure that the highest possible standards are maintained under the proposed Scottish qualifications authority. We shall discuss that subject in Committee. I believe that the Committee stage will be informative and, I am afraid, lengthy.
Part II of the Bill has caused the most general interest among the public; it concerns nursery vouchers. I do not know whether the Minister explained this matter fully or whether I did not catch it when he spoke. I believe he said that there was a reference to this matter in Clause 23. When the concept of vouchers was proposed, it was widely expected that the Bill would provide the

1121
mechanism for the delivery of government proposals on nursery vouchers in Scotland. This does not appear to be the case, unless I have read the Bill wrongly. It is understood the Government believe that their proposals can be delivered through existing powers rather than through detailed primary legislation. I am not clear whether further legislation will be required. The Minister may have explained that. I shall read his speech with care.
One of the matters in the Bill which gives cause for unease is the question of education for children under school age. This matter is covered in Clauses 23 to 27 of the Bill. These clauses relate to the provision of grants to persons providing education to children under school age, together with details regarding the Government's powers to provide social security information to pre-school education providers. There are important issues here relating to pre-school providers having access to possible commercially confidential information on local families. I believe that members of the national insurance ministry, or whatever it is called now, are all bound by the Official Secrets Act and they would not dare to disclose details of families' income to outside bodies unless those were statutory bodies. They would not disclose such details to a company which was merely deciding whether to allocate vouchers. This borders on an important civil liberties issue.
The main issues regarding vouchers are hard, if not impossible, to tackle through seeking to amend the skimpy proposal in the Bill but are worth pursuing. I shall deal with one or two of them, and I hope that the Minister will take the trouble to reply to them at some stage.
The Government's determination to go ahead with the proposals, despite 80 per cent. rejection of the consultation document, needs to be explained. To date only four local authorities have expressed any interest in taking part in the pilot scheme which is to start in 1996. They are Argyll and Bute, East Renfrew, Scottish Borders, and South Ayrshire and Western Isles. Clackmannanshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire and South Lanarkshire are still considering the matter. Not one of the major conurbations has agreed to take part in the pilot scheme.
A further issue is the extent to which the pilot is a genuine pilot scheme. In England and Wales the pilot scheme is called "phase one". Will there be genuine monitoring of any pilot scheme, with the option of discontinuation if people's fears are confirmed?
The provision of education for under-fives lags behind that of our competitors. We believe—and it is clear to most of the people in Scotland and certainly to those in the education field—that, unfortunately, the proposals contained in the Bill owe more to doctrinal considerations than to a realistic appraisal of what should be done to improve the provision of nursery education. There is an absence in any of the proposals of a clear curricular framework and a guarantee of quality provision.
The value of £1,100 of the voucher is inadequate fully to meet education for a child for a year. For example, in Strathclyde the cost is estimated at £3,000 for a year.
1122
Practical details concerning the operation of the scheme such as eligibility, identification of parents and flexibility of vouchers are required.
In respect of the administration of the voucher scheme, there is the question of the role and accountability of the private company. The introduction of a private company into an area where local authorities have had a major role through nursery education provision marks a substantial departure, with major implications for the education process.
The scheme is socially, and potentially educationally, divisive. I represented a constituency for many years where parents in one half of the constituency had little difficulty raising the money to send their children to nursery schools, whereas that was beyond those in the other half of the constituency and there had to be local authority provision. We are concerned that in better-off areas families will be in a position to top-up the voucher value, which is an option not open to many families.
The Government must therefore clarify how the proposals will operate in areas where there is currently no state nursery education and give assurances that the inspection and regulation procedures will be sufficient to produce high quality nursery education. I am thinking of areas where there is little or no nursery education at present with which to compare any new scheme which is introduced.
I want to raise a number of points on Part III of the Bill, but rather fewer than on Part II because the position set out by some organisations associated with education in response to the Scottish Office consultation document holds good. Those points should be considered in conjunction with some of the points that I shall make.
Clause 28 seeks to regulate the timing of elections to school boards across the country. In themselves the changes mean little, but they shift the political context of those elections away from an individual group of parents who are associated with their own school towards a national electoral event. That would bring politics into school boards with a great deal of press publicity. There could be a "them and us" situation among different groups. It would be much better if the date of elections was decided—obviously with the authority of the Secretary of State—in the local area and did not become a national event. Each board would have the power to decide the date of its own election rather than there being national elections with all the razzmatazz that that could involve, taking education into the political arena.
Clause 29 puts forward a mechanism to make terms of office, and hence electoral cycles, more systematic. That is not a bad concept if used wisely. However, there are a great many dangers.
Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 seeks to clean up a number of anomalies surrounding the appointments and leeting procedure. We challenge the role of school boards in this procedure since it can create problems locally and relies on largely untrained and inexperienced people to make important career decisions affecting professional staff. We would prefer to see the local authority employer in the driving seat. If there are faults in this area—and I know enough about local authorities to

1123
know that there are faults—I believe that the procedure should be more open than a board making these appointments to a school.
However, these proposals at least clean up what are at present a number of anomalies, particularly in situations where staff who have been acting in senior positions in a school are involved. There will be staff who are very involved with the school board, helping in many ways. They would naturally have an advantage over any people from outside who might apply for a situation.
I turn now to the question of placement and reserved places. This measure appears to be designed to solve the problem in rural areas, such as Balfron in Stirlingshire, for example, but the difficulties also apply in large conurbations. Therefore a great deal of thought has to be given to this matter. This is one of the important issues on which I hope we shall hear local opinion before we reach the Committee stage. A reserved place allocation of between 2 and 3 per cent. has been suggested to deal with any shortcomings. That is such a small figure that I cannot believe that it is not possible to accommodate such numbers of pupils without introducing such drastic powers in the Bill.
I believe that we shall have a very interesting Committee stage. It may be a rather long Committee stage, so the Minister will need to clear his diary for the first few weeks after we come back in the new year, because he will be very much involved. Like many of us who deal with Bills such as this, he will become an authority on education. Sadly, you forget a lot of it by the time the next Bill comes along, but it is nice at the time. I look forward to a long and interesting Committee stage.
4.28 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, education in Scotland is often held up to the world as a form of excellence. I wonder whether that is still the case. There is no doubt in my mind that, historically, Scotland's system of education supplied the former British Empire with technocrats. These were people whose education had prepared them to grasp the emerging technologies of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, to master them and to implement them. They were knowledgeable across a broad spectrum and, importantly, they were confident: they expected to be able to master the next technical challenge. This education was available across society and we are left with the legacy of the proverbial lad o' pairts. The implication here is that talent was to be developed, irrespective of birth. The foundation of that opportunity was the historic foundation of a school in every parish from 1566.
Today Scotland has an increasing need for an educated workforce, capable of meeting the challenge of an ever changing and improving technical workplace. Unfortunately there is a view, especially in the rural areas of Scotland, that education leads to emigration. How can that be reversed? I would suggest that the much heralded but not yet implemented move from tartan provincialism to greater autonomy would enable
1124
Scotland to control its own economy and provide a sustainable base for the exercise of talent in Scotland itself rather than in other people's economies.
It is in that context that I turn to the Bill before us. The proposals to amalgamate the Scottish Examination Board and SCOTVEC are encountering little fundamental opposition. What opposition there is is centred on the composition of the new governing board. While SCOTVEC is described as a typical quango, with little systematic representation from the industry, the Scottish Examination Board is atypical, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in that its board is made up from professional constituencies. I hope that the noble Earl will see the merit in reproducing that system when it comes to the detailed constitution of the new Scottish qualifications authority. Among others, I have two tasks for the new authority to tackle. The first is the process of establishing the status and equivalences of qualifications in Scotland so that those are universally understood. For example, how do you grade a three-year diploma in social work, a SCOTVEC certificate in building, a Scottish Higher National Certificate module in occupational psychology, a GCE A-level, eight GCE O-levels, and a SCOTVEC module in basic bricklaying? So task number one for the new Scottish qualifications authority will be to clarify the status of academic and vocational awards.
The second task will be to implement the new "advanced highers" and secure their place in the Scottish and wider British education system. I like the "advanced higher" concept for it extends the traditional Scottish higher system from one year's study to a more substantial two-year period. The "advanced higher" concept retains the broad base of five or six subjects and contrasts very favourably with the narrow base of two or three A-levels. This is likely to produce the kind of high-tech flexible workforce referred to earlier.
Part III of the Bill addresses problems which have occurred within school boards. The proposal to co-ordinate all their elections into an autumn period every second year may well draw greater attention to the school boards. The publicity certainly poses a risk of the politicisation of the school boards. That apart, there should be a better chance of school board members being given some training. There also seems to be a question about the powers of school boards to appoint head teachers. Do they hold too great a say in this, when the personalities on the school board are so transient, being dependent on their child remaining in school?
Part IV introduces what are called "placing requests". That is a suitably obscure title for the proposed process of allowing a rural headmaster to keep 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. of the school places vacant at the beginning of the school year in order to meet the demand for places from families which move into the area during the school year. As a buoyant economy has a mobile workforce as one of its symptoms, the provision seems sensible to me. There is also a clarification of grounds for refusing a placing request. They relate to bad behaviour in another school. I wonder whether those grounds go against a family which somewhat desperately moves house to enable the child to have a fresh start in a new school.

1125
In Clause 34, the Secretary of State clarifies that he has powers in regard to the Bill with the same versatility as the Cinzano girl. The declaration about the use of statutory instruments probably covers the non-appearance of the words "voucher scheme" and "pilot project" on the face of the Bill.
It is in Part II that the most controversial issue in the Bill lies. The proposal is to expand nursery provision to all four year-olds, on the face of it giving them a universal entitlement. I have no difficulty with the concept of expanding nursery education as, on these Benches, we advocate nursery education for both three and four year-olds, and, bravely, are prepared to pay for that by increased taxation if necessary.
The Secretary of State proposes to take powers to make grants to anyone who satisfies the inspectors that they are appropriate people to provide nursery education. It is to be hoped that that means that they have suitable accommodation, adequate equipment and professional training. There is a big concern in Scotland about the quality threshold. I suspect that the minimum qualifying standards have not yet been published. The curriculum of those schools must be carefully devised so as not to disadvantage primary school entrants who have not been able to take up a place in such a nursery school. The curriculum should therefore be skills based rather than academic in any sense. I have in mind the ability of the child to recognise his name verbally and in writing, to fix shoelaces, to be independent of parents, to become familiar with the routine of the school day, and to go on visits with the class.
The idea of introducing the free market to educational provision concerns me. Is the start-up of many small businesses the way for the Scottish people to organise universal pre-school education? Anyone approaching a bank manager for a loan to set up such a business will he asked about the sustainability of the cash flow. Clearly the rumoured (or perhaps less definite) £1,100 voucher scheme will be viable for at least 18 months, but will it be sustainable in the long term? Is it fair to encourage the setting up of small businesses when there may be a possible change of approach in policy quite soon? I hope that the noble Earl will consult widely about that. I wonder whether it is really the way to fund Scottish education.
My final point relates to the possible operation of a voucher scheme, and here I hope to be of some help to the noble Earl. A consensual approach is part of the Scottish Constitutional Convention's plans, so let me try it out here. I believe that a single voucher will be too inflexible, especially in the rural areas. Perhaps I may give an example. My nephew Euan currently attends a playgroup in his home village of Kilmelford on two mornings a week, and on two other mornings a week my sister-in-law drives him to Oban to attend another playgroup. The distance between Kilmelford and Oban is a far from straight 20 miles. The two return trips are a barely sustainable 80 miles. How will Euan administer his nursery school voucher in those circumstances? Will he be able to use the playgroups' safety scissors to cut it in half, presenting a half voucher in Kilmelford and Oban respectively? I offer the noble Earl a solution: that a rural voucher scheme would work only if the voucher
1126
were a booklet of half-day individual payments. Those would be cashed in by the provider at the Scottish Office's private firm, probably in sackfuls.
I conclude with a plea that a Special Standing Committee be established to take evidence in Scotland. We shall be better able to proceed with the Bill in the light of Scottish opinion.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I personally have been looking forward to this Bill because the changes which it was predicted would be included—and which, it turns out, are included—are key parts of very important changes indeed which are now under way in our education system in Scotland. The setting up of the new Scottish qualifications authority in all the detail which Part I of the Bill sets out may on the face of it appear dull fare for the festive season. In fact, the bringing together of the work of the present examination board and the body overseeing vocational qualifications is, as my noble friend on the Front Bench explained, part of a much greater coming together. It is the next step in establishing new arrangements for courses and their constituent parts, for certificates and qualifications which should be of benefit to every young Scot engaged in post-16 education in the future. That is not dull fare at all.
In order to cater individually for every student, and after several reports and rounds of discussion over a number of years in Scotland, a comprehensive set of proposals is now out for consultation—I believe responses are due this month—on the suggested framework of courses and certificates that will be available. It is important for noble Lords who have not seen the document to appreciate that those units will be able to be combined to suit, and to challenge, any student, from the academic high-flyer, who will be able to end up with an award of esteem matching the French baccalaureate-type qualification, to the person motivated mainly by job-related and practical learning, and all sorts of students in between. There will be parity of regard for high standards, at whatever level and in whatever area. That is the plan.
It is clear to anyone studying these proposals that the separate working of the examination board and the vocational education council is no longer the best way. Their functions need to come together now in the proposed new body, which will administer a unified system. It seems from earlier speeches that there is agreement on the Front Benches about that.
It is not long since the Bill was published, but Part I seems so far to have been widely welcomed. The Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals (CoSHEP) told me that it is happy with Part I. The initiative described is very important to the committee since in many ways it will set the standards for their Scottish entrants. The new body will, however, have no locus in degree courses. That is how the principals wish it. They wish the Bill to stay that way.
The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA) told me—this was reflected in what has been said in our debate—that it is happy with the principle of

1127
the new authority. It has justifiable questions about how it will make its input. The new authority is to be self-financing, largely paid for by course and examination fees. I believe 70 per cent. of the authority's income will come that way. It will be paid through the local authorities. CoSLA's question is: how will the local authorities be able to have their say on the level of costs?
The argument that we have had during the passage of every Bill over the past 10 years as to why everybody should be represented on such bodies and should not be appointed is, I presume from what I have heard, to be reiterated here. That is not necessarily the best answer. We shall see how we get on on that matter. However, the question is a justifiable one, and in due time, in Committee, we shall need an answer from the Government on that.
Part II of the Bill legislates to assist the expansion of nursery education and, importantly, to do so in a way that gives much needed encouragement to nursery schools and centres to pay attention to parents, and to parents to pay attention to what happens in their child's nursery school, as well as making it more likely that provision will materialise in areas where at the moment it does not exist, notably in the remoter rural areas of Scotland.
In welcoming the concept of the voucher scheme foreshadowed in the Bill, I declare a non-financial interest. I have the honour to be an honorary fellow of the Scottish Community Education Council. I am a past chairman of that body. In Scotland, as noble Lords who are based there know well, we have much excellent pre-school education, a good deal of it taking place in local authority nursery schools and classes. Over half of all four year-olds in Scotland attend those nursery schools and classes. There are also other local authority children's centres. In addition, though, there are private nurseries and many excellent pre-school playgroups. A number of those playgroups are partly funded by local authorities by way of the voluntary organisation, the Scottish Pre-school Playgroups Association. Some 80,000 children receive their nursery education through pre-school playgroups in Scotland, of which 5,000 four year-olds are eligible under the plans in so far as we understand them under the Bill. Those playgroups specialise in involving parents. They are seen in Scotland as part of community education, whereby many parents learn about bringing up their children by helping with and being in contact with the playgroup. That is an approach that is not always favoured, it has to be said, by professional nursery school teachers.
The importance of parental involvement in a child's education does not begin in primary school. It is even more important pre-school, as research is increasingly establishing. It is therefore critical that in expanding pre-school education in Scotland we do not lose the variety of provision that we already have. It is critical that those who are skilled in training pre-school educators to involve and teach parents, as the Scottish Pre-school Playgroups Association does, should be
1128
enabled to expand their work, and that any professional teachers who at present pay scant regard to parents should find it necessary to do so.
Many parents, armed with vouchers, will find themselves in a stronger position with their nursery school than at present. However, they may also find that they have more responsibility. That will be no bad thing. I am very sorry that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Labour Party, and as it now seems even the Liberal Democrats, are apparently against the scheme. I believe that it is in the mainstream Scots tradition of community education, as well as giving a better chance to many Scots, particularly in remote rural areas, where there is no present provision at all, to have nursery education opportunities. I hope that when we discuss the question of a voucher scheme in Scotland, we shall have a very different sort of debate to that which will take place about England. The circumstances and the educational culture, and arrangements across Scotland, are quite different.
With regard to school boards, Part III of the Bill does not go so far as I had hoped but will certainly help. In Scotland our local authorities have, I believe unwisely, been very reluctant indeed generally to devolve power to schools. Being a school board member is, thus, not as interesting or worthwhile a job as it should be. Consequently, not enough able people are willing to stand. When too few people come forward or members resign for any reason, some authorities and the schools themselves make very little effort to find replacements. The Bill will make it necessary and easier to keep fully manned schools boards in place. That is good.
I believe that there is further to go before schools acquire the full benefit of a properly decentralised system. For some reason, people believe that something is wrong with that because it is English. There is something right about it for Scotland but we have not yet appreciated it. That is my view.
Unlike the other parts of the Bill, Clause 32 is an adjustment to changes already established, accepted and working well—the ability of parents to choose their child's school. All the same arguments were used when that legislation came before Parliament. Now, everybody accepts it and the parties opposite seem to have forgotten that they opposed it to the end. It works well and it is popular. I believe that that will happen to the voucher scheme; but be that as it may. Clause 32 should make it easier for popular schools which attract children from a wide area to ensure there is still room for new pupils who come to live locally. There may be details of the clause that we need to examine but in principle it seems sensible and desirable.
I have looked forward to the Bill and now, like the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, I look forward greatly to its Committee stage. I support the Second Reading.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, speaking from the Front Bench, made an interesting point. It is perhaps not a significant point—
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord wishes to speak on the Second Reading of

1129
this Bill. May I suggest to him that it might be better if he were to speak during the gap after his noble friends have spoken?
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I am sorry, my Lords, I have not seen the list of speakers.
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is with even more trepidation that I now stand to speak on the Education (Scotland) Bill. Perhaps I should declare and explain my interest. I declare my interest as a member of a local education authority in England and chairman of the Association of County Councils for England and Wales. We work on many issues in co-operation and discussion with our Scottish colleagues who are members of CoSLA. I declare my interest as someone who chaired a local education authority in the United Kingdom for 10 years. I feel less hesitant about raising the universal applicability of nursery vouchers having heard the introduction to the Second Reading made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.
I feel that everyone is united in believing that there is a need to expand nursery education to all four and three year-old children whose parents wish them to have it. Any proposal which seeks to make that provision should have wholehearted support. I also, as a parent, make plain that my children benefited from the pre-school playgroup movement, toddlers clubs and a variety of provision, including early admission to school. Therefore, I have full and great respect for the complementary parts of provision for pre-school children.
However, I put before your Lordships the view that to lower the quality of nursery education, with its special complementary role, would be a retrograde step. The trained nursery teacher and the complementary and extremely important nature and role of the fully qualified nursery assistant/nursery nurse are integral parts of that pre-school provision which is unique, special and complementary to other forms of provision. Therefore, any proposal needs to be judged on whether it offers an extension of availability of that service to all children whose parents wish them to have it. There is no evidence. In fact, as I shall demonstrate, there is evidence that the Government's proposals will reduce the ability of those who make the current provision to continue to provide it in terms of quality, quantity and range of service.
The first question that I should like to ask on behalf of those in Scotland who are concerned is: which is the age group of children to which the Government refer? In Scotland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom, local education authorities make provision to enable children to attend school before the statutory school age and make resource provision in some cases to nursery level of resourcing. As my noble friend Lord Carmichael said, the figures from Strathclyde show that the Government's proposals will not allow parents to buy with the voucher value that provision which their child already receives.
1130
My second question is: does the provision extend choice to a wider group of parents than at present? It is quite clearly the case that more people will have access to some funds. But not all people will have access to increased funds to the level that would enable them to purchase full and properly resourced nursery education. These proposals represent little more than a redistribution of the money that is currently spent.
We need to consider on whom the money is spent now. At the moment, in most areas there is a combination of factors which ensures that the incidence of nursery education provided through the local education authority is at a high level. Perhaps the most common factor is the recognition by local education authorities in areas of extreme social and educational disadvantage—areas in which non-statemented special needs pupils (those with moderate learning difficulties) are found in higher percentages than in the rest of the population. The needs of those children who require expansion of their literacy and numeracy skills and their ability to cope and develop should be met in that way, just as the needs of children who come from homes where the mother tongue is not English or Scottish are met in that way. The acid test is whether the Government's proposal protects those who are most vulnerable by ensuring that the parents will receive the resources necessary to continue to purchase and that the local education authorities concerned will retain enough resources to be able to continue to make that provision. So far the Government have failed on any public occasion to provide an answer.
A variety of provision exists within the area of nursery education in Scotland as it does elsewhere in the United Kingdom: within nursery schools, nursery classes, nursery education and children's centres and within reception classes, where additional resources are made available to meet the needs of children. This is a complex area. We are told that the Government are interested in piloting a scheme and monitoring the results. Can the noble Earl tell the House why it is necessary to introduce legislation before the first pilot scheme has even begun, bearing in mind, as my noble friend Lord Carmichael reminded us, that 80 per cent. of those consulted were opposed to it? Why is it necessary to introduce legislation at this stage?
Many questions will need to be asked during further stages of this Bill. It is surprising that for the people of Scotland the Government appear to be proposing to take money that is currently spent in areas of greatest need in order to provide a universal non-means-tested benefit. I say that as someone who recognised, along with our partners, the Church authorities, and my local authority in the north of England, the need to deal with the most advantaged areas first. That has been one of the main features of the development of nursery education in Scotland. As a principle, that will come under detailed scrutiny at later stages of the Bill. On the face of it, it would appear to be a strange philosophy for this Government to follow.
Nursery education is extremely important. It is clear that the Government's vouchers will not buy nursery education in full nursery education facilities for all children whose parents wish them to have it; the amount

1131
is inadequate. It is also clear that wherever parents are consulted, in Scotland or elsewhere, and whatever other complementary provision they seek for their children, only a tiny percentage say no to the choice of fully-funded nursery education in a nursery school or class.
If the Government want a pilot scheme, surely it is in the interests of the children of Scotland that they evaluate that scheme and look at what it does to the existing provision before taking it further. The experience of my colleagues in Scotland has been somewhat bitter in the past when the Government failed to listen to early warnings. They suffered first from the poll tax. The Government have made many expensive mistakes in the United Kingdom by making decisions in advance of detailed knowledge. I hope that they will agree to withdraw legislation intended to enact provisions, the dangers of which have not yet been assessed and which 80 per cent. of those consulted said that they did not trust or want.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask whether she realises that the pilot schemes are to begin in England first rather than in Scotland. I was disappointed about that. Scots are chary about something being tried in England before it is introduced in Scotland. Was the noble Baroness aware of that?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, yes. My point concerned the dangers of introducing legislation in advance of understanding the implications that arise during a pilot scheme, rather than the fact of it being introduced in any one region first. It is the danger inherent in the Government's policy of deciding on the back of an envelope what may appear to the uncharitable to be an exercise in electoral popularity rather than a genuine desire to see whether their policies work in the interests of all children.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for the way in which he presented this Bill and explained its provisions to us. However, having concluded the niceties, I must register my anxiety about the pre-school provisions of the Bill.
Originally I decided to speak essentially on three topics. The first related to the context of the Bill and how it is to be handled. That resulted from the comments of the Leader of the House in the debate on the Queen's Speech, which suggested that Scottish legislation originating in this House may be dealt with differently. From the speech of the noble Earl it appears that this Bill will not be treated in a special way, though there may be arguments to do so. My second point related to the Scottish qualifications authority and the third to education for children under school age.
When I read through the Bill, one of the matters that concerned me about the setting up of the Scottish qualifications authority, was that the vocational training and qualifications may be submerged into what may be described as a "sea of academia". We must recognise
1132
that the changes that have occurred in practical education over the past 20 or 30 years have made it much more academic. The skills that children in our schools learnt 20 or 30 years ago—for example, woodwork or metalwork—are no longer effectively taught in schools. Craft apprenticeships that once existed in their thousands, now virtually do not exist at all. I feel that we need to ensure that vocational training and qualifications are recognised as important elements and do not become submerged by paper qualifications.
With regard to the Scottish qualifications agency, there is another element that we need to recognise; that is, the relationship between Scottish and English qualifications. In our modern society mobility has become necessary in one's employment career. It is necessary for the smooth working of society, for skilled and professional people in one field to be able to move around the country and work in different places. If there is not a comparability between qualifications obtained by young people in Scotland and those obtained in England, that mobility of labour, which should be present to enable our society to work more effectively and efficiently, will not exist. As far as I can gather no one has so far mentioned that important element and perhaps the Minister will comment on that point when he winds up.
I turn to my point relating to the education of children under school age—the nursery voucher scheme. As far as I can see, the scheme will initially be a bureaucratic nightmare. It is interesting to hear the Minister's explanation of some of the bureaucratic problems and systems that will need to be set up and uprated to make the scheme work. That is bad enough. But what I call the fundamental "evil", is that it is planned to take resources away from relatively poor people and transfer them to relatively well-off people. That is evil and it is something which the Government have perpetrated year in, year out.
The classic example was the poll tax where, again, Scotland suffered before England. The costs of relatively well-off people were reduced while the costs of poorer people were increased—a direct transfer of resources from the poor to the rich. The people of this country rose up and said, "We are not having it", and the Government, because of the pressure of circumstances, eventually had to change tack. They introduced something similar to the old rates system but in the process of doing so they have prevented the progressive element of the old rating system from operating effectively. Now the relatively well-off people in our local communities who pay council tax do not pay in proportion to their means, as they used to do under the old rating system; they pay less proportionately. One thinks of the local authority provision of pre-school playgroups and nursery places, paid for by increased rates, mainly in Labour local authorities, and built up over the years with capital investment, training for the staff and all the facilities that were required. What is horrendous is that the Government's proposal for a voucher scheme will take away hard earned money that has been invested by the community in such provision

1133
and give it to those local authority areas that have not seen fit to provide pre-school playgroups and nursery services.
I have some personal experience of how the system works in that when my wife and I were bringing up our family we originally lived in Stockport, which was a Conservative local authority area with no public provision for playgroups or nursery schools. We had to pay for pre-school playgroups out of our own pockets. The quid pro quo was that the rates were lower. We moved to Manchester where the rates were higher and there were free playschool services and free nursery services available for our children. I have seen the situation from both sides of the divide. It is totally pernicious that the Government should be aiming to take money from the less well-off areas that have invested in such provision and give it to those areas which, historically, have not.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap and I shall speak briefly on the matters before the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, made an interesting comment on what is perhaps one of the less contentious parts of the Bill. I refer to the election of school boards. He made the point that to have a national election with a national election day would introduce a great political debate in Scotland and that it would be like having a local authority election, with all the elements of party conflict that are involved in local authority and national elections. He was in fact saying that we will be as helpful as possible in looking at the Bill and not introduce unnecessary political conflict. We will not look at it from a purely ideological point of view. However, that does not mean that we will not be critical of the Bill in certain aspects. We will endeavour in the course of the long Committee stage which has been promised by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, to improve the Bill and we will try to be helpful in the light of our experience.
Like other noble Lords, I received a brief from CoSLA, the local authorities' representative in Scotland. It is very close to this business as it has had the responsibility of administering education in Scotland. I hope that the representations made by CoSLA will receive very serious consideration from the Minister. On the first page of its representations CoSLA states:
"We are concerned that the arrangements for quality assurance may not be prescriptive enough for students with special educational needs and the protection of these students' interests would be welcome".
Perhaps the Minister will comment on that, as it is an important area.
The question of vouchers will be dealt with by my noble friend Lord Ewing and has already been dealt with very thoroughly in the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. CoSLA makes two points on this subject. It says that it is certainly in favour of the extension of the provision of pre-five education in Scotland—we all welcome that—but it has doubts about the operation of the voucher system as the Appropriate
1134
means of delivering that education. During the discussions at the Committee stage I hope that we will have another careful look at that and listen very carefully to the CoSLA representations.
CoSLA makes the point that there will be a right to a voucher, but that is not a guarantee of a place. That point has to be answered. It would also like an assurance that if the pilot schemes are not successful the Government will guarantee that the vouchers approach will be abandoned. Those are serious representations. As I said, I address this Bill not in any party political spirit. We shall try to be as constructive as possible in the interests of maintaining the highest standards for Scottish education.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the Minister for not being present at the very start of his speech. However, I think I heard the bulk of it. The reason for my absence was that the aeroplane was somewhat late, to put it mildly.
I wish to say very little about Parts I and III in that the controversy and the interest will be in the voucher scheme and the extension of nursery education. I say to my neighbour, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that the Liberal Party has approved of the use of vouchers in certain circumstances, so that we are not automatically against the Government's scheme. I was delighted to hear from the Minister that pre-school education can make a tremendous difference to people. I wonder what it would have done for me if I had had it. I was sent to a primary school at the age of four because of a tendency to try out on hens' eggs the effect of putting them through the turnip hasher, so obviously I would have benefited greatly from pre-school education.
The rest of the Bill is not nearly as interesting or controversial. The Government are following their old trend in Part I by wanting to appoint everyone and keeping the local authorities in their place as regards the new authority. I am also interested in Part III of the Bill and the business of the maximum and minimum number of places. It appears to me that the real stipulation should be the minimum number of places that have to be kept because, obviously, if people are willing to come a long distance to bring their children to a particular school because of its excellence, then those pupils will be very desirable for that particular school to take. Therefore it is essential to have a minimum number of places so that people who actually live in the area will not be squeezed out from their old school.
The Government's intention to provide pre-school places for all children is of course wholly admirable, but I do not know if the voucher system is the right answer. To put it mildly, it bristles with difficulties. In my own parish of Kirriemuir, a number of parents have run admirable pre-school facilities in a hall there. That has been of immense benefit to the children and certainly to their parents. I do not know whether they have a properly qualified nursery teacher, but I do know that that voluntary effort did a lot of good for the children concerned. It broadened their horizons and everything else.

1135
If the Government are looking at the use of vouchers and hoping that a great many private companies will spring up and compete for people, I cannot believe that that can be the right way to go about it. The Minister was very particular when talking about inspection. If one is really to have a wide field, then how many children are needed to make a group which would be useful and which would give them the necessary stimulus? Will it be a dozen? How will it be licensed and how is one to train the nursery school teacher, which is a profession of its own?
There are a great many features which cannot be helped by the tendency to have a competitive system. It cannot be right for education. I would have thought that the privatisation of the prisons taught the Government a lesson. The motivation of profit is not the right way to run a prison or any nursery school.
Everyone can see that this scheme will benefit enormously the parents who desire to see their children having pre-school nursery education and who can afford to pay for it. It will be of great benefit to them, but it will not benefit the children of people who cannot or do not understand how good the scheme is, but whose children need the stimulus the most. All these things seem to be ignored by the Government in their thinking on these matters.
There was another point raised by the noble Baroness about local authorities, which are providing a great deal—not 100 per cent.—of first-class nursery education. They are spending not £1,100, or whatever notional figure it is, but something like £3,000. It may be possible for the scheme to be cheaper because local authorities are not very economical, but they will not be that far out. What are the Government going to do then? If the Treasury authorises the payment of vouchers, one can bet one's boots that it will be looking for blood from elsewhere. The Government will need to be quite clear on these excellently run and funded local authority bodies and their schools and that they do not suffer from the new voucher system.
The inspection and licensing of the schools or groups needs to be extremely well done. I do not mean that it should insist on every detail, but some competent person has to decide that the size of a group in a rural area, for example, is right. That has to be done not only by rules and regulations, but by a great deal of common sense. Obviously, the pilot scheme is enormously important in this matter. I hope that the experience from it will be of benefit to the Government. Fortunately, by the time this pilot scheme comes to fruition, the present Government may not be in power which, in my view, will be a blessing.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I shall come to the point on which the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, finished—that is to say, the vouchers. But before doing so perhaps I may join with all noble Lords and Baronesses who have spoken in the debate in congratulating the noble Earl the Minister on the way in which he presented the Bill. I have noticed that since he
1136
came to the Front Bench he is one of the very few Ministers in Her Majesty's Government who, at least outwardly, gives the appearance of believing in what he is reading. He was most convincing today in his performance at the Dispatch Box.
However, I have to say that he is well supported. When I saw the troops trooping in to support the Minister in the presentation of this Bill, my thoughts returned to the D-Day landings on the beaches of Normandy. It is a salutary thought that it took only three support troops to land every fighting soldier on the beaches of Normandy, but there were more than double that number of support troops supporting the Minister today to launch this Bill from the Dispatch Box of your Lordships' House. So when I saw the support troops filing in, I realised then that there was much more to this Bill than I had originally anticipated and that I had better give it just a little more detailed thought. So during the course of the debate I took the trouble to have a second look at the Bill. I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe say that he is giving up his annual holiday in Antigua in early 1996 in order to join the Committee stage which is going to consider this Bill. My noble friend paved the way for me to have a critical look at the legislation which is before us.
The first critical point I make is that this Bill does not cost the Government a penny piece: there is not a single penny piece of government money in this Bill. It is being funded entirely by local authorities; and I shall come to that point particularly as regards the voucher scheme. There is no new investment, but money is taken from local authorities to fund these proposals.
The proposals in the Bill are divided into four parts. I shall deal with each part as briefly as I can. I turn first to the establishment of the Scottish Qualifications Authority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said, there is widespread agreement across the Floor of the House and in educational circles—the two are not necessarily related—that it is a step in the right direction. As the noble Baroness said, it is linked to the project Higher Still.
However, I have one criticism that the Minister should take on board. I refer to the fact that 70 per cent. of the expenditure of the Scottish Qualifications Authority will be funded by local authorities. When we hear of the proposed composition of the board, we find that the Secretary of State is to appoint up to 15 members, with the board itself appointing up to five members, so there does not seem to be much room for the involvement of local authorities in the spending of what is, after all, their council tax money. The local authorities will have to have a say, particularly with regard to the capital investment programme which is to be embarked upon by the Scottish Qualifications Authority.
I should like to put another point to the Minister in relation to the authority. It is right that we should aim for higher and higher standards—I support that—but we must never lose sight of the pupils in our education system who have special needs. If we were to allow children with special educational needs to be left behind so that we may achieve those desirable targets,

1137
we would be failing in our duty to the whole community and would merely aggravate the educational divide that has developed, particularly in Scotland, over the past few years. I leave the subject of the Scottish Qualifications Authority with those few critical observations.
Perhaps I may turn now to the question of school boards, and in particular to the relaxation in Clause 32 in relation to placement requests. Despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said, when the original legislation giving parental choice was put through both Houses, one of the warnings which was given to the Government, which the Government ignored, related to what happens when a school is full and when people moving into the area cannot send their child to the local school of their choice for the good and simple reason that it is full to capacity. That point was resisted. Indeed, our view was rejected, thrown out and treated with disdain.
However, time moves on and events have taken their course. The village of Balfron has played a notable part in our discussions today. It is what happened at the high school in Balfron which has led to the relaxation of the provisions in Clause 32. I am in favour of that relaxation, but it is better that we put the reason for it on the record. If the Secretary of State, in his capacity as constituency Member of Parliament for Stirling, had not received all those complaints about the inability of people moving into the area to enrol their children at Balfron High School, we would not have that relaxation. As I have said, I am grateful for it, but I think that it is important to have on the record the circumstances which have brought it about.
Another aspect of school boards which I should like to mention has been raised by my noble friend Lord Carmichael. I refer to single-day elections to school boards. I believe that we shall see a Scotland-wide campaign on the day of elections to school boards, which may comprise political parties or interest groups and, democrat though I am, I take the view that that would not be in the best interests of the governance of Scotland's schools.
One point which has not been mentioned during the debate is the change in the provisions relating to the way in which a member of a school board may be removed from the board. It is clear in the 1980 Act that a member can be removed from the board only if he or she is mentally unwell or is otherwise unwell and suffering from another illness. Under the changes proposed in the Bill, those provisions are deleted and merely the word "unfit" is to be substituted. That could mean anything; it could mean politically unfit; it could certainly mean medically unfit; it could mean a whole host of things. I believe that that widening of the definition will need to be explained. Until now, the definition of the circumstances under which a member of a school board may be removed has been adequate for the purpose. I think that we have a right to know why those provisions are being deleted and why the very wide power suggested by the word "unfit" is to be substituted.
So, I leave the subjects of school boards and the Scottish Qualifications Authority and come to the central issue of the Bill. It is interesting that the Bill
1138
does not refer to vouchers. The Government must have received the very good advice to leave the word "vouchers" out of the Bill. They must have been told, "Vouchers are unpopular and if you use the word you will simply draw people's attention to what you are doing, so, for goodness sake, don't include the word 'voucher' in the legislation". However, as the Minister, to his credit, openly and honestly made clear in his introduction, the Bill is about the introduction of a voucher system. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said that we would oppose that. I must certainly express the strongest possible reservations about the introduction of such a system and I do so for a number of reasons. First, it is a fact that £1,100 will not purchase a nursery place. The average cost of a nursery place in a local authority-run nursery school in Scotland is £2,600, so £1,100 will not purchase even half a nursery place.
However, we must also consider the questions of a top-up and of the way in which those local authorities which run nursery schools are to be discriminated against when compared to the providers of private nursery school places. Those points too will need to be explained.
Perhaps I may give noble Lords one or two examples. In a private nursery, parents who wish to top up the £1,100 voucher will be able to do so, but if a parent chooses to use a local authority nursery school, that parent will not be allowed to top up the £ 1,100 voucher. So we have discrimination right away. It is discrimination against local authorities. The net result is that local authorities which are already funding the voucher scheme—I shall give an example relating to Fife—will have to find more resources to ensure that the children who are enrolled in their nursery schools receive the level of nursery education which local authorities want to provide.
I refer again to private sector nursery education. I have nothing against private nursery education, but the Minister knows that a £1,100 voucher, which is based on a £2 per hour fee, will not purchase private nursery education in the area where we live. I have made inquiries about it. The voucher will not buy even half a place.
The other element of discrimination against local authorities is that in the private sector of nursery education the private providers are to be allowed to use the proceeds of the £1,100 voucher to pay the interest on loans borrowed to finance capital investment. That is not a facility that is to be made available to local authorities. Indeed, the opposite is the case. Here I come to the superb example of Fife Region. Fife Region is a good example because, when the new authority comes into being on 1st April 1996, it will still be an all-Fife authority. So we do not have the fragmented approach that is taking place in Strathclyde or Central Region. In Strathclyde's case, one authority is being replaced by 16 and in Central Region by three authorities.
In Fife, 97 per cent. of all four year-old children have nursery places. It is quoted in government reports as having the best record throughout the country. Fife spends £6 million a year (capital and current) on nursery

1139
education. Of that £6 million, the Scottish Office gives a grant, under the expenditure grants system, of £1.5 million. Under option two for funding the voucher scheme contained in the Bill, Fife will have taken from it £5.2 million.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: How much?
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, £5.2 million; in other words, the Government are taking back the whole of the grant plus a fairly large percentage of the capital investment that Fife makes in nursery education. I do not know whether or not the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is looking for inspiration, but I say to her that when the Bill goes to Committee she cannot possibly support that situation. It is unsupportable. That is why when I saw the troops trooping in to support the Minister I realised that I had better have a much closer look at the Bill, and for the benefit of the noble Baroness in particular, I thought that I would bring out these detailed points. I am just giving her time to think about what she is going to ask me before she gets to her feet. I thought I would make those points in order to give her time to think about it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was interested in what he said. I know that Fife has that great reputation. What would happen in Fife under option one, as a matter of interest? We do not know whether option one, option two or none of the options will be adopted.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, what will happen in Fife under option one is what will happen throughout Scotland under option one: the number of vouchers going to the private sector will be deducted from the government grant to the local authorities in the area where the vouchers are used in the private sector. It is as simple as that. Under option two it is much more severe.
On topping up vouchers, here again it is important that the Government understand the hole that they are digging for themselves—the situation that they are creating. It is expensive to provide nursery education in a rural area, and in the rural areas there is little or no provision at present. The scheme will divide the community in rural areas, because one parent will say, "I'll get my cheque book out. I can afford to top up the £1,100". I always remember Michael Forsyth, the Secretary of State, saying that he made his educational choices through his cheque book.
So we will have some parents in the rural areas who will get out their cheque books. They will top up the £1,100. There will be other parents in rural areas who just cannot afford to top up the £1,100. We will create the situation where there are a dozen children at the same nursery school with one half of them receiving more nursery education than the other half. This myth—it is a myth—that the nursery voucher is a passport to nursery education is unsustainable. It is not a passport to nursery education. It is a voucher to buy £1,100-worth of nursery education, but in the estimation of those who know about these things that amounts to only eight hours a
1140
week. Those who can do so will buy their 20 or 30 hours a week while the rest of the community will have to make do with the eight hours.
The whole scheme should be withdrawn. It is not even worth a pilot scheme. If there are pilot trials, I hope that when the Minister replies he will give the House an assurance that if the pilot scheme is shown to be a failure—I do not see how it can succeed—the Government will not press ahead with the proposal. I hope that the Government will have not just the courage but the wisdom to withdraw the scheme.
Finally, will the Minister give an indication of how the Government propose to handle the Bill's future stages, because there is some doubt about how they will he handled.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Now answer that!
5.46 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, there are lots of answers. This has been a wide ranging and interesting debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part. They have all contributed a certain level of experience to the debate and a certain level of speculation, but I shall come to the speculation in a second. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have contributed a level of knowledge. The scrutiny of the Bill will be all the better for that.
As was indicated at the beginning of the debate, the Bill, with provisions ranging from pre-five education to post-16 qualifications, will maintain and further enhance the high standard of education and training in Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, hinted that the traditional reputation for excellence that education in Scotland has enjoyed might not continue. That is not the case. I am not sure on what grounds he was seeking to undermine Scotland's current reputation in education.
Many of the changes proposed in the Bill are proposed after extensive consultation, despite assertions to the contrary. I welcome the suggestions and questions which have been lodged today. I welcome also the expressions of support the Bill has received, especially from my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour who has great experience in this field.
I shall pick up as many of the points as time will allow me. Because of the volume of points made, I doubt whether I shall be able to cover them all. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, was surprised that there were so many troops here in support of the Bill, but in Scotland we regard education as being a central subject, as the noble Lord knows. That is why I did not bring a man and a dog; we brought the whole team, because of the fundamental value of education within Scottish life.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, asked me a number of questions, some of which, but not all, I can answer now. The noble Lord, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy asked about the representative nature of the existing SEB as regards the new membership of the SQA. We have consulted on the different options available for the composition of the SQA. It is vital that we have flexibility to represent the varying interests of education,

1141
training, employers and industry. The large boards which run the SEB and SCOTVEC are doing so very well. Combined, they would lead to a board of unmanageable proportions.
We are insistent on flexibility so that all those interests can be represented on the new SQA board and that the members of that board will be there as a result of individual merit rather than the mechanics of a nominee system. I stress that the Secretary of State, in making appointments, must take into account the interests of education authorities. More explicitly, the Bill provides for the SQA to have regard to the interests of those using its services, including the education authorities. Apart from the training and employer's interests, specific note will be taken of the education authorities involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, asked two questions about the vocational dimension of the new SQA. I can assure him that the SCOTVEC national certificate, which is available in schools and colleges, is geared to educational training and is widely accepted as such. This success will be part of the foundation on which Higher Still will be built. The vocational side of the SQA management and the application of its powers will not be lost in a welter of academia. I can also assure the noble Lord on the parity of esteem between the Scottish and English qualifications. Scottish vocational qualifications are recognised throughout the country. They are mutually recognised between England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. They are part of the national framework of vocational qualifications introduced by the Government. Similarly, the general SVQs and NVQs, which prepare young people and adult returners for employment, are broadly comparable and are accepted as regards equivalent employment opportunities.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy asked about the financial side of the SQA and the role of CoSLA in considering estimates. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to determine the financial duties of the SQA as a means of safeguarding the interests of customers, in particular in relation to the level of fees. The SQA would have the power to fix fees for its services but those must conform to criteria set by the Secretary of State. The Bill also provides for the SQA to have regard to the interests of persons using its services. That is most important because we fully appreciate that local authorities will be the significant customers of the SQA and therefore its most significant funders.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked questions similar to those asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about the SQA and equivalent qualifications. The noble Earl also asked specifically about the implementation of the new advanced higher qualification. The SQA will have an important role in the Higher Still initiative, which includes the advanced higher qualification. The Government attach a high priority to that initiative. Despite all the derogatory chat about the Government's funding commitment to education in Scotland, today's announcement on funding in Scotland includes a continuing and increasing commitment to the Higher Still initiative.
1142
Perhaps Part II of the Bill exercised more of your Lordships' effort as regards what was and was not taking place. A stimulating proportion of myth and speculation came from various noble Lords. I must stress at the outset that we have always acknowledged that, although we fundamentally believe the voucher system to be right in principle, there will in practice be certain constraints, problems and unforeseen difficulties which must be overcome. We have consulted and considered the consultation to date already. The pilot scheme is about to take place and that will be evaluated extremely carefully. The pilot scheme will seek a representative range of the different types of community across Scotland. At the end of the day, the ability that the Bill provides to grant vouchers to pre-school providers is a power rather than a duty. In the light of our experience and knowledge of the subject, we can tailor the voucher system to best provide the benefits that we know it contains.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, made assertions that the scheme would be particularly difficult to run in rural areas. I wish to take issue with that assertion now and probably when we reach some of the finer detail of the Bill. At present there are few providers in rural areas. The combination of that and the sparse scattering of potential pupils can make for an expensive service. However, a voucher system introduced into a rural area can increase the demand and make the provision of a service much more economic. The £1,100 value of the voucher, which is being focused on by a number of noble Lords, is based on careful calculations. It is based on the results of studies and on our estimated average cost of part-time pre-school education across Scotland. It is an average cost and I as much as any other noble Lord can produce examples of where it might be higher. But there are examples of where the cost is lower. Local authorities which choose to spend more will have the chance to top up that funding, just as they can now. Parents sending their children to private providers will have a similar choice to top up. But there is nothing inadequate about the voucher value, as the noble Lord admitted when he acknowledged that in the private sector it would cover not just current costs but would also be able to cover interest on capital.
At the heart of some of the misconceptions was the assertion made by a number of noble Lords that the entire voucher system would be funded by the local authorities. That is not the case. The Government are putting in new money; when the voucher system is up and running the Government will have put in £30 million-worth of new money. Therefore, when local authority providers of pre-school education attract extra places they will be attracting extra funds to the provision of that service—
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I apologise for interrupting him. As I read the Bill, it is absolutely clear that there is no cost to public funds. It goes on to state:
"an assessment based on available information will he made at the time when this is established".

1143
That is hardly an indication of additional resources from the Government. Normally, legislation contains an indication of any additional resources and charges on public funds and staff. There is nothing about that in this Bill.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am pleased to enlighten the House. It is a matter to which we can return at later stages of the Bill. We expect that more than £30 million of new public money will go to nursery education through the voucher system. I believe that that will be universally welcomed. It will also enable more money to flow into local authorities which, through vouchers, manage to increase the provision of pre-school education.
The assertion that the whole of Scotland was up in arms against the voucher system was also misleading. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that only four local authorities had expressed an interest. In fact, the number is eight. I shall not detail them tonight but I can in correspondence detail which they are. We are encouraging others to come forward—and there is considerable interest—to ascertain whether they wish to become part of the pilot scheme.
Noble Lords asked why we are introducing the clause in the first place, given that there is an existing power under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to cover the nursery voucher system. I said in my introductory speech that we are offering Parliament an opportunity to debate this new initiative. Although there has been little thanks for the opportunity which we have provided for noble Lords, it has flagged up some of the concerns which exist. Under the present legislation, there is a general power to give grants. We wished to bring this forward merely to encourage greater debate.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps we may return to the contribution which he says that the Government will make to pre-school provision. He mentioned a figure of £30 million. In the preamble to the Bill, a figure of £71 million is mentioned for payments under Clause 23 for 1998–99. Do we read from what the noble Earl said and from what is written in the preamble that the Government will be taking £40 million from the local authorities, putting in £30 million and then distributing that £70 million? Is that a correct reading of the situation?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I think that we are making progress; that is a correct reading of the situation. That is why new money is coming into the system. Through the voucher system, new money will go to all providers of education whether they are in the private, voluntary or local authority sector.
My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour asked about the powers of school boards and why we are not increasing them. The changes reflect responses to the consultation paper. School boards remain free to seek delegated functions from their education authorities where they wish. We are not changing that.
1144
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked about the absence of a curricular framework for the providers of pre-school education. The basis for a clear curricular framework was set out in our publication for pre-fives' education. That was prepared earlier this year by Her Majesty's Inspectorate and was summarised in the August consultation paper. Details will be worked out in the approach to the pilot scheme. That will involve much of the excellent work already done throughout Scotland but especially by some regional authorities—and I have mentioned Strathclyde in particular.
Quality is central to pre-school provision. I urge all noble Lords to concentrate on the emphasis which I placed on quality in my opening speech rather than merely going back over the same ground again. We are determined that quality should be assured and that parents and taxpayers can be confident about that.
The pilot scheme will be properly evaluated, which will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. It is meant to be an illuminating exercise which should point to the solutions needed where problems arise. I should say also to the noble Lord that access to the child benefit register is necessary only for the names and addresses of those families with eligible children. No other information will be passed on to any agency from that register. Therefore, any details about the finances or economic status of those families will not be part of the information transferred. The information is needed only to identify those families which have eligible children.
The subject of special educational needs was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. That is an area of Scottish education which we take very seriously. No change is currently planned for the present arrangements. Children with special educational needs will remain with the same priority rating which they have today. However, if we can persuade a higher proportion of four year-olds into education, we should be able to spot earlier than would otherwise have been the case some of the children who fall into that category. That will be a continuing area of consultation. It is certainly an area in which we anticipate local authorities being able to provide us with a very useful response to the consultation.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, was concerned about his sister-in-law or another close relation on the west coast and the various options which she has for her child. We plan to make the voucher scheme sufficiently flexible to enable parents to buy a mix of places; for example, in both play groups and nursery classes, if that is their preference. Therefore, the scheme will cater for people in those circumstances. It underlines the fact that we want the scheme to meet the demands and needs of the parent rather than the whims of the providers.
The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael, Lord Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked why we are bringing together elections in all schools across Scotland. The 1988 Act was intended to lead to that happening but that has proved not to be the case in practice. Clause 28 seeks to rectify those matters and the proposal has been widely welcomed in consultation.

1145
Therefore, noble Lords should not be unduly worried about that, given the welcome that the proposal received in Scotland.
The overall purpose of Part III is to save public expenditure and to enable education authorities to run elections more efficiently and therefore more cheaply. That will provide them with more money to spend on education rather than on bureaucracy and the mechanics of elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, was concerned about the powers that a school board would have to remove a member being increased by removing a member who is unfit rather than:
"by reason of his physical or mental illness or incapacity".
That alteration is not intended to increase a board's powers to remove a member of the board. Rather, it is in recognition of the fact that this House has in the past in another context criticised references to incapacity by reason of physical or mental illness as being offensive to people with disabilities.
I should now turn to Part IV. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the suggested changes have been brought about as a result of pressures across Scotland and not merely from in and around one school or one constituency.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, suggested that we should reserve a minimum rather than a maximum number of places. That would merely restrict choice for parents who seek to place their children outside their own immediate area. A balance must be struck between the families of children moving into an area and those families with children living outside the area but who want their children to be educated within that area. The objective is that the Secretary of State will set maximum numbers and the local authorities, education authorities and providers will be able to make an assessment of what, in normal circumstances will be the number of places which need to be made available.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, fears that we may he discriminating against urban schools by specifying the distances which apply in relation to equivalent schools. That is just common sense. In an urban area there is often an alternative school within reasonable distance, whereas in a rural area that may not be the case. I should make a general point as regards placing requests: 270,000 requests were made and 90 per cent. of them have been met. That is a very successful proportion, which illustrates the importance of introducing choice into education.
For many authorities which have already made plans to expand their provision of education for under-fives, additional voucher values will represent grant aid towards the costs of expansion. Vouchers are not as hostile to public provision as has been suggested by various noble Lords. We are offering providers an approach based on partnership and collaboration which has been the basis for many of the Government's successful education reforms in Scotland. The challenge to providers, and especially to local authorities, is to work with government to secure lasting benefits for
1146
children in their areas. In that context, we expect to be inviting local authorities to submit proposals for pilot voucher schemes very shortly.
The Bill reaffirms our continuing commitment to Scotland's distinctive education and training system. The future prosperity of Scotland relies on a good education and training system. The Bill takes forward proposals to enable our present system, with its high and improving standards, to cater for the challenges which lie ahead. I hope that those challenges do not include what the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, anticipates in the form of some sort of devolution. In fact, we would have a worse economy and fewer jobs. The basis of the Bill is to produce a better workforce for a better economy. I am convinced that the provisions in the Bill will bring benefit across all areas of Scotland and to all families in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael—and other speakers—said that he was looking forward to a long Committee stage. To begin with, I should point out that we shall very shortly be publishing Notes on Clauses. Therefore, I hope that that will shorten the length of the Committee stage to which the noble Lord said he was looking forward. I trust that the noble Lord will come to see the error of some of the assertions that he made about the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, many measures have been fiercely opposed by the party opposite, only to be welcomed when they have become established and the benefits have become clear. They then become popular throughout the communities of Scotland. The voucher system is just one of those measures which will become popular once we have ironed out the problems.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House of Lords Administration
6.11 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding rose to ask the Chairman of Committees whether, in the light of the Annual Report and Accounts of the House, 1994–95 (HL Paper (1994–95) 93), he is satisfied that the new arrangements for the administration of the House are working satisfactorily.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset how grateful I am to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees who is to reply to the debate. I must apologise for keeping him here this evening.
Although we are discussing the fourth annual report that has been produced on the affairs of the House of Lords (bringing such matters together in a single volume) and only the third in which not only do we have accounts but also a substantial amount of additional information in the form of a narrative, this is the first occasion on which the House has had a chance to debate such a report.
Last year, we actually spent some £37 million of public money on the services and accommodation which we require. The House employs over 250 staff and is

1147
responsible for 40 per cent. of the works staff and 40 per cent. of the security staff in the Palace of Westminster. The report discloses that we sat on 142 days of the year, spread over 36 weeks, for a total of 967 hours and 55 minutes. The average daily attendance—and I believe that noble Lords may find this slightly surprising—was 380 Peers. We took part in 135 Divisions.
The report now before us, like it predecessors, is a mine of information about the House. In my view, it is well written and produced. It records a huge amount of work done by the Clerk of the Parliaments, by Black Rod and by their staffs. Apart from anything else, tonight's debate gives the House the chance to say, "Thank you", to all those who serve us and make it possible for us to do our work. However, I hope that the debate is a little more than that. I always remember the moment in that amazing film "12 Angry Men"—the jurors—where Henry Fonda just held out for a moment and then said,"Well, I just think that we oughta talk about it". I believe that the House should talk about its own work for a moment.
Five years ago a review team headed by Sir Robin Ibbs reported on the management of another place. The Ibbs Report disclosed major shortcomings in the way that the affairs of another place were managed under a system which had evolved over many years. Lest any noble Lords might be tempted to be smug, perhaps I may say that exactly the same strictures could have been addressed to this House. The Ibbs team found a lack of clarity about how policy for services was decided and about where responsibility rested for policy and for its execution.
Honourable Members of another place seemed unaware of who to turn to solve problems or to get things changed. Good financial management systems, and control arrangements based on these, simply did not exist. Therefore, there was no confidence that the money being spent—indeed, it is much more in another place than it is here—was appropriate to needs or was being well spent. The fact that the management of the works expenditure actually lay outside the control of the House altogether was singled out for special criticism. The report concluded that there was no effective corporate management role.
Perhaps I may just quote one sentence from paragraph 17 of the Ibbs Report. I do so because it sums up the situation rather well:
"At a time when the need to demonstrate cost-consciousness is widely accepted, not least by Parliamentary Committees, arrangements in the House, far from setting a standard for others to follow, are a complex anachronism. A complete overhaul of financial systems is an inescapable necessity".
That was written in 1990.
The other place moved quickly to begin to put matters right and the authorities in this House were swift to follow suit. The annual reports for 1992–93, 1993–94 and the latest one that we are debating this evening for 1994–95 have set out in considerable detail the new structures, procedures and arrangements under which our affairs are now managed. It is not now the time or the place to go into detail. But perhaps it is sufficient if I say that, guided by successive Offices Committees and
1148
successive Finance and Staffing Sub-committees, the Clerk of the Parliaments has now put into place a thoroughly reformed and coherent system of financial management, including proper costing and budgeting, with responsibility devolved to individual budget holders, themselves accountable upwards through a clear and logical management structure.
I turn now to the first question that I should like to put to my noble friend the Chairman of Committees. I call him my noble friend because he is sitting on this side of the House. Is he, and is the Offices Committee, now satisfied that this reformed structure is working well and effectively? Part of the purpose of the Ibbs reforms was to give control to the House of its own management. How far is it true to say that the House now has full control over its own affairs? In particular, does the new system really give us the chance to address the concerns of noble Lords?
Finally, perhaps I may single out the question of accommodation. If one turns to paragraphs 38 to 41 of the annual report, it will be seen that they describe the new accommodation which is situated across the road at Nos. 6 to 7 Old Palace Yard—and it is indeed very splendid. They outline the plans for converting and renovating the south-east corner of the Palace. The purpose is also:
"to provide refreshment facilities, a new Committee room and Robing rooms for Counsel".
If there is to be a substantial refurbishment of part of the House that has been vacated by other departments, why can we not have more rooms for desks for Peers? I believe that that point is now well recognised.
Paragraph 41 continues:
"The Administration and Works Sub-Committee remain very concerned that there is still not sufficient accommodation available for Lords and they have asked Black Rod and the Director of Works to explore ways in which new accommodation might be provided, including the relocation of the flats occupied by Black Rod and the Yeoman Usher to buildings outside".
It then goes on to mention other departments which might usefully be relocated.
I believe that I am reflecting a very widely held view among noble Lords that the lack of a desk and a telephone in the Palace is the most keenly felt want among many Members of your Lordships' House. When can we look forward to that want being met?
Noble Lords will be aware that at the other end of the Palace over recent years there has been a great deal of imaginative in-filling of space in the upper floors which has provided large numbers of offices and new rooms for its Members. Therefore, it is now possible, as it never was in my day, for a new Member to enter another place and be allocated an office more or less straightaway. When will the same happen at this end of the Palace?
However, it would be unfair not to draw attention to the number of improvements that have been made. I particularly commend the new entrance via what was formerly Black Rod's Garden. There will be a little garden left but I doubt that Black Rod will be much able to enjoy it. The work has been extremely well done and without doubt it enhances that end of the Palace and of

1149
course improves security and the movement of vehicles. However, I am forcibly struck by the slow and cumbersome security arrangements at the new entrance which contrast markedly with the easy informality of the arrangements outside the Peers' Entrance. Perhaps at a time of relatively low security alert one must ask whether we have to wait for two slow moving barriers to be moved before we are allowed access at that entrance?
I have three further questions for the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees. Paragraph 32 of the report describes the procedure for selecting the person who now serves in the Office of Black Rod. I think the selection procedure set out in that paragraph—though Black Rod himself may not have appreciated it—was a welcome innovation. It gave Members of the House a chance to have a say in who should be appointed to that important post. Paragraph 32 states,
"It was agreed by the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee, in order to clarify lines of responsibility, that, in future, Black Rod should report to the Clerk of the Parliaments as the Accounting Officer and Corporate Officer of the House of Lords".
Why was that thought necessary? In the past Black Rod has reported directly to the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee, to the accommodation sub-committee or to the Offices Committee itself. His is an ancient and honourable office. Why should he now report through the Clerk of the Parliaments?
Paragraph 57 deals with the administrative vote. Noble Lords will note that there was a welcome underspending in the year under question. However, the report states that the estimate for the year 1995–96—the year we are now in—is 6.2 per cent. higher than the preceding year. That is to say it is around twice the rate of inflation. I suggest that that sounds a little excessive. Can the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees give some more details as to why that is necessary? Spending departments have just come through an extremely tough spending round under the public expenditure system and they have been under great pressure. It smacks of self-indulgence if the House treats itself to a significantly less stringent regime.
Paragraph 59 gives the information that pay and grading of staff will no longer be subject to national agreements but is to be delegated,
"to all public bodies, including Parliament, from 1 April 1996".>
Can the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees give the House a little more information as to how this is to work? In principle I welcome the move. There is not much sense in delegating financial responsibility to the House, as has been done under the new dispensation, if its single biggest cost remains effectively outwith the House's control. I believe we are entitled to ask how it is intended that the House should exercise its new delegated authority.
I said earlier that the House is well served by its officers and staff and I wish them to know that we appreciate their efforts. I believe that particular thanks are due to those among our own number who chair the important committees through which all this work is done. I refer to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees who chairs three of the committees; the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who chairs the Refreshment
1150
Sub-Committee, my noble friend Lord Gowrie who chairs the Advisory Panel on Works of Art and my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn who chairs the Library and Computers Sub-Committee. They are involved in a great deal of work on behalf of the House. That work is often unsung and it goes on behind the scenes quietly, unobtrusively and efficiently. The House should be able to express its thanks to them. It is because I did not think we should take this all for granted and just let it go through that I have tabled this Question. I look forward to hearing the other speeches.
6.25 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for this debate. It is extremely timely given the attention currently being paid to the role, the powers and the composition of this House. Despite the inordinate length of the speakers' list tonight I should like to see reasonably regular short debates on the report and accounts. It is important, of course, that the debates should not become a catalogue of housekeeping whinges on the one hand or a succession of self-congratulatory puffs on the other. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, steered his usual neat course between the two.
If there were to be regular debates I venture to hope that they would be reflective and perhaps mildly self-critical in character. I shall try to follow the noble Lord in that mode. As the noble Lord has said, the annual report and accounts are an admirable innovation and this is only the third year that they have been combined. The Clerk of the Parliaments and his staff deserve our thanks, together, of course, with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, the Offices Committee and the sub-committees to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred.
I suggest that we need to look at the report in the context of the role of this House and the staff who support it. I would not even dare to pluck at the trouser of Bagehot, nor would it be appropriate in this debate to try to do so. However, Bagehot's description of the Queen's private rights, in relation to her Ministers, to be consulted, to encourage and to warn, has also come to be an apt description of the second Chamber's ability publicly to influence and, if need be, embarrass, Her Majesty's Ministers. We can debate, revise, initiate and, under strict limits, delay legislation on the Floor of the House. Through our debates we can encourage and warn Ministers more generally. Through our Select Committees we can scrutinise both government and European Union legislation and inform Ministers of our views. Now that we have regular ad hoc Select Committees to buttress the two permanent Select Committees, we can advise Ministers, the European Union, and indeed a much bigger audience, if it wishes to listen—on the whole it does not get a chance to do so because our proceedings are not reported to it—on a wide variety of issues.
I now mention a small but, I think, not unimportant point. I suggest it might be preferable to refer to special Select Committees rather than to ad hoc Select Committees. The latter have an uncomfortable

1151
hand-to-mouth ring about them. Some of your Lordships know that I have a vision of this House, through the unique experience of its Select Committee membership and the talented clerks and specialist advisers who serve them, becoming, over time, the think-tank to the nation. This vision owes nothing at all to complacency or to self-congratulation. It derives from a profound belief that there is a deficiency in our national machinery of government, the notorious hole at the centre. By that I mean the lack of an intellectual counterpoise to the random sucking in of powers, but not responsibilities, to Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street and No. 70 Whitehall.
I suggest that some of the in-filling of that hole might be provided by a development of our Select Committee system. It would give value for money, as the report before us demonstrates. Peers, as unpaid Members, come cheap. The report tells us on page 19 that the Committee Office spent, on all forms of support, under £1 million last year and came under budget by £0.25 million. Its total permanent staff was 21, of whom only eight were clerks. It would be difficult to conceive of better value for money. Is not that an area in which we might judiciously add to the resources available?
That brings me to costs, which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, rightly mentioned. As I said, Peers come cheap, certainly compared with our colleagues in another place or Members of the European Parliament. We also come cheap compared with our colleagues in other Commonwealth upper chambers. Figures published in 1993 show that the annual cost per Member of the Australian Senate was £480,000; of the Canadian Senate, £195,000; and of our own Chamber, £89,000, assuming in our case a working House of only 404 Members. The figures also show that unelected Members, for example, British Peers and Canadian Senators, come cheaper than their elected opposite numbers in other second chambers, and even then we are only half the price of a Canadian Senator. That causes a twitch both to my value for money nostril and my constitutional nostril.
I shall say a word about security costs. I am aware that to raise the subject here is akin to bearing stale buns and sucked eggs into the Chamber. Nevertheless, the sums that both Houses spend on security raises us to an unaccustomed top position in the international league tables of parliamentary costs. We usually come bottom. I find that this House spends more proportionately on security than any other chamber in the world, including Israel. Even so, the percentages of the total of each assembly which are devoted to security are mildly surprising. The latest figures that I have show that many countries come in at between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent; Israel at 14 per cent; the House of Commons at nearly 15 per cent; and the House of Lords at 20 per cent. I ask, with a polite Jeeves-like cough, whether that is perhaps an area where modest savings might be made to offset any increases to strengthen the Select Committee system. That complies with my Treasury background where one does not suggest increases in expenditure without suggesting also offsetting savings. I acknowledge that to some extent we are House of Commons
1152
driven here, so our 40 per cent. share of security costs turned out to be just under £5 million in 1994–95. The relevant paragraphs in the report are 10 to 16 and 22 to 25. That cost of £5 million compares with just under £1 million in the same year for the Committee Office.
I venture a word about sitting hours, while recognising that that matter is already at the forefront of many minds. It has been said that the other place sits for more hours a year than any other parliamentary assembly in the world and, perhaps until recently, the dubious honour of the second place is taken by your Lordships' House. The hours which this House sat increased from 465 in 1959–60 to 1,213 in 1985–86, and fell to 1,077 in 1988–89. Since then, interestingly, they have fallen back further and now seem to average about 950 hours a year. In 1993–94, for example, we sat for 971 hours and last year for 904 hours—or 967, depending on the figures one obtains, as the noble Lord observed. Whether that is due to the remedial measures that we ourselves have taken or the gentle decrease in the amount of government legislation is a moot point, but probably the latter. It would be interesting, purely academically, to see whether a change in the political colour of the Government and a greater legislative load would increase our sitting hours again. That is perhaps an academic exercise which some Members of the House would not wish to take further than academia.
We have to recognise that the greater part of sitting time is taken up by debating legislation—mainly government legislation—on the Floor of the House. Paragraph 10 of the report deals with that matter. Therefore, a large part of the responsibility for the workload facing the two Houses falls not on Parliament but on the Executive. Even so, the evidence seems to point to the need for yet more legislative work being taken in Committee and off the Floor of the House if there is to be any realistic possibility of further reducing sitting hours.
We are all agreed that it is neither wise nor therapeutic for a House whose average age is in the mid sixties to be revising important legislation very late at night or in the small hours. The initiatives which have been taken in recent years, particularly following the admirable report of the group under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, in 1994, are indeed welcome. They have substantially reduced late night sittings, but are they enough? Paragraphs 10 to 16 of the report are relevant here.
Finally, I turn to the staff. We all acknowledge, as did the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, with deep gratitude the selfless efficiency, the kindness and dedication shown by staff at every level. Without them and their cheerful virtues this would be an inefficient and melancholy place. We all agree on the great improvements which have been made in the financial control systems in recent years. My concern is about the modish preoccupation with running the public service like a private sector business. I have some knowledge of both. That preoccupation is acceptable up to a point, but it can be all too easily pushed beyond the limits both of acceptability and credibility. I find some of the language unsympathetic—customers, contractors, market testing, transparency—a vocabulary which my noble friend

1153
Lord Croham once memorably described as mid-Atlantic Cherokee. Are we to be referred to as "my noble customer"?
Then there are the obeisances towards gods which are suitable to the private sector and some parts of the public service. I have to remonstrate gently with those who believe that, for example, performance related pay is applicable to our tiny and devoted band of clerks. Here, co-operation, collegiality and transferability rather than financial competition are the essence. My own experience is that in very small public service organisations it creates extra work, worry and strained working relationships—and to what end? The same question might be asked, for example, of pay negotiations. Paragraphs 50 to 52 of the report are very relevant here.
I must confess, too, to acute concern about the Government's apparent intention to privatise the Civil Service recruitment and assessment service. I still regard the suggestion with incredulity. That body recruits both the graduate entry and fast stream. It also recruits on an agency basis the clerks for both Houses of Parliaments, and, incidentally the staff for the security services. Many organisations, including perhaps this House, may sooner rather than later feel compelled to do their own recruitment in order to preserve public service attitudes and standards—more work, more costs. Some of us will wish to return to the general subject of public service recruitment on another occasion.
I have detained the House too long. However, having exercised but not exercised some antique and some mint-fresh King Charles' heads, I end where I began. I thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for initiating the debate. I hope that it will be the first of many on this most important annual publication. I assure the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that I do not expect him to comment on, let alone answer, all the questions that I have raised.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from these Benches perhaps I may echo the remarks that have been made. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for providing the House with an opportunity to debate the annual report and accounts. He may be disappointed that the opportunity has not been taken by more people. As we say in many other instances, if the customers are satisfied with the stewardship by the officers and members of the committees, they leave the matter to the practitioners.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has provided the opportunity for people who are deeply affected by the changes and by the work to listen to what is being said. The Motion also provides those like the Chairman of Committees who have a responsibility with the opportunity to debate the issue. I am delighted to see the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees in his place. I am also delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, in his place. He was a most distinguished Chairman of Committees before the present chairman. In a sense his responsibilities cover the period in the report, although, as the House will acknowledge, the
1154
noble Lord, Lord Boston, will reply. We on this side of the House certainly feel that the Chairman of Committees has had a good year. Those of us who have served on committees have served under a benevolent chairmanship. He has guided us through one or two sticky periods, and we are very grateful indeed.
It is not my job tonight, nor is it my intention, to deal with any of the points raised. However, having served on most of the committees over the year, I am well aware of the issues in the report and points raised.
I appreciated the tone of the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. He seemed to major on the deficiency in accommodation. I sensed that that might have a personal aspect. I do not know whether the noble Lord has a problem as regards a desk or a place. I am conscious that many others must be in the same position. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that over my period in the House—it is only 12 years, with five years as Chief Whip—there has been a remarkable change as regards the space found. The situation is not perfect. It will not be perfect until everyone who wants a desk, or even a room, of their own, as do colleagues at the other end of the building, is satisfied. However, space is found often through the ingenuity of officers. They see an opportunity and move people in or out. At the end of the quadrille, the committee is faced with the prospect of having two rooms with nine desks or four rooms with 12 desks. The usual channels have the difficult task of solving the situation.
I am always amazed at what appears to me to be a dead end, and the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, will recall the number of times that he has reported and I have said, "In about two years' time we might see some result". Yet during the past two or three years, refreshingly, bits of accommodation have been found. Not all Members want facilities. Some Members do not use this House as much as others. But those who do so need a place from which to work.
Until that perfect situation is arrived at, there will always be deficiencies. Although not every Member on my Benches who wants a place has one, I would not major at this time on the deficiencies in accommodation which the report might expose.
The report is a mine of information. I wish to refer to the changes brought about by the sad retirement as Black Rod of Admiral Sir Richard Thomas. He was a brave man. He persisted perhaps longer than some of us thought it wise as regards his health. However, he left good order. He left with the highest compliments of this House. The report provides us with the opportunity of putting on record yet again that which I know the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has already stated. In doing so, I also have the opportunity from these Benches to thank the new Black Rod, General Sir Edward Jones, for the swift way in which he has mastered the intricacies not only of the precise function that he performs but, almost as importantly, how to get on with people and how to weld together what could be a disparate crew—the usual channels, the leaders, officers, and so on. I congratulate General Sir Edward Jones and his senior colleagues, Brigadier Clark and Major Charlesworth. Perhaps I may mention, too,

1155
Major Horsfall. The House has been remarkably well served by the calibre of the staff in general and those who serve us at the highest levels. I honestly cannot recall complaints against members of the staff. If there may have been dereliction on the part of committees which failed to ensure that they carried out their remit, the officers have done a first class job.
I do not wish to intervene in any way on the points made. That will fall to the Chairman of Committees. It is an admirable suggestion that we consider the net product of the work of the officers, not least financially. The Clerk of the Parliaments and his colleagues are always reminding the committees of the budgets that have been prepared and the responsibilities that they have as accounting officers. That is absolutely right. However, I simply say this to the House. Members down the other end of the corridor seem to find with ease reasons for spending large sums of money which they always maintain is in the best interests of Parliament. When we compare the enormous amounts of money which, properly, are voted for the comfort and facility of Members in the House of Commons, I do not believe that we should be too upset at the amount of money that we carefully, not grudgingly, provide for ourselves. It has been well provided and well spent. We should, not be pleased with the year, but be satisfied that those who have the responsibilities have discharged them not just to the best of their ability but to the satisfaction of Members.
6.50 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for drawing attention to the 1994–95 annual report of this House. I am very grateful to him for letting me know the main points which he proposed to raise in advance of this discussion.
As the noble Lord said, this is the first time since the annual reports were instituted three years ago that we have debated them. I very much welcome this chance to have heard what your Lordships have had to say and to give the House something of an account of how the administrative arrangements put in place some four years ago are now working out.
I hope your Lordships will consider me neither frivolous nor complacent if I say that the short answer to the Question on the Order Paper is really, "Yes, in the main". I must confess that I was tempted to say, "Yes", and leave it at that, but I knew that noble Lords, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would not allow me to get away with that. Such an example of idleness certainly would not be tolerated by this House. So perhaps in giving something of an account, and in attempting to answer the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and other noble Lords have raised, I could begin by referring to one matter which the noble Lord mentioned, namely the history of the Ibbs reforms.
It is of course the case that in 1990 the then Leader of the House of Commons, Sir Geoffrey Howe, as he then was, asked Sir Robin Ibbs to conduct a review of
1156
the way in which another place could improve its administrative structures so as to have more direct control over its own affairs. His report was concerned primarily with another place, although he and his team interviewed a number of officers of this House as well.
It might be worth reminding ourselves that the Ibbs Report made three important recommendations. The first was that Parliament should become responsible for its own buildings and accommodation services rather than having to ask the Department of the Environment and the Property Services Agency for moneys to spend on maintenance and future improvements. These moneys were never easy to get because expenditure on Parliament had to compete with spending on other public buildings. Next, the report recommended that Parliament should no longer receive its printing and publications free of charge from Her Majesty's Stationery Office on an allied service basis; and, finally, that Parliament should reform its financial management.
The implication of those recommendations is very far-reaching indeed. Neither House was properly equipped to assume responsibility for expenditure on such a massive scale. New administrative and control systems had to be created. Those were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and also in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft. I should like to join with those noble Lords—and particularly on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—in paying tribute to the contributions which my predecessors made to these matters, the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Ampthill. I am the fortunate beneficiary, simply that, of the matters that were decided upon and put into place and which were so greatly promoted by those two noble Lords serving as Chairman of Committees; and also with the support of successive Leaders of the House, the noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Wakeham, and carried through now by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, our present Leader of the House.
Your Lordships' House began these reforms with the creation, on the initiative of the Clerk of the Parliaments, of the post of Principal Finance Officer, to be held by a Table Clerk, supported by a qualified management accountant from outside. The House was fortunate to obtain, in October 1991, the services of a secondee from Price Waterhouse. These two posts were instrumental in developing, with the support of the domestic committees of the House, the systems that are now in place.
Then, in May 1992, the domestic committee structure of the House was altered to streamline decision-making and to make the structure similar to the one that another place was adopting, so that the two Houses could, to an extent at least, proceed together. So the Administration Sub-Committee of the Offices Committee was renamed the Administration and Works Sub-Committee, with particular responsibility for the works programme. The Staff of the House Sub-Committee was combined with the Finance Sub-Committee and became the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee. These two, with others which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned, the Library and Computer Sub-Committee and the Refreshment Sub-Committee, mirrored arrangements in another

1157
place. Day-to-day responsibility was devolved on these sub-committees by the Offices Committee, and indeed most decisions on expenditure and resources are in fact now taken in the sub-committees. The particular importance of the Finance and Staff Sub-Committee—our equivalent of the House of Commons Commission—was recognised by the appointment to it of the leaders of the parties.
One of the most fundamental developments of 1992 was the gradual delegation to heads of offices of their own budgets, a matter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Each head now has to set his or her own budget for the coming year, including salary and other staff costs, printing, computers and, in certain offices, the costs of committees as well, and to monitor expenditure during the year. That has been operational for the past two financial years. I can tell the House that this has proved a great success. It has resulted in real-terms reductions of expenditure, particularly on printing and publications, where care has produced worthwhile savings.
I should now like to mention the costs that the House assumed from HMSO in 1992. I understand that HMSO estimated the cost of the allied service of providing papers and office supplies to this House to be of the order of £6 million a year. But I have to tell your Lordships it was not clear how that figure was arrived at. So all has not in fact been well from the beginning. Indeed, to start with, under the new arrangements HMSO invoices for printing and papers were far from satisfactory. I note that my immediate predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, nods his head, having been familiar with that at the time. These have, however, improved. Now that each office knows what it spends on printing and publications, budget holders have been able to reduce their costs, making the overall charge to the House less by some £2 million. This saving will be taken a step further when a new supply and service agreement is signed with HMSO tomorrow. It shows how timely is the tabling by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, of this Unstarred Question.
I turn now to the responsibilities that the House has taken on for its own accommodation. That was also mentioned tonight. The Palace of Westminster is of course a building shared with another place. So a joint organisation was needed for its maintenance and improvement. The skeleton was there already in that the Property Services Agency had many staff working in this building. The agency transferred those staff to the two Houses and the Parliamentary Works Directorate was created from 1st April 1992 under Mr. Henry Webber, who became budget holder for the largest budget in Parliament. While each House has its own budget for works services, much of the work within the Palace is regarded as necessary for the Palace as a whole. So it was agreed that for maintenance projects and indeed for any other projects for the Palace as a whole, such as the Parliamentary Data and Video Network, the cost would be shared between the two Houses on a 40:60 percentage basis—that was referred to by the noble Lord—recognising the 40:60 split in the
1158
amount of the Palace occupied by the two Houses. Projects for one House only are budgeted for separately and paid for by that House.
The Administration and Works Sub-committee decides the works programme each year. Two years ago it also approved a 10-year rolling programme of works, so setting out for the first time a properly structured approach to maintenance and improvements. I can assure your Lordships that control of such a significant new area of expenditure has been satisfactory. That is due in no small part to the systems created by the director of works himself and, so far as this House is concerned, to a new post in Black Rod's Department—the administration officer who has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. The administration officer has provided a link between the Parliamentary Works Directorate and the House itself, both Members and staff. At this point I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have thanked the staff. I can assure them that their very kind words will be passed on to the staff. I should like to join those noble Lords who made those observations and congratulate all concerned on the massive works programme which was carried out during the Summer Recess.
Rather more specific questions have been asked about accommodation and I shall try to deal with one or two of those as well. I need to remind your Lordships that the balance of accommodation was decided in the first place by the Administration and Works Sub-committee. It decided that new refreshment facilities were required and that a new committee room was badly needed also.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Graham, referred to the question of accommodation. With regard to accommodation and facilities generally for Peers, much has been achieved since 1992. We have gained rooms from the Lord Chancellor's Department on the South Front which provided some 36 desks; we have refurbished 6–7 Old Palace Yard, which gave us an additional 22 desks—when I say "we", I mean all noble Lords collectively and the staff as well—and recently we have provided rooms to Peers on the second floor with 17 more desks to be allocated by the Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross-Benchers. With other room conversions, we reckon that there are now some 90 more desks available to Peers than there were in 1992. Including the Law Lords, there are some 286 Peers' desks, many of which are shared.
In addition to the extra rooms and desks, the project in the South East Return which is due for completion by Easter will add two new dining rooms and a new grill room as well as the committee room. The improved Terrace awning is an example of our ability to enhance accommodation as well. I might mention that a computer training room has been provided for Peers. Black Rod is discussing with the Chief Whips and the Convenor possible future needs and a study on in-filling has just been carried out.
While we are discussing accommodation and in view of the fact that Black Rod's Garden and the works undertaken there have been mentioned, I should like to mention the security arrangements through that entrance and the matter of security generally, which was raised

1159
by the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, among other noble Lords. The security arrangements for car parking in Black Rod's Garden regrettably, at least for the time being, have to be more intrusive than is the case in the Peers' car park. That is because of the mix of private and commercial vehicles for both Houses which use Black Rod's Garden entrance. Arrangements are reviewed constantly to ensure that they are in line with the security threat.
Turning to security expenditure more generally, your Lordships would quite rightly accuse me of presenting nothing but good news if I did not refer to that matter, which does not contain quite such good news as indicated elsewhere in this debate. So far, we have had less success in controlling expenditure on security. It is a matter of the utmost concern that both Houses of Parliament should be properly protected. That is why large sums of money have been spent on physical protection and the development of the new entrance. However, the Finance and Staff Sub-committee has from time to time queried the level of charge made by the Metropolitan Police for providing police and security officers for the Palace of Westminster. That cost has stabilised but, in my view, is still too high. I should like to see an independent inspection into police manpower and rostering. Of course, in the end it is a political decision as to how high a level of security should be provided for your Lordships and Members of another place. In saying that, I must repeat that we are splendidly served by those police and security officers who look after us in this place despite problems of considerable difficulty when we have to achieve our democratic purpose of keeping this House as open as possible to people outside.
With regard to administration, it was recognised at the time of the Ibbs Report that Parliament and the two Houses had no legal identity. They could not own property nor enter into contracts. Clearly that position was not sustainable if Parliament were to assume responsibility for its own building and be able to sign agreements with bodies such as HMSO. The result was the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992, under which the Clerk of the Parliaments became the corporate officer of this House. He now has the legal status to act on our behalf in matters of contract and so on with the Clerk of the House of Commons acting similarly there.
The Ibbs arrangements also required a much closer link between the Clerk of the Parliaments and Black Rod because, while Black Rod retains his position as agent of the Administration and Works Sub-committee and is responsible for the provision of accommodation and other facilities within your Lordships' House, the Clerk of the Parliaments assumed new responsibilities as accounting officer for the Works Services Vote which had not existed before. I quite understand the considerations lying behind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, about the relationship between the Clerk of the Parliaments and Black Rod. But those new arrangements stemmed from the reforms which had to be instituted. So now we can say that a clear line of command, which was required, was agreed with the appointment of the new Black Rod. That also
1160
recognises the position of the Clerk of the Parliaments as both accounting officer and corporate officer of the House.
I hope that that, at least to some extent, even if it does not completely satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, will meet the point raised by him. Indeed, in another context I shall be able to refer to him (and he refer to me, I hope) as my noble and learned friend.
Let me mention just one other matter concerned with financing. In the Accountant's Office, every effort is being made to improve the professionalism of the staff. I am pleased to report that there are now two qualified management accountants there. As recommended by the Staff Adviser and Internal Auditor, there has been a reallocation of responsibilities between the Accountant's Office and the Establishment Office. The Establishment Office now authorises the payment of staff, while the Accountant's Office makes the payment.
I am conscious of the time, and from this Dispatch Box one must try to set something of an example. My prime duty is to set an example to myself. However, as I am not actually trespassing on your Lordships' speech time, it may be helpful for me to put one or two other matters on the record for your Lordships, both here and elsewhere.
The changes I described show that your Lordships' House has been willing, in a short time, to adopt financial management techniques which the private sector has used for a long time. I would have gone on to spell out in detail the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in relation to the 6.2 per cent. increase in the 1995–96 estimate. However, I shall let him have the final details of that elsewhere and indicate in a headline form what contributed to it. It was partly Peers' expenses; partly staff costs (an increase of £264,000; 4 per cent., while the previous increase was 15 per cent.); general administrative expenses (an increase of £81,000; 2 per cent.); and retired allowances (an increase of £180,000; 20 per cent.) to take account of retirements, particularly two notable senior early retirements.
I wish to touch briefly on two matters which the administration of the House must face in the near future. The first relates to delegated pay. As from 1st April next year, the Treasury will delegate to all public bodies responsibility for setting their own rates of pay within a given budget. That is something to which passing reference was made by my noble friend Lord Bancroft. It is something with which we shall have to come to grips, and it is already being approached.
The second matter relates to the introduction of resource accounting two years later, in the financial year 1998–99. That is being planned carefully and in good time to ensure as smooth a transition as possible from the present cash-based accounts to accounts based upon assets and accruals. It will be particularly relevant in relation to the Works Services Vote where such tricky questions as the value to be placed on heritage assets have still to be settled.
The basic purpose of the annual report and accounts is to provide as much information as possible to your Lordships and therefore more than was produced in

1161
years gone by. That will enable your Lordships to see what is being done and to contribute suggestions more readily to what is needed. It will also give us ever greater openness. I share with my noble friend Lord Bancroft a dislike for jargon words, which is why I used the word "openness" and shied away from "transparency".
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton,
1162
and others who have said kind words about myself. As I said, I am the mere beneficiary, and lucky to be so. I hope that, in placing on record some of the work that has been done, your Lordships will agree that it reflects great credit both on the committees of your Lordships' House and on the staff concerned.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  Organophosphate Exposure and Suicide
  Organophosphate Exposure and Suicide
  Carbaryl and Malathion
  Carbaryl and Malathion
  Synthetic Pyrethroids and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
  Synthetic Pyrethroids and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity
  Breast Cancer Specialist Units
  Breast Cancer Specialist Units
  Breast Screening: Upper Age Limit
  Breast Screening: Upper Age Limit
  Mobility Costs: Funding
  Mobility Costs: Funding
  East London Line
  East London Line
  Tourism Signposting
  Tourism Signposting
  Acid Rain: Monitoring
  Acid Rain: Monitoring
  Brazilian Mahogany: CITES Listing
  Brazilian Mahogany: CITES Listing
  Endangered Species: Import Prohibition
  Endangered Species: Import Prohibition
  Environment Agency: Statutory Guidance on Sustainable Development
  Environment Agency: Statutory Guidance on Sustainable Development
  Waste Management: White Paper
  Waste Management: White Paper
  Councillors: Bicycle Allowances
  Councillors: Bicycle Allowances
  Proposed New Royal Park
  Proposed New Royal Park
  Hyde Park West Carriage Drive
  Hyde Park West Carriage Drive
  Shotgun and Firearm Certificates
  Shotgun and Firearm Certificates
  Domestic Violence and the Law
  Domestic Violence and the Law
  Sexual Offences against Children Abroad
  Sexual Offences against Children Abroad
  Council of Europe Members: Treatment of Asylum Applications
  Council of Europe Members: Treatment of Asylum Applications
  Master of the Rolls' Review of Legal Year: Recommendations
  Master of the Rolls' Review of Legal Year: Recommendations