Sitting of 14 February 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
  The VICE-CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Azerbaijan) Order 1994, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malta) Order 1994, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Republic of Ireland) Order 1994 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Spain) Order 1994 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    NHS Reorganisation
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a further statement on the current reorganisation of the NHS.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The national health service reforms provide a stable and enduring structure to the health service which will enable it to respond flexibly to the changing needs of patients. I am pleased that good progress is being made in Committee on the Health Authorities Bill. We are completing the unfinished business of the reforms, streamlining management and cutting bureaucracy.
    The House will also know that I have issued today new guidance on NHS appointments. Those appointed to NHS organisations overwhelmingly give outstanding service. The guidance, based on current best practice, will ensure that appointments continue to be made on merit and that the process is open and fair and commands the confidence of the public and staff.
    Mr. Mackinlay: How did the reorganised national health service respond to the flexible and changing needs of Mark Dwan? Will the Secretary of State tell us why she had to see the Lord Chancellor and what was discussed?
    Mrs. Bottomley: There is great pressure on medium-secure beds. When the Labour party was in power, the Glancy report recommended medium-secure beds. By 1979, there were none. There are now 700, together with almost 1,000 other medium-secure beds. We are spending £47 million to produce an extra 600
    780
    next year. I shall be taking steps to make sure that the court authorities are aware of the way of making contact with those most directly responsible for the provision and arrangement of medium-secure beds.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. colleague will be aware that one of the parts of the national health service being reorganised is the blood transfusion service. She may be aware that a petition on this matter was presented to her office this morning. Unfortunately, she was too busy to receive it. She may nevertheless be aware that we have a quite outstandling blood transfusion centre in Lancaster and it would be criminal folly to abolish it.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I much regret that it was not possible to meet my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of the service. She will understand that, with the publication of new guidance on appointments to health authorities and trusts, it has been an extremely busy morning. There is, however, a distinction between improvement and management of the service and, of course, development of improved services for patients and making sure that blood donors have the best possible service. As she will know, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), has been closely involved in these matters and he and I will look carefully at my hon. Friend's recommendations.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Secretary of State expand a little on the statement that was made earlier about the procedures being set out for the establishment of appointments to NHS organisations? Does she accept that some of us are disappointed that she has not accepted the advice of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts that there should be an independent element in that procedure? From my reading of the statement, I believe that there is no such element. Why has she set her face against that?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at the guidance very carefully. Essentially, it puts into one manual best practice as it has been organised throughout the health service for some time.
    We want to advertise widely for people to come forward to ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the names by non-executives who have a range of skills. We need people who understand how the health service works and who are involved in either a health authority or a trust to do that. They may bring outside expertise from the private or public sectors—for example, as a lecturer or a vicar—in vetting those names.
    Regions may also wish to add the names of total outsiders. However, on balance, we believe that it is best for the names to be scrutinised by people who are involved in health service delivery. We want excellent people to help us to do the work. The hon. Gentleman will know that in his party Baroness Thomas and many others who are appointed on merit do excellent work within the health service.
    Mr. Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Mrs. Cathy Hull, the wife of the deputy Labour leader of Rochester upon Medway city

    781
    council, on her recent appointment as a non-executive director and in wishing her a long and successful time in that position?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I certainly will congratulate my hon. Friend's colleague. People from all political parties as well as those with no political affiliations serve on health authorities and trusts. We want people with ability and commitment who share a vision of having the best health service in the world. Overwhelmingly, those who serve on health authorities and trusts work to achieve that goal. However, we need greater openness and public understanding of the work involved to encourage more people to come forward.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: In the mad scramble to establish a market in health, what consideration has been given to the implications for other services, such as child protection? Will the Secretary of State accept that it is astonishing that the recent consultation document on general practitioner fundholding made no reference to the importance of GP fundholders liaising with local social service departments and with area child protection committees? Does she accept that the increasing practice of GP fundholders purchasing crucial services, such as health visiting provision, from outside their areas is completely undermining—as she, with her background, should know better than anyone else—child protection collaboration at a local level and that it may cost lives?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right: collaboration between agencies is fundamental to service delivery in many areas, including child protection. However, I dispute the hon. Gentleman's knee-jerk attack on the market system. I can only quote Chris Ham who says:
    "The old system of planning by decibels, in which those running hospital services exerted most influence, has been replaced by an arrangement in which health authorities and GPs are in a much better position to shape the direction of the service development".
    The hon. Gentleman may also consult either The Lancet or the recent edition of the Fabian Review which condemn the Labour party's lack of vision in this area.

    General Practitioners, London
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the London area are estimated to be registered with (a) two general practitioners and (b) more than two general practitioners; at what cost to public funds; and if she will make a statement.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): The problem is being tackled at a local level by individual family health services authorities and the information is not available centrally. Dual registration affects the distribution of general practitioners' remuneration but not the overall cost.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we meet in the high court of Parliament and that Parliament can handle questions to Ministers about beds, GPs and anything else? What is being done to improve the administration of the health service to ensure that
    782
    people do not appear on more than one GP list? It is a waste of taxpayers' money which could be better spent elsewhere in the health service.
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is quite right: dual registration causes damage. It causes difficulties in assessing local health needs, and that is why we must work to solve the problem. It also means that some general practitioners receive funding, over and above that of their counterparts, which they do not deserve. However, I assure my hon. Friend that that does not increase the sum of global public expenditure. In my hon. Friend's own area of Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow, a list inflation team has been established to complete a number of important checks, which will, I hope, move towards the elimination of that problem.

    Trent Regional Health Authority
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what savings she expects to result from the abolition of Trent regional health authority.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): By 1997–98, the total annual savings solely from the abolition of regional health authorities are expected to be in excess of £100 million.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the number of patients waiting for more than a year has fallen by 4,200 in the last quarter and that no patients in the region are waiting longer than 18 months? Will he assure me that any savings that he makes from the abolition of the region will be reinvested in increasing the standard and speed of patient care?
    Mr. Sackville: Yes. I congratulate Trent region on its many achievements, which will be further augmented by its share of the £100 million a year that will be saved from the abolition of the regions. Why the Labour party should wish to oppose the abolition of the regions and take that money away from patient care, heaven alone knows.
    Mr. Redmond: The Minister must be aware that, since the reorganisations introduced by the Government in 1979, administration has increased enormously. No one believes that the £100 million will be put into health care to reduce the waiting list. Why does not he get back to the good old days, when 3.5 per cent. of staff in areas such as Doncaster were administrative staff? That is the service that people want to have, not quangos on quangos.
    Mr. Sackville: On the good old days, I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that we are treating many more patients than we did in those days; people are living longer; infant mortality is lower; and waiting times are smaller. Let him choose which he prefers.

    Asthma
    Dr. Howells: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether she intends to include asthma as a condition for special attention in "The Health of the Nation".
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): "The Health of the Nation"

    783
    White Paper designates asthma as a strong contender for key area status. Further consideration would be necessary before national targets could be set.
    Dr. Howells: What further information does the Minister need than the continuing rising incidence of asthma, and its links with atmospheric pollution from vehicles, factories, and so on? Why will he not take notice of the excellent example set by the Welsh Office, which has set achievable targets for the reduction of asthma, included as a key area in "The Health of the Nation"? Let us start to cure children and others who are suffering from that dreadful illness.
    Mr. Bowis: We, too, take that matter very seriously. Of course, we are interested in what our Welsh colleagues are aiming at and are able to achieve. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have a major research programme into asthma. Causes are unknown; triggers are known. We want to see which triggers can be tackled, and whether we can find causes. The hon. Gentleman will know that, during 1994, we invested some £5 million in new research, and some 14 projects are under way. As and when they come to fruition, we will, perhaps, be in a better position to set realisable targets. In the meantime, of course, our GPs are working to great effect in helping sufferers from asthma to manage their illness.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does my hon. Friend not realise that five people a day die from asthma and that it is the one major disease to which reference should be made in "The Health of the Nation"? If it can be done in Wales, for goodness sake we should be able to do it in England.
    Mr. Bowis: My right hon. Friend puts a strong case. It is something which, as we have said, has been identified as a potential key area. But there are criteria for our health of the nation key targets: first, the fact that it is a major cause of preventable death and avoidable ill health that is certainly met; secondly, which effective interventions are possible—that is partially met; and thirdly, that it is possible to set targets.
    What I am saying to my right hon. Friend is, not yet, but we are doing the research to see how it can best be moved forward. In the meantime, I reiterate that much of the work, as the National Asthma Campaign has said, is within schools, within GPs' practices, and the work there is excellent. Some 90 per cent. of GPs are signed up to the chronic disease management programme.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: "The Health of the Nation" talks about tackling the variations in health between groups in the population. Is it the Government's view that poverty is a health issue?
    Mr. Bowis: If the hon. Gentleman has read the latest edition of Doctor, he will have noted that a number of doctors have identified different asthma triggers, ranging from housing to harvesting and from smoking to factory dust. All those elements can cause asthma, and in all those contexts prevention is possible. Individuals can change their life styles, doctors can help asthma sufferers to manage their condition and school nurses can play an enormous part in helping children to cope, and helping teachers to help children to cope.

    Osteoporosis
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she proposes to take in response to the report of the advisory group on osteoporosis; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Sackville: My noble Friend Baroness Cumberlege announced on 31 January that we had accepted the advice contained in the report of the advisory group on osteoporosis.
    Mr. Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that the report's publication and the Government's acceptance of all its recommendations have been warmly welcomed? He will know that one woman in four is affected by the complaint. Is he aware that a survey carried out by the National Osteoporosis Society suggests that only one tenth of sufferers are receiving treatment?
    As part of the process of professional and public education that the report recommends, will my hon. Friend ensure that its contents are drawn to the attention of health authorities—particularly the comment that. it is desirable for all women at risk to have access to bone densitometry equipment?
    Mr. Sackville: My noble Friend wrote to the chairmen of all health bodies at the time of the report's publication, bringing it to their attention and making the specific point about bone densitometry.

    Accident and Emergency Departments
    Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors are taken into account in decisions about the relocation of accident and emergency departments.
    Mr. Malone: Decisions on local accident and emergency services are made on the basis of the most appropriate service for local needs.
    Mr. Page: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Although we should all like accident and emergency services at the bottom of our gardens, would it not be better for the health of the nation to have specialised centres run by teams with the facilities and expertise to provide such services, backed up by paramedic teams who can deliver people in a stabilised condition as soon as possible? Small localised services could deal with the walking wounded, as has been suggested in south-west Hertfordshire.
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right in principle. There are a number of facilities that can meet such needs. The introduction of minor injuries clinics has provided a helpful source of immediate treatment; the experimental trauma centre in Stoke-on-Trent, which is being assessed, deals with major trauma; and accident and emergency services now have more paramedics who can stabilise people at the scene. All those developments in accident and emergency care should be evaluated, and should inform long-term decisions.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The Minister should be aware that the relocation of the accident and emergency unit at Broadgreen hospital in my constituency has been speeded up because hospitals have been unable to recruit enough senior house officers. What does the Minister propose to do to assist hospitals in such circumstances? Changes in the training of doctors are

    785
    making available senior house officers scarcer, and the reduction in junior doctors' hours—welcome though it is—has been carried out in a way that has caused a crisis in accident and emergency units throughout the country.
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Lady is right to point to stories that have appeared about shortages of junior doctors in accident and emergency units. There are several reasons for that. It partly reflects the normal change in the February turnaround of contracts. That is not unusual or unknown, and can be addressed in a number of ways. For example, management can adopt a more flexible approach to the way in which accident and emergency units are run. It is also important for specialist surgeons in hospital teams to contribute fully. The Government have made an effective contribution by increasing the number of accident and emergency specialists considerably since 1988: accident and emergency is now the largest growing hospital specialty in the country.
    Mr. Congdon: I accept the need for and the benefits of large A and E departments, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that A and E departments, especially those in London, should stay open 24 hours a day and should not close their doors temporarily, thereby putting pressure on other A and E departments?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. It is important that the widest range of facilities is available, especially across London. I counsel him, however, to consider what is termed a closure. For example, I read in a report this morning that ambulances had temporarily not been going to Homerton hospital. However, I noticed that the A and E department there was still open to treat patients for something as serious as, for example, stabbing. I counsel him, therefore, to consider carefully the definitions in these matters.
    Mr. Illsley: Should not the proximity of A and E departments to blood transfusion centres be one of the factors to be taken into account in the relocation of those departments? The Minister will be aware of the petition that was delivered to his Department this morning. It contained 500,000 signatures calling for the reversal of the policy to close five blood transfusion centres. Today, of all days, should not he join the Have a Heart campaign, reverse that policy and consider better and more constructive ways of improving the blood transfusion service?
    Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman is rather ingenious at getting a bite at a different cherry under this question. Of course, all matters in relation to the provision of the blood transfusion service are extremely important. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who has responsibility for these matters, takes great care to consider all the arguments.
    Dr. Twinn: Is my hon. Friend aware that great concern exists in north London about the future of A and E provision, especially at North Middlesex and Chase Farm hospitals? Will he give those of us in north London an undertaking that no decision will be taken until neighbouring purchasers are made to co-operate over A and E provision, not just in north London but
    786
    throughout Hertfordshire and Essex? Grave concern exists that we will find ourselves with no A and E provision because of competing authorities.
    Mr. Malone: I am pleased to have the opportunity to reiterate to my hon. Friend the undertaking that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), gave to the House. It states that, where there is a reconfiguration of A and E services, similar, if not better, facilities should be and must be in place.

    Consultants' Waiting Lists
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received from Dr. John Yates regarding his study of consultants' waiting lists; what action she has taken; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am aware of receiving no recent representations, although I am familiar with Dr. Yates's work of old. The action that we have taken is to establish national health service trusts, which are now in a far more effective position to ensure that all NHS consultants fulfil their obligations to the health service. As for waiting lists, I commend to the hon. Gentleman the new quarterly figures published today, which show waiting times continuing to come down and excellent progress towards our new patients charter target of a maximum 18-month wait.
    Mr. Mullin: Is not the state of affairs disclosed by Dr. Yates's work scandalous? Why is the Secretary of State's Department so reluctant to face up to the issue of consultants who maintain dual waiting lists? Would not the best way to dispose of the corruption that surrounds dual waiting lists which are maintained by some consultants be to make them choose between working full time for the national health service and working full time privately?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman shows how divided his party is. His party leader says that he thinks that the new Labour party should be a model of collaboration between the public and private sectors, but the Labour party's vindictive loathing of the private sector is almost the only area of agreement in its non-existent health policy. Our commitment and our achievement have been to manage NHS consultants very much better, and to agree job plans, ensuring that the NHS comes first and that improvements are made in the service. The west midlands, where John Yates works, is now a model to be followed, promising a nine-month guarantee in relation to treating patients. Let us not have a vendetta against the private sector; let us manage NHS consultants to have the best possible NHS.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most effective way of ensuring that NHS consultants fulfil their obligations to the NHS is through strong local management? Is that not precisely what trusts are achieving? Does she further agree that local pay for consultants will offer an even stronger way of ensuring that the service is a good one?
    Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. If John Yates did anything, he wrote a testimonial about why good NHS managers are

    787
    necessary in a modern health service. Instead of denigrating the private sector and NHS managers, the Labour party should consider in more practical terms how we can maximise the ability of all members of our team so that they provide the best possible service. The move towards local pay, heralded last week in the review body reports—which I am pleased that we were able to accept in full—will ensure even greater effectiveness in enabling people to maximise their contribution to the NHS.

    Trust Hospitals
    Ms Corston: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total combined cost of establishing trust hospitals during the period 1991 to 1994.
    Mr. Malone: This information is not held centrally. However, a total of £109,436,000 was made available by the Department of Health to regional health authorities towards the consultation costs, start-up costs and conveyancing costs incurred by units applying for trust status during the period 1991–94.
    Ms Corston: It is interesting that the Minister has not taken this opportunity to confirm figures released by his Department in December which show that the cost of setting up the trusts in England alone was £103 million. That must be added to the £1 billion wasted over the past five years on providing extra administration and bureaucracy. Is it not true that all that money could have been spent on treating every one of the 1,071,000 people currently on waiting lists?
    Mr. Malone: I must refute entirely what the hon. Lady says. This is a worthwhile investment in bringing about a substantial change in a structure which now delivers more health care than ever before. Reforming institutions so that they spend properly and sensibly is no different from building another unit to treat people. The truth is that trust hospitals have been a huge success. There are now 419 across the country and nearly every unit will be a trust after the fifth wave has gone through. Although the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) continues to refer to trusts as some kind of abomination, it is remarkable that there is no sign that the Labour party intends to do anything to reverse the process.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is it not true that since hospitals became trusts far more people have been treated with more complicated operations and treatment so that any cost involved is money well spent? Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern being expressed by patients about the Labour party's threat to get rid of trusts, which would inevitably reduce the opportunities for treatment?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right. It is intriguing that, although the right hon. Member for Derby, South refers to trusts as abominations, she does not intend to do anything about them. I heard the sedentary remark made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who, according to "Breakfast with Frost", clearly has more than one finger in the pie of Labour party policy. He said that there is a hidden agenda, so perhaps the right hon. Lady is about to find out. Trusts have outperformed all other
    788
    hospitals in increasing the number of patients treated; as a result, we are now treating 122 patients for every 100 treated in 1990.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Minister aware that this is only one example of the widespread concern about whether costs in the health service changes are accurately assessed and, much more to the point, about whether the money is being properly directed, whether we are talking about the establishment, merger or even closure of trusts? Is he aware, for example, of the great concern felt in London about the proposals to close Bart's hospital, the consultation period for which is shortly to come to an end? The Minister said a moment ago that the money spent was a worthwhile investment in substantial changes. Does he not recognise that most people see this as just another example of public money being used to turn a good public service into an expensive private business in which the people at the top rake it in, the people at the bottom are exploited and the taxpayer pays more and gets less?
    Mr. Malone: The public who are now spending less time on waiting lists and passing through trust hospitals in greater volumes than ever before have reason to be grateful for these investments. I should also point out to the right hon. Lady that the scale of costs of starting up trusts is relatively small. For example, the cost of setting up the Homerton hospital trust was some £215,000 over quite a lengthy period and covering quite a number of functions which would probably have been undertaken over time by the previous hospital. It is a pretty small amount and an extremely good investment, and there is improved health care to show for it across the nation.

    Addenbrookes and Fulbourn Hospitals
    Sir Anthony Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy in respect of the location of (a) nurses' residences and (b) the mentally ill, with particular reference to (i) Addenbrookes hospital and (ii) Fulbourn hospital in Cambridgeshire.
    Mr. Bowis: It is for the Addenbrookes national health service trust to decide how best to provide residential accommodation for its staff and for its patients.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposed move of acute psychiatric cases from Fulbourn hospital to Addenbrookes is opposed on environmental and medical grounds by patients, by those who care for the patients and by nurses, and it is also opposed by the staff at Addenbrookes, who believe that it will cause serious disruption which will affect patients and the public? Will he therefore please urge serious reconsideration of the matter?
    Mr. Bowis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the matter to our attention. I understand that, in fact, it is proposed to transfer three wards. It is, of course, for the trust to judge. I also understand that the community health council has agreed the move. However, my hon. Friend is quite right: it is important that patients, carers and staff—and, indeed, Members of Parliament—are consulted wherever possible and their views taken into account. I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the trust. At the same time, I hope that he will join me in applauding the trust for its work in

    789
    mental health in hospitals and in the community and, indeed, for the work that it is doing to improve security for its residential staff.

    Patient Statistics
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were treated in national health service hospitals in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the comparable figures for 1978.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: There were 10.1 million episodes of care carried out in NHS hospitals in 1993–94. In 1978, the equivalent figure, calculated on a comparable basis, was 6.5 million. That is an increase of 55 per cent. I invite the House to congratulate NHS staff on that achievement.
    Sir David Knox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures provide clear evidence of the improvement of the national health service under the present Government? Will she confirm that the North Staffordshire hospital trust has made a significant contribution to that improvement?
    Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Every time patients are asked their views of the NHS, they report extremely favourably. Indeed, a substantial increase in those who reported favourably on the NHS was found when it was measured last. As my hon. Friend rightly says, his local trust has played a magnificent part. I was just looking at its figures. There has been a three and a half times increase, for example, in day surgery and a huge range of quality improvements. The trust provides an excellent service for local people in what I know is an area of considerable need.
    Ms Eagle: As the Secretary of State has asked us all to pay tribute to the staff of hospitals, which we gladly do, will she explain why the Wirral hospital trust is currently attempting to introduce something called a generic support worker so that domestics will be expected to conduct administration and clerical work, help clinical procedures and clean the wards, all for £3.50 per hour?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The challenge for the health service is to ensure that all those who work in it are able to look flexibly at their activities so as to ensure that we get the maximum possible quality and quantity of patient care. The hon. Lady will know that last week we were able to support in full the recommendations of the review body for a fair reward for NHS staff, who have seen their pay increase, I am pleased to say, more over the past six years than it has for people in the private sector.

    Private Health Care
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy towards the private health care sector; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Sackville: We welcome effective co-operation between the NHS and the independent health care sector wherever it benefits patients.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he welcome the increasing extent
    790
    to which trusts and health authorities are taking advantage of the facilities and expertise of the private health care sector to treat NHS patients, as is happening at the Oaks hospital in Colchester? Does he agree that that leads to a more efficient use of resources and benefits not only patients, but the NHS as a whole?
    Mr. Sackville: Yes, wherever the private sector is able to offer expertise or better value for money, we must take advantage of it. To do otherwise would be to disadvantage NHS patients.
    Mr. Rooker: Is the private sector in health care being limited to l per cent.?
    Mr. Sackville: The private sector often gives very good value for money. Where that occurs, it would be quite immoral not to take advantage. If we followed the Labour party's advice and refused to do that for ideological reasons, only patients would suffer.
    Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend the Minister find time today to consider the private Sandringham hospital which is located adjacent to the local NHS trust hospital in my constituency? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Sandringham hospital is paying a substantial rent to the NHS trust as well as sharing key medical facilities? Is that not an example of the need for a partnership between the public and private sectors? Will my hon. Friend educate his opposite number and explain that the partnership means saving money for the NHS, treating more patients and getting money at the sharp end?
    Mr. Sackville: There are many examples of good co-operation and I am glad to add the Sandringham hospital to that list. We certainly encourage health authorities and trusts to find whatever ways they can to take full advantage of the expertise that the private sector has to offer.

    Mental Health Nursing
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish a response to the review of mental health nursing.
    Mr. Bowis: The chief nursing officer did so on behalf of the Government in March 1994.
    Mrs. Jackson: In the Government's response, what have they published with regard to recommendations 8 and 20 which suggest that care plans should be developed with the mentally ill on the basis of their needs and wishes and not for the convenience of the service, and that therapeutic units in ordinary district hospitals are often not appropriate? Does the Minister recognise that the serious underfunding of community care for mentally ill people has meant totally inappropriate situations and continuing crises of confidence in the care of the mentally ill which are extremely serious for the future care of people in those district hospitals which are inappropriate?
    Mr. Bowis: The Government's commitment to that report is highlighted by the response of the chief nursing officer, the most senior nurse in the country, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's foreword to that report and by the fact that the Department of Health has been running seminars and

    791
    conferences around the country, including one today in Birmingham involving users of the service. That seems to be the direction in which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) is trying to lead us because it is the users and their interests which are important. The report points to that and to nurses having a role in providing information and showing the options to people. With regard to therapeutic centres, that is something to which we have drawn the attention of providers. As for resources, £2 billion this year into mental health services cannot be bad.
    Mr. Allason: Bearing in mind the review undertaken by Sir Louis Blom-Cooper into the Edith Morgan unit and mental health provision in Torbay in my constituency, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a gap in the current law in respect of people who are a danger not just to themselves but to others and, indeed, particularly to people who provide mental health care, and that it is high time for a review of the law to ensure that there is suitable accommodation precisely for those dangerous individuals?
    Mr. Bowis: Yes. Sir Louis identified two gaps: first, understanding of the existing law so that the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983 are used to the full and, secondly, a particular gap in respect of revolving-door cases of the severely mentally ill who might be at risk in the community. That is why we shall shortly be introducing a new mental health Bill which will include a measure on supervised discharge orders. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) will be the first to welcome that and the first into the Lobby with us.

    NHS Budget
    Mr. Stevenson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors she takes into account when allocating resources within the NHS budget; and if she will make a statement.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: NHS spending in England in 1995–96 will rise to £32 billion, a further increase of £1.3 billion. The underlying principles in deciding how that budget is spent are that access to a comprehensive health service should be available to all on the basis of clinical judgment and that money is allocated according to health need.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does the Secretary of State not realise the total inadequacy of that answer when we consider the millions of people who are being denied quality of life and have reduced life expectancy because of poverty? Is she aware that Government-imposed poverty is reducing the life expectancy of millions of people? Is that not a direct result of NHS market forces which are rationing health care on the basis of poverty?
    Mrs. Bottomley: That question is quite ludicrous, particularly coming from the hon. Gentleman with the record in his constituency. We are committed to the improvement of people's well-being and the reduction of unemployment. Average incomes have increased by more than a third. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the money that goes to the health service has increased by more than 30 per cent. in the past five years, partly because resources are targeted at areas of greatest need.
    792
    Life expectancy is increasing and infant mortality figures are improving. The results of the health reforms are available for all to see.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Ray Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Michie: Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said that a single currency was a constitutional issue. Last Thursday, the Chancellor said that it was not. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us who is right?
    The Prime Minister: I have told the hon. Lady, I think, directly, and many people in the House precisely what the position is as far as a single currency is concerned, and I have also told people exactly how we propose to approach it. There will be no single currency involving the United Kingdom in 1996 or 1997. When and if it arises at a later stage, whether 1999 or thereafter, we will examine both the economic implications and the other implications, and we will then make a judgment on the national interest.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are determined to protect the country from terrorism, drug smugglers and a tidal wave of economic refugees into this country?
    The Prime Minister: I should say to my hon. Friend that in recent years we have seen a very welcome improvement in race relations in this country and I do not wish to see that put at risk in any way. Raising fears about immigration tends to put that at risk. For that reason, I am entirely determined to maintain our fair but firm immigration policies, and that means that we shall retain our border controls.
    Mr. Blair: Following the Prime Minister's welcome commitment last Thursday to reducing inequality, may we now put it to the test? As the national electricity grid is an absolute monopoly subject to no competition, will the right hon. Gentleman act against the excesses of the few regional electricity chiefs who stand to make £50 million out of share options on the back of it?
    The Prime Minister: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that I find much of his opposition to share options rather synthetic since a good deal of his leadership campaign was financed out of the proceeds of share options.
    Mr. Blair: So the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to do nothing on that. Let me now put this to him: as there still remain about l million long-term unemployed and the Government are proposing a £50 million cut in help to the unemployed, will he therefore act in respect of that?
    The Prime Minister: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman did not respond to the earlier point. As for

    793
    his general concerns about poverty, perhaps I can help him by filling in some of the facts that he overlooks. As he will know, and as there are ample statistics to show, the vast majority of people are better off. Average income has risen by more than one third since 1979, the average income of all economic groups and family types has risen, vulnerable groups have been protected and average incomes are up by more than 10 per cent. for poorer pensioners, and up for the unemployed as well as for those in full-time work. Those are the results of the Government's actions, and they exceed by far the results achieved by any previous Government.
    Mr. Blair: So the Prime Minister is prepared to do nothing about that either. Whatever he says about reducing inequality, he will do nothing about greed at the top and nothing about protecting the unemployed at the bottom. Are the British people not right to conclude, therefore, that his commitment to reducing inequality will be seen in time as just one more easily made, easily broken Tory promise?
    The Prime Minister: I look forward to the day when the right hon. Gentleman listens to the answer before continuing with his question. As "Social Trends" is a publication often cited by Opposition Members, perhaps they will take notice of the information available in the latest edition, which states that the income of recently retired pensioners has increased by just over a half in real terms since 1981, and the real income after tax of a lone parent on the lowest decile of female earnings and with two children rose by 50 per cent. between 1981 and 1993. Why do we never hear about the reality of what has happened rather than the accusations without base which come from the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Marlow: If European institutions produce measures to dismantle our external immigration controls, and those measures are subsequently supported by the European Court, how will my right hon. Friend maintain our external controls?
    The Prime Minister: As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) a moment or so ago, we believe in our right to maintain controls. My predecessor set out our determination and received a solemn declaration to that effect some time ago. Let me make it clear that we shall argue strongly for the maintenance of that position and shall take whatever steps are necessary to that end. I will tell my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) about that declaration: it was solemnly entered into by all the Heads of Government of the other European countries. They pledged their word, and I intend that they will keep it.
    Mr. Cousins: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cousins: Is the Prime Minister aware that, following the Government's deal with Trafalgar House to kill off Northern Electric this morning, the resulting free-for-all in electricity companies has caused
    794
    electricity shares to rise by 10 per cent. in a Valentine's day orgy on the stock exchange, while there has been a Valentine's day massacre of job security in the north? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Confederation of British Industry that growing unfairness in society affects not only jobs but competition and business?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will have observed over the last couple of years, competition in business has been creating jobs, not losing them, which is why unemployment has dropped by more than half a million.
    Mr. Foulkes: Rubbish.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has apparently not noticed the drop of half a million in unemployment, so I will tell him that it has dropped right across Scotland, which he cares about, as well as in England, in Wales and in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman has not understood even that, I can understand why he is on the Opposition Benches—because he understands nothing.
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report that tourism in Northern Ireland has doubled since the ceasefire was announced? Does he agree that that reflects in an important way the outcome of the peace process?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the remarkable increases in tourism. There have also been remarkable changes in the life styles of the people in Northern Ireland and in the success of large and small businesses in Northern Ireland. I believe that those are results of the ceasefire, which I hope we shall be able to turn into a permanent peace.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cunningham: Does the Prime Minister recall that last Thursday in the House he gave an undertaking to commit the Government to fighting injustice and inequality? Will he now, as a first step, take the opportunity to reintroduce wages councils and, as a second step, abolish the jobseeker's allowance?
    The Prime Minister: I will not give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking, because I do not believe that wages councils acted in the interests of people who were low paid. I believe that they kept a lot of people out of work who might otherwise have been in work. I accept that the Government have a responsibility to help the poor, and we have sought to do that. That is why extra help of more than £1 billion since 1988,

    795
    over and above inflation, has been provided to help low-income families. That is the point that I invite the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends to concentrate upon.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Arnold: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the decision of the parents of pupils at 88 schools in Kent who voted overwhelmingly for the schools to become grant maintained? Will he congratulate those Kentish parents on their choice? Does he welcome the fact that they had the choice in the first place—a choice exercised by the Leader of the Opposition and a number of Labour Back Benchers—or does he consider that choice to be wicked?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that every parent should have the right to choose what is best for his or her children, and I have no criticism of any parent who does so. I simply ask that all parents should have the same choice.
    Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Watson: What does the Prime Minister suggest that I could do to help my constituent, Jane Pepper, who gave up a secure job in the civil service last year to attend an access course for university? She secured three offers of places, but is now having to give them up because she loses £5,000 as a result of the Government's penny pinching in cutting the mature students' allowance. Leaving aside the waffle that the Prime Minister usually gives us, what advice can he give to Jane Pepper and the thousands of other people who missed out on higher education the first time around and are now having the door slammed in their faces again?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows that the number of people going on to further and higher education has increased dramatically. When the hon. Gentleman's party left office, one in eight of our children went to university. The figure is now one in three, and it is increasing.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rather disappointing performance of the English cricketers in Australia illustrates the need for more competitive sport in our schools?
    The Prime Minister: I should certainly like to see more competitive sport in our schools, and we intend to ensure that there is more. Beyond that, we must ensure that there is a much better sports environment through the clubs, so that there is a proper throughput from school to club level and to more senior levels in sport. I intend to do what I can to bring that about.
    Ms Jowell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Jowell: Is the Prime Minister aware that last week a senior manager at Guy's hospital in London had to telephone 24 hospitals to arrange cover for patients needing acute and intensive care beds? Does he accept that patients' lives are at risk because of the shortage of beds in London? Will he instruct the Secretary of State for Health that no further bed closures should be allowed?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady had wished me to comment on that, no doubt she would have given me earlier notice of the question. Often enough, there have been cases in which a direct answer could have been given if information had been provided, and often enough I have examined matters subsequently and found them to be a touch different from what had been suggested on the Floor of the House. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will have heard what the hon. Lady had to say.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Is not the situation with regard to the single currency quite straightforward—that if my right hon. Friend remains Prime Minister we will not have a single currency, but if the Leader of the Opposition becomes Prime Minister we will?
    The Prime Minister: As I have indicated to my hon. Friend on previous occasions, I will make a judgment on what I believe the national interest demands. If it demands no, I will say no.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request from the President of the Board of Trade to make a statement to the House about policy on the future ownership and control of the regional electricity companies? Bearing in mind the fact that he accepted in the House that some important questions remain to be answered in that area of policy, and also the public interest, as well as the interests of consumers and employees in regional electricity companies, should not the President of the Board of Trade make such an important statement of policy in the House, rather than simply issuing a press release from his Department?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed so far today that any Minister wants to make a statement to the House, on that or any other matter.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any request from the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) to make a personal statement about the shambles in the House of Commons last night, on the basis that a leaked exchange of notes between Liberal Members of Parliament is not sufficient explanation for what occurred?
Madam Speaker: I have not had any note from the hon. and learned Member, but I was in the Chair last night, and I very much resent the suggestion that there was a shambles in the House. There is never a shambles when I am in the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman should be very careful.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During the Christmas recess, the Prime Minister made an unwarranted and unexpected attack on Wales and on my own party. During each Prime Minister's Question Time since then, I have tried to catch your eye so that I could put our viewpoint on that matter to the Prime Minister and elicit clarification from him. If it is impossible for members of my party to question the Prime Minister on the Floor of this House for two months, how on earth will democracy work as far as Wales is
798
concerned? Is not that another argument for us to have our own Parliament, as this one cannot deliver us democracy?
Madam Speaker: I am not certain whether any members of the hon. Gentleman's party have tabled questions to the Prime Minister, but I will check on that. If the hon. Gentleman not only looks at the Order Paper but reads it, he will realise that the opportunities to call any of them—or, indeed, any Opposition Member—during the past few weeks have been very limited, simply because of the way in which the Order Paper is laid out.
In addition to those hon. Members who have a question down, I seek to call those who have not yet asked the Prime Minister a question during this Session. Of course, I have the hon. Gentleman in mind, and will do my best to ensure that he is able to put his question to the Prime Minister as soon as possible. He will understand the limitations on the Chair during Prime Minister's Question Time.
Mr. Derek Enright: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I learn from this morning's The Independent that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) made a particular decision about the entry of the Al-Fayed brothers, and was subsequently asked to reconsider it by the Home Secretary. Is that a matter for the Committee of Privileges?
Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman believes that it might be, he should send a written submission to me, and I will look very carefully at the way that it was done.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you aware that, as we meet at this time, Mr. Gianfranco Fini, leader of the Italian fascists, is being greeted in the House by Conservative Members—the Mr. Fini about whom early-day motion 429 has been tabled, signed by 112 hon. Members, condemning his fascism, his anti-semitism and his connection with Mussolini? Is it in order, in the anniversary year of the defeat of fascism, for hon. Members to invite Mr. Mussolini's political descendant to visit the House?
Madam Speaker: It is up to individual Members to issue invitations to outsiders to address private meetings in the House. Some people, of course, may find such invitations unpalatable and even offensive, but it would be invidious for me, as Speaker, to be set up as an arbiter of who can and who cannot be invited into the House. It is for Members individually to take the responsibility upon themselves, and to think very carefully before they issue their invitations.

Landlord and Tenant (Covenants)
3.35 pm
Mr. Peter Thurnham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for persons bound by covenants of a tenancy to be released from such covenants on the assignment of the tenancy, and to make other provision with respect to rights and liabilities arising under such covenants; to restrict in certain circumstances the operation of rights of re-entry, forfeiture and disclaimer; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased to propose a Bill about contractual liability on a day such as today, St. Valentine's day, when, traditionally, many couples take their first step towards a marriage contract. I hope that such couples have a long and happy life together, but if, by mischance, they should find that they are not suited, they can break off their engagement without fear of being confronted by a court action for a breach of promise. That law was abolished 25 years ago. It had long outlived its purpose and imposed an unjust burden, and I applaud its passing.
Reflecting on that welcome reform, I propose a Bill today that is long overdue in righting an acknowledged injustice peculiar to this country, whereby landlords can pursue tenants many, many years after they have ceased trading for subsequent arrears of rent after the lease has been assigned, known by lawyers as "privity of contract".
The smooth working of the commercial property market requires good relations between landlords, who provide their capital, and tenants, who trade on their skills. I am sure that most landlords dislike enforcing that unjust law, which has caused distress and genuine hardship to many thousands of former tenants caught in its obscure and iniquitous trap.
Long after retirement, a shopkeeper—or even, after his death, his family—can be confronted with exorbitant demands for arrears of rent owing to the failure of a subsequent tenant. The original tenant can be pursued 20 or more years after assigning a lease, perhaps three or four tenants later. The landlord is under no obligation to mitigate the losses, so confronting former tenants with potential financial ruin.
I have had an especially distressing constituency case of that type, affecting a widow who, long after the lease was assigned, was confronted with punitive demands, not only for long arrears of rent, but for service charges and dilapidations. I am sure that many other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have had similar constituency cases, affecting both large and small businesses.
Recently, a writ for £150,000 was served on the former tenant of a shop in the Arndale centre in Manchester. The landlord did not even have the courtesy to write to the former tenant before slapping down a court writ for 18 months of rent arrears, long after the original lease had been assigned.
In Nottingham recently, a landlord deliberately took no action to re-let two adjacent vacant properties in a prime site. The two former tenants were forced to the point of personal bankruptcy before the landlord agreed to re-let his properties. One of the former tenants was forced to sell his home. Those shops could easily have been re-let by the landlord without loss, had he acted reasonably.
800
I am aware of a landlord in London who conspired with a weak tenant who was on the point of bankruptcy to sign a renewed lease on a doubled rent. As soon as the tenant became bankrupt, the landlord forced the former tenant to pay the double rent. That scam is made legal only through the iniquity of the privity of contract law.
In 1988, the Law Commission reported on privity of contract, and concluded that it was intrinsically unfair that anyone should bear burdens under a contract from which they derived no benefit and over which they had no control. Consequently, the commission recommended a wholesale reform of the current law. Five years later, in March 1993, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor announced that there was a strong case for reform of privity for new leases, and that a new nine months' notice of liability provision would be introduced so that landlords would be under a statutory duty to serve notice on any former tenant from whom they wished to claim.
My Bill introduces those necessary reforms. It abolishes privity of contract for new leases after the first assignment of the lease. Therefore, the original tenant would be liable only until after the first assignee had reassigned the lease. The Bill also introduces the nine months' notice provision, which requires nine months' notice of the date on which a debt has become due, and applies to both existing and future leases. That keeps former tenants informed about their obligation and helps protect individuals or companies against unforeseen and unaffordable costs.
Some concern had been raised by the British Property Federation that, as currently drafted, my Bill might put investment at risk and undermine confidence in the property market. To avoid that, the Bill may need to be amended so that landlords can agree with potential tenants the circumstances under which an assignment of that lease will be permitted.
I accept that criticism, and would not resist an appropriate amendment to the Bill, should it reach Committee stage. I understand that an agreement has been reached between the British Property Federation, acting for landlords, and the British Retail Consortium, acting for tenants, on an amendment to section 19(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927, which would ameliorate that concern.
I further understand that there is agreement on additional benefits to tenants in new clauses to stop bad practice in existing leases. Such amendments would not only remove landlords' fears but would significantly improve the position of tenants beyond that contemplated in the Bill.
My Bill has support from all sides of the properly industry, including not only the British Properly Federation and the British Retail Consortium but the British Chambers of Commerce; the Forum of Private Business; the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; the Property Managers Association; and the British Council of Shopping Centres. It also has cross-party support within the House.
Britain is known as a nation of shopkeepers, so it seems appropriate that, on this day, Britain's quarter of a million shopkeepers should present you, Madam Speaker, with a Valentine wish that my Bill be given an unopposed First Reading by the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Thurnham, Dame Peggy Fenner, Mr. John McFall, Mr. John Fraser, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. A.J. Beith, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. Richard Page, and Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (COVENANTS)
Mr. Peter Thurnham accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for persons bound by covenants of a tenancy to be released from such covenants on the assignment of the tenancy, and to make other provision with respect to rights and liabilities arising under such covenants; to restrict in certain circumstances the operation of rights of re-entry, forfeiture and disclaimer; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 21 April, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Poverty and Unemployment
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I must also advise hon. Members that, between the hours of 7 and 9 pm this evening, speeches must be limited to 10 minutes.
  3.44 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the damage done to the country's social fabric and economy by the rapid growth of poverty in United Kingdom society; deplores Government policies which have failed the long-term unemployed, seen the number of families living on less than half national average income treble and deprived many of an opportunity to contribute to and share in national prosperity; and calls for immediate concerted action to tackle the causes of poverty and unemployment including a major welfare-to-work programme, a national childcare strategy and action to improve education and skills.
  Last Thursday, as many hon. Members will remember, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether it was the aim of the Government to redress inequality. The answer was a simple and unadorned yes. That agreement, that common ground should be our starting point this afternoon.
  The Prime Minister went on, rather more controversially, to say that, in his view, the right way to combat poverty was
  "by ensuring that chances and opportunities are greater so inequality falls; that is the right way and that is what the Government are doing."—[Official Report, 9 February 1995; Vol. 254, c. 453.]
  The House will not be surprised to hear that I quarrel with that judgment. Put plainly, I do not believe that there is evidence, and certainly no convincing argument, that present policies are controlling or even limiting the growth of inequality. More seriously, and more disappointingly, there is little or no evidence that the Government are trying to do so.
  There will be much talk during the debate—and rightly so—about the Rowntree report that was produced last week. Indeed, that was the cause and the basis of the exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. It is right that a good deal of attention should be paid to the report because its publication is a public service. It puts the harsh profile of growing problems of poverty in sharp relief.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Could the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Rowntree foundation report was drafted by John Hills, a Labour activist who worked on the Fabian Society tax review before the last election?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady should remember that, whoever wrote the draft, the report was unanimously approved by, for example, Mr. Howard Davies of the CBI, by a very prominent Conservative who is a member of the Baring banking family, and by the deputy chairman of British Telecom. To suggest that it is a put-up job or a Labour conspiracy reflects no credit on the hon. Lady's

  803
  intelligence, and I suspect that it reflects even less credit on the central office briefing that she was probably clutching.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No. Let me make it clear that I shall take some points of information as the debate proceeds, but that I am anxious to make progress and to establish my first point. The report gives perspective and clarity, and the picture that emerges from its findings is of a disunited kingdom. Every right hon. and hon. Member should take that seriously.
  I understand that, in the past few minutes, the Prime Minister has been dealing with these problems with the attitude of a latter-day Pangloss. Of course he is right that there are families and pensioners who are doing well. That is almost by definition a picture of the divided community. There are people on the right side of the divide in the arithmetic who are flourishing, and nobody complains about that.
  The trouble is that, while pensioner incomes on average are rising, 1.6 million are existing on income support. While many families are comfortably off, others—one of the most vulnerable groups in society: perhaps with several children and a low wage—are living just above the income support level and in real difficulty.
  What clearly emerges from the report is that income inequality is greater now than at any time since the second world war, and that, since the Government came to power, the lowest income groups—perhaps as many as 15 million people—have been deprived of any share in increasing national wealth. Rowntree found that, even after excluding the self-employed—and that is of some significance—incomes of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population, after housing costs, were 9 per cent. lower than they were in 1979. Since 1977, the proportion of the population living on less than half the national average income has trebled.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Because benefits increased.
  Mr. Dewar: I will come to that point. I can always rely on the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to feed me a line; he is one of the best stooges in the House from the Labour party's point of view. I think that he can comprehend the fact that in Tory Britain more than 10 million people are now dependant upon income support, which is more than double the number when the hon. Gentleman's friends came to power.
  A family on income support comprising a husband, a wife and two children is living on about one third of the national average wage. That leaves very little room for comfort. I do not argue that the meek should inherit the earth, but I do not believe that they should be cut off without a penny.
  Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman advances the analysis in the Rowntree report which proposes increased taxes, an increased number of civil servants and a guaranteed
  804
  minimum wage or, alternatively, extra burdens for business. Is he prepared to pledge those proposals on behalf of his party?
  Mr. Dewar: That is not what we propose—nor, to be fair, is it a proper representation of the points in the Rowntree report. I will turn to solutions later in my remarks.
  The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) obviously dislikes the Rowntree report. I can understand that; it is inconvenient and no doubt embarrassing. However, the charges in the report are wholly corroborated by other evidence. As the hon. Gentleman takes these matters seriously, I know that he will recall the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies entitled "For Richer and For Poorer", which deals with income distribution between 1961 and 1991. It hammers the same case, and it comes to the same conclusions.
  For a local case study with which the hon. Member is probably not familiar, he should go to Her Majesty's Stationery Office and ask for a copy of "Poor and Paying for it: the price of living on a low income", which is an exhaustive examination of the privileges—or really the penalties—of living in poverty in Scotland. It was produced by the Scottish Consumer Council, all of whose members I think have been appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and are therefore not likely to be interested in deliberately doing him in for political reasons. I think that the case is almost overwhelming.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward a bogus argument based on a report which is substantially founded on dubious facts. Does he accept that the Social Services Select Committee has reported that those on income support are 15 per cent. better off now than they were in 1979? Does he further accept that all social services payments and payments for health, education and other public spending originate from enterprise and initiative, and that his party's policies will spoil our country's ability to meet the payments that our people want and need?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman has taken his time to make a rather familiar point. I am anxious to help him. I recognise that he believes that the Rowntree report is prejudiced and fraudulent—he has said that in pretty clear terms. I will be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State for Social Security accepts that the basis of that body's work is flawed in that way.
  I invite the hon. Gentleman to consult another authority. If he looks in Hansard of 2 February 1995, he will see a written answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He asks for the percentage change in real incomes of the top 20 per cent. of families with children and the bottom 20 per cent. between 1979 and 1991–92, the latest date for which figures are available.
  After housing costs, according to the Department of Social Security and the Minister who speaks for it, the bottom 20 per cent. have seen their incomes fall by 12 per cent. in real terms; while the incomes of the top 20 per cent. have increased by 49 per cent. A division is clearly opening up, as those two groups were already advantaged on the one hand and disadvantaged on the other.

  805
  It may be interesting to argue what we should do about that, or even to what extent Government can control those matters, but to say that it is not happening is to fly in the face of common sense and evidence, at every level and from every source. It makes the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) look a little silly.
  A defence has been mounted, and I will turn to that point.
  The Prime Minister, for example—after all, he is only echoing the views of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, and could he do better—said that the Government are a victim of their own generosity. Because they raise benefits, they create poverty and move the poverty line. But, unfortunately, if one looks at what happened—because in recent years the Government have tied the level of benefits to the retail prices index—one will see that a gap has opened up between them and earnings, which have tended to increase more quickly, and that is one of the reasons for that phenomenon.
  Mr. James Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No, I am sorry, but I must go on.
  It has been urged on other occasions that we should not take into account the figures for the bottom 10 per cent., because they are inaccurate. I remember an interesting debate sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) in which the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), an Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, presented with the irrefutable evidence about the deterioration in the prospects of the bottom 10 per cent., said, "Well, you can't really believe these figures, because they are full of the self-employed–100,000 farmers, 40,000 taxi drivers, 12,500 qualified accountants, who are returning nil or negative incomes as a clever piece of tax management." If that is happening, it is a very eloquent comment on our tax system.
  In any event, the Rowntree figures, and the Government's figures in the parliamentary answer, do not talk about the very bottom 10 per cent., but about 20 per cent. at the bottom and 20 per cent. at the top–40 per cent. of the population. I submit—I do not think that any statistician would argue with me—that they give a fair account of what is happening in Britain today.
  I remind the House of the figures I gave a moment ago from the Rowntree report. It excluded the self-employed—that doubtful category that might give rise to misunderstanding—and still found that the bottom 10 per cent. is down 9 per cent. after housing costs since 1979.
  Mr. Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No, I am sorry. I am going to hurry on. I recognise that there are limitations on the time that I can take.
  I believe that it is beyond argument that the gap is widening. The Government, of course, say that they are still trying to do something about it. After all, they have a proven track record of failure in many fields, and they may indeed be doing their best. One of the most damaging aspects is the impact of Government policy itself. To quote the Rowntree report:
  "Discretionary tax changes shifted the burden of taxation from higher to lower and middle income groups."
  806
  That can be illustrated in a welter of facts and figures with which many hon. Members are familiar.
  Too many people in the Cabinet, perhaps even the Secretary of State for Social Security, are still thirled to the Thatcher legacy, and still believe in the trickle-down theory: help the poor by making the rich richer. I have heard that, and no doubt will hear it again in the course of the debate.
  I do not believe that that is any longer an area of legitimate dispute. It has been destroyed by the experience of the past 15 years, by observable fact, by the situation that we see around us in our constituencies. The bottom is getting detached. We now see cynicism and alienation to a dangerous extent in our communities.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: What a choice!
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
  The hon. Gentleman criticised the Government a moment ago for not linking benefits to earnings rather than prices; he then passed on very quickly. Will he give a commitment that the Labour party would link benefits to earnings rather than prices—yes or no?
  Mr. Dewar: I have explained our position—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not listen to me. I shall say it again for his benefit: we have always protested against the unbreakable glass ceiling that has been imposed by the Government. We have also made it clear that we do not think that it is right that, over a lengthy period, those on benefits should be excluded from rising national wealth. As a prudent Opposition, who make promises only when we know that we can deliver, we have made it absolutely clear that we will halt that decline and try to reverse it when circumstances allow. [Interruption.] As I am always urged to be responsible and prudent, I find the kind of jackass noises coming from Conservative Members brave but ill advised.
  Let me make it clear to the House. The concern that I have expressed is widely shared. I am sure that hon. Members—I suspect that they have read The Sunday Telegraph—will have seen the report this weekend, which, if correct, suggests that the senior civil service shares our concern about the growth in poverty and division in our communities. It is reported that Sir Robin Butler brought together permanent secretaries from eight departments to discuss the problems that arise when policies designed to increase choice destroy it for those who are already disadvantaged. They cited bus deregulation, the mobility problems when services are run down in peripheral schemes and a housing policy that forces people into benefit dependency; they also considered the problems of single parents. In those instances, they felt that what the Government were doing was incompatible with the interests of the poorer sections of the community.
  I have not seen the document, but it appears at least to constitute a direct challenge to the Prime Minister's claim that opportunity is opening up for those who are currently in travail. If it does not constitute such a challenge, I suggest to the Secretary of State that the best way in

  807
  which to remove that presumption is to publish the note that we are told is circulating in Whitehall, so that we can all judge.
  The Butler discussions, as reported, point to another key fact that we must keep in mind. This is not simply an argument about cash; deprivation has a much wider remit than that. It affects education: the ambitions of many children with real ability are being stifled and ended. It affects employment, and the prospects of low-paid people to whom choice is not open.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dewar: No.
  Unemployed people are subject to the deadening round of benefit dependency, relieved only by problems related to the "actively seeking work" test.
  If hon. Members examine any one of those areas of social policy, they will realise that the chances in life of many people—probably many people in Conservative constituencies, but certainly many in my constituency—are being destroyed. For many—some may think this a rather over-dramatic statement, but I consider it entirely justified—life itself is literally being cut short.
  I do not know how many hon. Members watched last night's BBC "Panorama" programme. It concentrated on a peripheral housing scheme in west Glasgow—the Drumchapel scheme. I happen to know that area very well, because I represent it; so I watched the programme with considerable interest and concern. I accept that concentration on a single aspect of an area does not always give a complete picture. Drumchapel is a community with problems, but it has strengths as well: its strengths lie in its people—people who too often, and in so many ways, are obstructed rather than assisted by the system.
  The facts are familiar. Most Members of Parliament recognise the link between deprivation and health. Perhaps those facts have become too familiar, and have lost the ability to shock; it should not be so.
  As I have said, the television programme dealt with a housing scheme in a deprived area of my constituency. Literally a hundred yards away is Bearsden, a leafy suburb whose economic circumstances are very different. Between 1981 and 1991, male mortality between the ages of 15 and 46 rose by 9 per cent. in Drumchapel; in Bearsden, it fell by 14 per cent. It was a case not of both rates improving, or of one improving faster than the other: the mortality rate in Bearsden improved, while it deteriorated in Drumchapel.
  Young men in Drumchapel are twice as likely to (lie as those living in an affluent and leafy suburb. They are 75 per cent. more at risk during major surgery. This may not be a pleasant subject, but it is a fact that, for a person living in a poor area such as Drumchapel who requires a bowel operation, the chances of developing complications and dying are 50 per cent. higher than those of a person living in the neighbouring affluent area.
  The position is not academic. In an area such as Drumchapel, a man's life expectancy can be as much as 10 years shorter than in the neighbouring area, while a woman's can be seven years shorter. I make no apology for saying that these are people whom I know and with
  808
  whom I deal; constituents of yours, whom you too will know, Madam Speaker; and people with whom many of my hon. Friends work.
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth rose—
  Mr. Hartley Booth rose—
  Mr. Gary Streeter rose—
  Mr. Duncan rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I will take just one intervention.
  Mr. Brandreth: The hon. Gentleman has spent 22 minutes telling us that he deplores poverty. I deplore it, too: I think that we agree on that. We also agree, I hope, that we want increased growth and a better standard of living for all our citizens. The motion speaks of a "programme", a "childcare strategy" and
  "action to improve education and skills".
  Can the hon. Gentleman flesh that out? Can he tell us when he will introduce the programme, what it would cost and how he believes that it will improve the state that he currently deplores?
  Mr. Dewar: I am genuinely glad that the hon. Gentleman rose, because the fact that he accepts the tenor and accuracy of my remarks—"We all agree," he said—: is a refreshing contrast to almost every point of information that has been made in the debate. On occasions, he must feel a rather lonely man on the Conservative Benches. I will come to his question in a minute. I can answer the first part very simply. We will do it when we are in government, which probably is not going to be so very far away.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Dewar: Let me just complete my medical point. It will be quite short, and it involves issues in which I feel very involved. I have talked to many of the people involved, and medical opinion is united on the link with deprivation. It was first established by the Black report, and since then it has been established many times by research in many parts of the country.
  I am talking not just about Drumchapel. In Glasgow, I find it deeply depressing that successive holders of the senior post in public health believe not only that a direct link exists between deprivation and poverty, but that that gap will continue to widen if present trends continue. That is not something that any hon. Member can be satisfied about.
  The Minister for Health was no doubt doing his best on television last night. I make no criticism of him personally; I know that he is closely connected with the city of Glasgow, and that he knows a great deal about medicine in Glasgow. I may, of course, misquote him in detail, but I think that I have caught the spirit of his comments.
  The Minister was asked whether deprivation was a major part of the health problem that was being recorded. He answered that it was a matter of subjective judgment, but a diversion from the real debate about specific health problems and about how to treat them. I shall not overdo this, but, in my considered opinion, that does not show the necessary sense of urgency, or the overall view that gives hope that this distressing problem will he properly tackled.

  809
  In considering high cancer rates in areas of depression, the Minister for Health said, again revealingly, that anyone can give up smoking. In Drumchapel, one is three times more likely to die of lung cancer than someone who lives in Bearsden. I went to university because of opportunity, expectation and family and peer group support. Would I have made it if I had had to struggle in the sort of circumstances in which we let many of my constituents live?
  As I sit in my surgery, I often feel that I have never been in the position where a small unexpected bill amounts to a financial crisis for my constituents because they have no edge or margin in which to live and to work. I would not be happy defending the record of recent years, or a system that is built on the basis that the outstandingly able will be able to beat that system, but that many others will inevitably and unfairly be left as casualties.
  Let me now come to the question raised by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) about what is to be done. I want to make it clear that I recognise that it would be dishonest and counter-productive to promise an instant transformation under any Government. Obviously, the situation has been running unchecked for some considerable time, but it must now be met with commitment and determination over a period to redress the balance.
  Mr. Streeter: If the hon. Gentleman is genuine in his concern for the people whom he describes, and I accept that he is, why will he not commit a future Labour Government to spend more money on such people?
  Mr. Dewar: I shall come to our programme in a moment. Of course, as I made clear, I want to redress the balance, but—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree—we must get the system and the priorities right. It is not simply a matter of taking a system that is operating inefficiently and badly, and pouring more money into it.
  If that were true, the Secretary of State for Social Security would have presided over one of the most effective attacks on inequality and poverty, as his budget has spiralled to £90 billion. Sadly, the money has been wasted, putting the taxpayer in the firing line, because recession and poverty must be funded by the taxpayer. It is working, tax-paying middle Britain that has been put into the firing line by these mistaken policies. One of the first things we must do is ensure that the money is used effectively, and that our priorities are right.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman would do anything rather than put numbers on his policies and make specific spending commitments. He said that it was important to get the system and the priorities right, but will he tell us what principles will animate new Labour in its policy making?
  We are given to understand that, in the new dawn, we shall not have our lives run for us by Fabian managerialists, or ruled by big corporate interests. Instead, under new Labour, the people will have choice and Labour will embrace markets. However, as the hon. Gentleman has, I think, been saying, markets do not necessarily induce fairness, so what principles will Labour apply to regulate and civilise the markets? [HON.
  810
  MEMBERS: "Come on.''] What principles will it operate to determine the degree of regulation, planning, investment, intervention and redistributive taxation in order to achieve the greater fairness and equality that the hon. Gentleman seeks?
  Mr. Dewar: I think that the merriment that greeted the hon. Gentleman's interjection—which was, as ever, well reasoned—tells its own tale.
  Of course, we have to inject fairness into the tax system. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I did not want to go into that, because it is a narrow battle, but are Conservatives proud of the fact that, this afternoon, Sir Desmond Pitcher of North West Water is defending the share options and salary increases of the privatised utilities? Is that the symbol of Conservative Britain? As I understand it, share options in the pipeline at North West Water, which are worth very nearly £5 million, are to be shared among six board directors. [Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough barracking from sedentary positions. We should be able to hear the debate.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: It is the hon. Member for South Dorset, (Mr. Bruce).
  Madam Speaker: I know who it is.
  Mr. Dewar: Perhaps we should take that as a symbol of the priorities. Of course there has to be a fair tax system. We have to get away from a situation in which people can make offensively large sums of money and capital gains, not by virtue of being themselves but simply because a situation has been created by the Government which looks unpleasantly like a private monopoly. What is happening upstairs is perhaps a symbol of that.
  Of course, the best way to help people is to get them back to work if we can, and I want to say a word or two about that. I have made it clear that I am not asking for massive new spending commitments at this stage. I want to do what Sir Robin Butler attempted to do, as we understand it, with his working party, which was to ensure that Government policies are examined, no doubt from many points of view. However, one point of view that should be given particular priority is the impact of those policies on the life chances and position in society of the disadvantaged and underprivileged. The working party highlighted many examples where that has not happened.
  We need an effective policy to take people off welfare and into work. Of course, there was some gesture politics, especially during the Budget. For example, insurance holidays were announced for employers who took people off the long-term unemployment register. We calculated that it was worth £6 a week, and I take no particular pleasure in predicting that it will have no impact whatsoever. In addition, there is the back-to-work bonus, which means no help now, jam tomorrow or perhaps jam never. If one is lucky and advantaged enough to find a job, one gets a divvy on top. That is not the answer to the problem.
  I understand that, today, in the Committee debating the Jobseekers Bill, an announcement is being made on the 21-hour rule. I believe that the 21-hour rule should be re-examined. There is a case for a more flexible approach, because it is a pretty mad world in which someone who wants to enhance his skills by following a course of more

  811
  than 21 hours a week is not entitled to any support in the form of benefits and therefore cannot do the course. He ends up drawing the benefit anyway, but does without the skill enhancement.
  Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell me whether, as I understand, the 21-hour rule is to be cut to 16 hours, which makes the whole system even more inflexible and makes it harder for people to move into education or skill training while retaining at least a marginal life support within the benefit system. I want to see—
  Mr. John Sykes rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I am trying to answer some of the questions that have been asked. If the hon. Gentleman contains himself, I would like to draw to a conclusion quite soon, because I am conscious of the new rulings.
  Obviously, we ought to be looking at child care. We ought to be putting the emphasis on training, not cutting the budget. We ought, obviously, to be considering not the kind of national insurance holiday that the Chancellor proposed, but a tax concession or allowance for employers who take people off the register of those unemployed for two years, which would give real impetus to getting people back to work.
  Those are important factors, which would, over a period, begin to make a difference and begin to work. We need, as I say, to make better use of the resources that have been allocated. We must recognise that deprivation, as I tried to say during earlier exchanges, is expensive for us all. Inequality unchecked puts stability and social cohesion at risk, at hazard.
  The Government are confused and divided on such matters. Evidence of that can be heard in the various conflicting briefings which no doubt lie at the root of the points of information that have been made during my speech. The Conservatives have a divided party and a divided Cabinet, presiding over a divided country.
  On the other side of the argument, some, as we have heard, simply deny the facts about events happening around us. Some argue that the market should have its head, that Adam Smith's invisible hand still rules, and that inequality is built into a system that rewards initiative and ability. Predictably, the hon. Member for Surrey, East, who made that point, has gone. No doubt he did not want to stay for any sustained argument.
  Such people argue that inequality is built into a system that rewards initiative and ability, and that it is a price worth paying. I do not think that it is a price worth paying. It is especially morally offensive to ask other people to pay that price when we are not prepared to pay anything ourselves.
  The Prime Minister was right last Thursday when he said that it was the duty of Government to try to reduce inequality. He is disastrously wrong when he argues that his Government have got it right and that they are creating opportunity and hope in the areas which are hard hit.
  I have a long memory. I remember that on 23 November 1990, the Prime Minister proclaimed his belief that
  "in the next 10 years we will have to make changes that will genuinely produce across the whole country a genuinely classless society in which people can rise to whatever level that their own abilities and their own good fortune may take them, from wherever they started."
  812
  If we look at the statistics, at the picture that emerges, at the individual experience of Members of Parliament who worry and cope as best they can with the damage on the ground, and at the shape of Britain of the future if those trends run unchecked, we see what a failure that aspiration has been.
  The Prime Minister is almost half way through that 10-year period and he is—sadly—marching backwards. It is time to think again. It is time to make a new start.
  4.17 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the fact that the vast majority of people are significantly better off today than in 1979, and notes, in particular, that the average pensioner is now more than 50 per cent. better off; approves the Government's policy of ensuring that social security spending does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay while focussing resources on those who need it most; applauds the fact that the Government has channelled an extra £1 billion a year to low income families, and an even greater sum to poorer pensioners, since 1988; welcomes the high priority accorded by the Government to education and training; recognises that employment is the best route to higher incomes, and commends the package of work incentives, including the child care disregard and the Back to Work Bonus, which the Government has introduced; applauds the Government's achievement in reducing unemployment by over half a million since 1992 and notes the fact that a national minimum wage would increase unemployment; and deplores the Opposition's failure to reveal the level of their national minimum wage, how they would deal with differentials, their social security policies and their costs."
  I welcome the debate for two reasons. The first is that it enables me to pursue in the House the serious issues that I raised in my Ulster Conservative Political Centre lecture, which the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security was kind enough to describe as the most important speech made by any Cabinet Minister for a long time.
  The second is that it gives me a chance to rebut the attempts of the Opposition to revive the politics of envy on the back of the recent Rowntree report.
  By contrast, we Conservatives believe in helping the least well-off, which is why we have devoted huge resources to doing so. We believe, where possible, in helping people out of dependency by giving them opportunity, choice and incentives. Our policies are succeeding better than those pursued by any of our European Community partners, as we reduce our unemployment further and faster, we raise our once dismal education standards and we enable people to accumulate savings to ensure a more prosperous retirement.
  The Opposition believe in levelling down, promoting envy and encouraging dependency on the state. If they were genuinely concerned about the least well-off, they too would propose today a concrete, costed and coherent policy. Instead, they brandish statistics and glory in the gini coefficients on which the Rowntree report is based.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Was my right hon. Friend a little surprised to be called to the Dispatch Box by the Labour party to speak in a social security debate supposedly on poverty, when the motion deals simply with employment, education and how to get people out of

  813
  poverty? Is it not typical of the Labour party that it believes that the way out of poverty has something to do with the Department of Social Security?
  Mr. Lilley: Absolutely. The most amazing thing is that Labour called the debate in Labour party time, but it has not told us what its policies are. I will come to that point in a moment.
  It is quite clear that, to the Opposition, the poor are not people to be helped, but simply statistics with which to beat the Government and attack the free enterprise system. It is not surprising that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) should seize on the Rowntree report. As The Economist, which these days is no right-wing journal, said:
  "Unfortunately the politics of envy, though never clearly stated, lies behind (and weakens) much of the analysis in the Rowntree Report like a similar report by the Labour sponsored Commission on Social Justice … it is unconvincing as a whole."
  As it is Valentine's day, I will give the hon. Member for Garscadden a friendly warning. Before he and his party swallow everything in the Rowntree report hook, line and sinker, they should be careful. They must remember who wrote it—the distinguished left-wing academic, John Hills, the same John Hills who, according to The Guardian, was the principal author and inspirer of Labour's tax bombshell, which we found so helpful at the last election. It was the same John Hills who, last year, published a benefits bombshell when he suggested that there would be nothing wrong with increasing spending on social security by a further 5 per cent. of gross domestic product.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should heed my warning.
  In the document to which I have referred, Mr. Hills effectively proposes a tax, benefit and incomes policy bombshell all in one. He has learnt not to put a price tag on it, but we of course may do so. The hon. Member for Garscadden should beware of that before it blows up Labour's electoral hopes.
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we make our own policies and do not lift them from anyone's reports. Before we continue that argument, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will establish one important thing: he does not like John Hills or where he comes from, but does he accept the accuracy of the analysis in terms of the statistics and the picture they paint? That is clearly not acceptable to many of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues, but the Secretary of State's opinion is important. Is he rubbishing the author or the analysis in the report?
  Mr. Lilley: I am not rubbishing either. I do not dislike Mr. Hills; indeed, I invited him to the Nottingham seminar which was attended by the hon. Member for Garscadden. I am simply pointing out that Mr. Hills has his political agenda, to which he is perfectly entitled but which has misled the Labour party in the past—[Interruption.] I will come to the figures in a moment. The important point is how one interprets the figures. The Opposition use
  814
  statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post—more for support than for illumination. We believe that statistics should be used to establish what we get from them.
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I hope to make a speech later and give the facts about the people I see people living in poverty. Is the Secretary of State aware that I received a telephone call today from a local newspaper to tell me about the town of Linwood? I hope that hon. Members remember Linwood, where 5,000 people lost their jobs 10 years ago. The Government are now telling our people that they are living in poverty. In numerous areas people are living in poverty. That is a fact under this Government. After 10 years, the Government have done nothing and the people of Linwood are living in poverty.
  Mr. Lilley: I am not sure whether it is possible to sustain that argument. We have done a great deal for the people of Linwood and for people elsewhere.
  The overall picture is easily obscured by concentrating on measures of inequality.
  Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, for the Opposition to use the analysis of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, accepting it all as received fact without following it through to its conclusion—that there should be much more public spending—is gutless and cowardly?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is extraordinary that the Opposition cannot see the inconsistency of endorsing a document and then failing to accept responsibility for the policies that it contains and to which they say it inevitably leads.
  Mr. Dewar: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a distinction between endorsing the analysis and necessarily accepting all the conclusions, although many of them are sound? Surely that is a simple concept for the right hon. Gentleman to grasp. I should have thought that the thrust of the Rowntree report was that resources are being squandered and spent on the wrong aims and objectives. That is the real message of the report.
  Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the policies proposed in the document are not merited by the analysis in the document, it would be only reasonable to tell the House why.
  The Opposition are so concerned with relative incomes and extremes of wealth that they ignore what is happening to the vast majority. The simple fact is that, since 1979, the vast majority of people in this country have become significantly better off. Average incomes have increased by more than a third.
  Ms Jean Corston: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I will make a little progress, if I may. So far, I have given way far more than the hon. Member for Garscadden did throughout his speech.
  The report prepared for the Rowntree inquiry by the Institute of Fiscal Studies shows just how dramatic the growth of incomes in recent years has been. In the 10 years from 1961 to 1971, average non-pensioner household incomes increased by just 18 per cent. In the next decade to 1981, they increased by a further 13 per cent., but in the 10 years from 1981 to 1991 they soared by 39 per cent.—more than in the previous 20 years put together.

  815
  During a time of such a dramatic rise in overall incomes, it should come as no surprise that the income of different groups grew differently, and we have never tried to pretend otherwise. Moreover, far from falling behind other countries, the living standards of ordinary British people have been catching up. The latest OECD figures reported in this month's Employment Gazette are well worth reading. It states:
  "Taking into account the cost of living, estimated average take-home pay for an unmarried UK production worker as defined by the OECD is … higher than in all other EU countries, except Luxembourg.
  Estimated take-home pay for a married couple [with two children] on an average production worker's earnings is higher in the UK than in all other EC countries except Luxembourg, Belgium and the former West Germany"
  which were I per cent. ahead. The report continues:
  "The relatively high level of UK take-home pay reflects in part the low cost of living in the UK compared with other North European countries and the relatively low level of taxes on employment."
  To most people, that rise in the living standards of ordinary people in Britain is pretty obvious and self-evident, but, to Labour and Mr. Hills, ordinary people must have become poorer because their incomes have not risen as fast as those of the likes of Mr. Cedric Brown.
  Ms Corston: Will the Secretary of State confirm that virtually every one of the figures on which the Rowntree report is based, reflecting the growth in inequality, was released and, indeed, confirmed by his Department to me on 31 August last year, and published in Hansard on 26 October 1994?
  Mr. Lilley: The figure on which the hon. Lady puts most weight is bracketed, which signifies that it is particularly unreliable. There are small samples and difficult issues, but I will refer to the figures and try to put them in perspective.
  Let me rebut just a few points that were made by the hon. Member for Garscadden and his colleagues on the back of the Rowntree report. It is simply not sensible to claim that because the rich are getting richer the poor must be getting poorer. It is arithmetically true, of course, that, if the incomes of some better-off groups outstrip the average, there will be more people below the average, but to define poverty purely as a fraction of average income is to distort the very meaning of the word. To define it in terms of the income support level is even more perverse, because it would mean that whenever the income support safety net were raised the number of people classified as poor would increase. The Social Security Select Committee concluded that the increase in the level of income support relative to the old supplementary benefit level accounted for most of the reported rise in the number of potential claimants.
  The claim that the poor have been getting poorer in absolute terms does not hold much water either. The report of the Labour-chaired Select Committee shows that the income support safety net is about 15 per cent. higher than the supplementary benefit level that we inherited in 1979. We know that benefits for an unemployed couple with two young children are 24 per cent. higher in real
  816
  terms now than they were in 1979, and that pensioners as a group have higher incomes now than in 1979; in fact their incomes have increased by 50 per cent.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman might care to listen to what I am about to say; he may find it especially persuasive, because I shall quote the hon. Member for Garscadden, who recently said:
  "There is … evidence, which I welcome, that retired people are on average now enjoying many more resources and a higher quality of life. That is largely because of the maturing of state earnings-related pension schemes and occupational schemes and … approved personal pensions."—[Official Report, 8 July 1994; Vol. 246, c. 606.]
  On top of that, the Government have focused an extra £1.2 billion a year to boost the incomes of poorer pensioners.
  From April, all pensioner couples without other means will be entitled to more than £100 per week.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt wishes to welcome that fact.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way with his usual courtesy. Will he confirm that the test case involving his Department's non-payment of invalidity benefit to women aged between 60 and 65 is to be heard by the European Court of Justice on 16 April? If it goes against the Government, as I sincerely hope it will, will the women who have been denied payments for more than three years receive arrears of payment beyond April 1992?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman always asks intelligent detailed questions, usually about matters relating to the European Court. Despite my obsession with such matters I am not always as familiar with the cases as he is, but I shall certainly investigate the question and write to him after the debate.
  As well as the extra resources that we have focused on benefits for least well-off pensioners, we have focused an extra £1 billion on poorer families. It is hard to pretend that the most significant groups that we normally think of as the poor have got worse off, when their benefits have been increased.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I must make some progress.
  The Opposition largely base their claim on figures for the bottom tenth of incomes after housing costs, as set out in the document, "Households Below Average Income", which we published at the behest of the Select Committee.
  It is harder still to say that such people's living standards have declined since 1979 when the proportion of people in the bottom tenth having, for example, a fridge-freezer has risen from 32 per cent. in 1979 to 81 per cent. in 1991–92. Furthermore, the proportion with a telephone has risen from 47 per cent. in 1979 to 73 per cent. in 1991–92; the proportion with a washing machine has risen from 69 per cent. in 1979 to 86 per cent. in 1991–92; the proportion with a video has risen from a negligible figure in 1979 to 65 per cent. in 1991–92; and the proportion with a car has risen from 40 per cent. in 1979 to 53 per cent. in 1991–92.

  817
  Indeed, to most people the idea that more than half the people alleged to be sinking into ever-deepening poverty have none the less managed to acquire a car at least gives pause for thought—
  Ms Harriet Harman rose—
  Mr. Lilley:—perhaps even to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman).
  Ms Harman: Does the Secretary of State still believe what he said in his speech in Northern Ireland:
  "over the past couple of decades, although average earnings have grown strongly, the differentials have widened, and it is this widening of earnings differentials which lies behind many of our social problems—the break up of families, lone parenthood, welfare dependency, delinquency and crime"?
  Opposition Members are having difficulty in reconciling what the right hon. Gentleman said in that speech with what he is saying to the House in front of his Back Benchers today.
  Mr. Lilley: Not at all. I was going to quote almost those very words when I encountered the distinct problem of the widening dispersion of earning power across the western world, which is a matter to which I tried to draw the House's attention. [Interruption.] We are a part of the western world, although the hon. Member for Peckham may not realise it. She has spent probably half her career trying to make us a part of the other world.
  The fact is that the figures drawn from "Households Below Average Income" do not measure what has happened to a given group of low-income people over time. In fact, they reflect a category that is constantly changing in composition. Unemployed people accounted for only 15 per cent. of the bottom tenth of incomes in 1979, but the figure had increased to almost a third in 1991–92 at the trough of the recession. Since then, unemployment has fallen by more than 500,000 and will come down further.
  Self-employment, on the other hand, increased massively during the 1980s. That is a welcome sign of enterprise and regeneration, but self-employed people have fluctuating incomes, particularly in the early stages of business formation. What is more, they can control the reporting of their incomes. They are over-represented in the bottom tenth. Indeed, if the sample is representative of the country, in 1991–92—as the hon. Member for Garscadden has reminded us—the bottom 10 per cent. of incomes included 90,000 farmers, 145,000 builders, about 40,000 taxi drivers and 10,000 accountants.
  Some of those people may be struggling to keep afloat. That is why self-employed people are entitled to claim family credit and some 85,000 of them are so helped. The heavy presence of self-employed people in the bottom decile is a poor guide to the living standards of this group. That doubt is reinforced by the fact that 750,000 people report zero or negative incomes. The Rowntree report recognised that point, although it was tucked away in an appendix to the second volume.
  The report stated:
  "households reporting zero or negative incomes in 1990–91 also reported expenditure above the average for all households … the suspicion is that some may habitually misreport income to the authorities, disguising comfortable life styles. If so the HBAI picture will suggest too much inequality."
  818
  The Opposition may not accept my assertion that the figures do not justify the conclusions that they base on them. They may not even accept Mr. Hills' qualification, but they will surely accept the views of a member of the Commission on Social Justice, Steve Webb, who works for the Institute of Fiscal Studies. He gave a seminar on this very issue, and specifically addressed my analyses of the figures. His conclusion was quite unequivocal, and it was summed up in the title of his lecture:
  "Why Peter Lilley was right about the poverty figures."
  The Opposition will have a little difficulty disagreeing with a member of their own commission on that point.
  When one looks more closely at the figures, one finds that there is considerable change and movement. Again, I am grateful to the Rowntree report for pointing out that some 29 per cent. of people in the bottom tenth of incomes in 1990 had moved two or more deciles two years later. If one looks at people's incomes over their lifetime rather than just at a point in time, one finds that the level of inequality between people falls dramatically by more than a half.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The Secretary of State has referred several times to unemployment causing poverty, but he has not placed much emphasis on the low-activity rates in many areas. Is he aware that the Rowntree report drew heavily on a study, "The Geography of Poverty and Wealth", by Anne Green, which was published last summer? That study showed that 10 of the 12 worst areas in Britain in terms of the activity figures were in the industrial valleys of Glamorgan and Gwent. That was causing an enormously low level of income—so much so that in Mid Glamorgan gross domestic product per head of population is lower than the Irish Republic average.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is right. There are difficult areas, and that is one of the issues that we are trying to tackle on a cross-departmental basis. Permanent secretaries, with my endorsement and support, are ensuring that our policies are co-ordinated and that they reinforce each other, whether on the single regeneration budget, the expenditure of my Department, or that of the Department for Education. We have to do all in our power to help people in those areas and I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  I must dispose of some other misconceptions before we consider the causes and cures for the more fundamental problem that I dealt with in my Ulster lecture. The report highlights the fall in the wages of the lowest-paid group and states:
  "After 1978 hourly wages of the lowest paid men hardly changed in real terms and by 1992 they were lower than in 1975."
  That bold statement gives the impression that the least well-paid have not benefited under a Conservative Government.
  I pondered the strange references and the switch from 1978 to 1975 and studied the chart in the report showing the path of wages in that period. It reveals that the only significant and substantial fall in wages—a sharp one—occurred between 1975 and 1978, under a Labour Government, and that wages have since recovered somewhat.
  Inequalities of income are not more marked in Britain than overseas. Again, the summary of the Rowntree report states:

  819
  "the pace at which inequality increased in the UK was faster than in any other,"—
  Country—
  "with the exception of New Zealand."
  As is clear, that claim is based on comparisons of countries using different years.
  A more relevant indicator might be the level of inequality and not the amount or the speed with which it changed. Volume 2 of the report makes it clear that the United Kingdom is in the middle of a league table of other developed countries for income inequality. The increase in measured inequality that occurred in this country only partly reflects the unwinding of the effects of the incomes policy since the mid–1970s.
  A fourth claim must be rebutted—the presumption of much of the discussion that the widening of incomes recorded in the Rowntree report was due to the fact that tax changes allegedly made the tax system less progressive. The report is unequivocal about that and states:
  "The tax system had much the same impact in reducing inequality in 1993 as in 1977."
  Having dealt with some of the fallacies that have been worked up on the basis of this report, let us consider what is happening. A phenomenon of enormous significance underlies some of the Rowntree committee's concerns. As I said in my Ulster speech, the growing dispersion of earning power is probably the most significant social change affecting the United Kingdom and most other western countries. The earning power of brawn has not kept pace with that of brain.
  Some countries, especially the United States, New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom, have responded to that phenomenon, which affects all advanced countries, by allowing earnings to reflect the changing productivity of different skill groups. As a result, each of those countries has generally experienced a greater dispersion of earnings, but more job creation and a smaller rise in unemployment.
  By contrast, other countries—notably on the continent—have endeavoured to prevent wages from reflecting the changing earnings potential of less skilled people as we increasingly compete with the far east and experience the impact of new technology. In those countries, growth in inequality is slower, at the expense of higher unemployment and fewer jobs. For example, the proportion of those of working age in work in the United Kingdom has risen since 1979 and is more than 10 percentage points higher than in the rest of the European Community. Whereas, on average, in other EC countries about 61 per cent. of people of working age are in work, we have nearly 72 per cent. in work, and the percentage has been falling throughout the rest of the EC during that time.
  Our strategy is to improve incentives to work, raise training and education standards, increase the number of people who benefit and boost job creation and enterprise.
  On the incentives front, we introduced the child care disregard for family credit—indeed, this Government introduced family credit—and promised the back-to-work bonus as part of the jobseeker's allowance, to encourage people to take part-time work as a stepping stone to full-time work and to give them a potential £1,000 credit when they return to full-time work. We strengthened in-work benefits, not merely by introducing family credit
  820
  but by proposing a £10 supplement for those who work more than 30 hours a week. We are also carrying out a major pilot study to find out whether it would be effective to extend in-work benefits, equivalent to family credit, to those who have no family.
  In total, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I announced a £700 million programme of work and job incentives at the time of the Budget and the social security statement.
  It is no secret that, for decades and probably for a century, Britain has suffered from two great weaknesses in education and training—a lack of vocational education and the low expectations of the least able, who represent the bottom third of ability in our schools. We introduced comprehensive reforms to try to cure and overcome those long-standing defects. We introduced the national curriculum and the Labour party opposed it. We introduced testing in schools and the Labour party opposed it. We introduced the appraisal of teachers and the Labour party opposed it. We introduced publication of results and the Labour party opposed it. It is no good Labour Members deciding when their children are of an age to go to secondary schools that they support those things that improve the quality of education, but which they opposed when we tried to introduce them.
  The Labour party even opposed youth training, although the noble Baroness Shirley Williams considered such a programme and rejected it. We have encouraged sensible pay for apprentices and a new, improved apprentice scheme so that people are not priced out of training. We have encouraged businesses to accept that the onus is on them to improve the training of their staff and the private sector spends about £20 billion on training.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he is giving us a remarkably complacent view of what has been happening. Will he say a few words about the training budget this year as compared to next, and perhaps during the past two or three years, and about the number of training places? I accept that the quality of training is important, but how many training for work places are there this year and how many will there be next year?
  Mr. Lilley: Next year, we expect there to be twice as many training places as under the last Labour Government. Perhaps that is not the standard that we should allow ourselves to be judged by—the Opposition want to be judged by a higher standard than that.
  Mr. Dewar: I understand that there will be 55,000 fewer training for work places next year compared to this year. That should be weighed in the balance against some of the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
  Mr. Lilley: It does not in any way repudiate the argument that I have just made, or the disproportionate importance of private sector training in firms. To hear the Opposition, one would suppose that the only training that was important and valid was in the state sector, whereas about 10 times as much training takes place in the private sector.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, daily, thousands of people come into the country who do not have our language, who often lack skills, and who do not have capital, but who manage to find

  821
  work and learn to support and help their families? If they can do that, does not it show that what one needs more than anything else is the will to work and the will to get on?
  Mr. Lilley: That is crucial and, as I said, about 29 per cent. of people leave the bottom tenth of incomes and rise, not only to the next decile, but to the one above or higher still within a couple of years. People increasingly have that get-up-and-go in our society, and we encourage that by making—
  Mr. Graham: That is sick, Minister: tell that to the people of Renfrewshire.
  Mr. Lilley: I am sure that they have get-up-and-go in the constituency of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) as well.
  Our strategy has been pretty comprehensively endorsed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Indeed, many of the measures that we have introduced have been endorsed by the Rowntree report.
  The Rowntree report makes a raft of uncosted and often contradictory proposals. For example, it proposes that benefits henceforward should increase, presumably in line with earnings rather than prices. If we had done that last year only, instead of implementing the uprating of benefits costing £1.5 billion, it would have cost £3.3 billion. If we had reviewed all benefits and uprated them all in line with earnings, it would have cost about £35 billion. The impact that that would have had on the level of dependency would have been worse than the cost.
  We believe that emphasis must be placed on getting people back into work. That is why we place emphasis on incentives and in-work benefits instead of complacently assuming that we simply have to make life ever more comfortable. I do not pretend that the present level of benefits is anything more than meagre in the long run.
  Mr. Clive Soley: I should like to give the Secretary of State some time to think about the matter, but why does not he at least cost one of the most obvious things that might be done, which is to change the earnings disregard rule so that people would be able to earn something as they went back to work, or to increase their own income? Everyone knows that it needs to be done. Has the Secretary of State costed it? If not, will he do so, and will he tell the House what it would cost?
  Mr. Lilley: We have considered it. We propose to change it by the introduction of the back-to-work bonus, so that people will accumulate a credit when they work part time on benefit, rather than being able to stay permanently on benefit with a mixture of part-time work and benefit, which would be hugely expensive.
  The Rowntree report proposes to double the disregard from £5 to £10. We propose to make it £10 for a couple instead of only £5 for a couple at present, but to retain the £5 for single people.
  The Rowntree disregard proposals would cost £20 million in themselves and probably more than £20 million additionally for the proposal to accumulate benefits.
  Mr. Soley rose—
  Mr. Lilley: No; I have given way to the hon. Gentleman. It might have been more sensible for him to have found out whether the Labour party supported that proposal and was committed to it before he asked me.
  Does the hon. Member for Garscadden propose to endorse that policy? Does he propose to reduce, as the Rowntree report proposes, the housing benefit taper, which would cost about £360 million to reduce by 10 per cent., or the family credit taper, which would cost nearly £200 million to reduce by 10 per cent? Does he propose to uprate all benefits, which would cost more than £1 billion extra in the first year and cumulatively increase to enormous sums? Does he propose to extend school meals to people on family credit, which would cost another £115 million?
  The hon. Member for Garscadden is sitting there, almost uninterested in the concrete policies of the report that he spent half an hour endorsing.
  Today's debate displays yet again the willingness of the Opposition to exploit the problems of less well-off people, while proposing no specific policies to help them. The Government have recognised the challenge posed by the dispersion of earnings power.
  I have said that the purpose of my social security review is to focus benefits precisely on those who need them most. I have also described the importance that I attach to work incentives, and announced a package worth nearly £700 million last autumn. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Garscadden opposes everything that we do, yet lacks the guts to commit himself or the Labour party to reversing it. He welcomes uncosted and costly proposals made by his friends on the Commission on Social Justice and on the Rowntree inquiry, but he will not say whether he accepts or rejects those proposals.
  It is time for Labour to allow some light to escape from its own black hole. It is time for Labour to abandon the cynical politics of stooge and stealth, and recognise that our policies are those of compassion and commitment. [Interruption.] It is easy for the Opposition to call for policies to level down and policies that would trap people in dependency: that has been the cry of the left throughout the ages.
  I invite the hon. Member for Garscadden to consider the saying of the famous republican orator in the Spanish civil war—it is now essential in the Cabinet to know a lot about Spain—who said, when there were demands to do away with the inequalities of Spanish society:
  "If you want me to reduce the incomes of the rich to the level of the poor, I will do it in a fortnight. If you want me to raise the incomes of the poor to those of the rich, I will do it, but it will take us a lifetime."
  We have a long-term strategy to increase incomes by opportunity, by help and by incentives for the least able people. The Opposition offer nothing.
  4.56 pm
  Mr. John Hutton: The Secretary of State concluded his remarks to us this afternoon by saying that the Government had shown compassion and commitment to poorer members of our community. I have yet to notice any sign or evidence that those are the Government's policies. He also told us that Labour's

  823
  motion was motivated by the politics of envy. I think that he completely and deliberately distorted the motion that we tabled.
  In essence, we shall not be able to build a society at ease with itself against the background of increasing numbers of economically disfranchised people, the grinding and relentless poverty that comes to the attention of all Opposition Members in their constituencies, the absence of employment prospects in many parts of the country, and a future, under the present Government, that will mean more of the same. The Rowntree report effectively highlighted that characteristic of a drawbridge society. It is simply not a sustainable model on which we can build a prosperous future for our country and our citizens.
  As Britain heads towards the next millennium, social and economic inequalities are reverting to a more 19th century pattern. In too many situations, life choices are distributed not on merit but on where one happens to live, on who one's parents are and on ability to pay. Discrimination on the grounds of sex, race and gender remains widespread in our communities, and inequalities in health, to which the Secretary of State barely referred, are still with us.
  That depressing pattern of inequality is socially divisive and should therefore be unacceptable to any Government, of whatever political persuasion—especially as the Prime Minister, as recently as last week, confirmed that the Government accepted that tackling inequality was a duty of Ministers.
  Inequality on the present scale is not only socially divisive but economically disabling, and therefore damages our future prosperity as a society. If millions of our fellow citizens are without jobs—as they are—and millions of them are without the prospect of work, they cannot he consumers, so playing a full part in promoting economic growth. As a result, social security spending becomes inflated as taxpayers struggle to foot the bill for mass unemployment. In turn, that imposes a greater financial burden on those lucky enough to be employed.
  For the past 16 years, the Government's consistent response to that question has been the same: deregulation, a reduction in social protection and the laughably described "trickle-down economics". We now know that that grim experiment has been a resounding failure. Last week's Rowntree report, the central figures of which the Minister did not dispute, makes the scale of that failure extremely clear. Far from helping matters, Government policy has made matters substantially worse. Did not J.K. Galbraith describe modern Conservatism as an attempt to find a moral justification for greed?
  The Rowntree report confirms the accuracy of that description and shows that incomes became rapidly less equal in the 1980s. In 1984–85, the latest date for which figures are available, income inequality was as great as it was in 1949. Since 1979, the lowest-income groups have not benefited from economic growth, while better-off groups have enjoyed improved standards of living. Therefore, up to 30 per cent. of the population have not shared in the improvement in economic growth since 1979. Since 1977, the proportion of the population with less than half average income has more than trebled. As we all know, during the 1980s more people became dependent on means-tested benefits.
  824
  That is a dismal catalogue of incompetence and indifference, of which we saw plenty of examples in the Secretary of State's speech today. A number of factors have contributed to that catalogue of incompetence. First, the Government have been prepared to tolerate levels of unemployment that would have been unthinkable even 20 years ago. Unemployment averaged about 300,000 throughout the 1950s, less than 500,000 throughout the 1960s and about 1 million throughout the 1970s. Throughout the 1980s—the period of Conservative Government—it averaged 2.7 million, and long-term unemployment remains a problem. A third of unemployed men and a quarter of unemployed women have been out of work for more than 12 months. The comparative figures in the United States are 8 per cent. and 5 per cent. respectively. We have a huge burden to shoulder because of the incompetent way in which the Government have managed our economy since 1979, and the consequences of their failure are becoming daily more visible.
  Unskilled workers have borne the brunt of the Government's callous tolerance of mass unemployment. Less than 20 years ago, nine out of 10 men who had left school without qualifications were in employment. Today, the figure is seven out of 10 and is still falling.
  Secondly, the Government's education reforms have failed to improve education standards for the majority of our children. For example, we have the lowest under-fives provision in the European Union alongside Portugal, and far lower numbers—although they have increased in recent years—attending university than Japan, Germany and France.
  Thirdly, the Government have refused to listen to anyone who has drawn attention to what has been happening in our society. The Secretary of State's speech this afternoon was another example of that. Instead, the Government have chosen systematically to ignore the growing evidence that things are going badly wrong for a growing number of our fellow citizens.
  A fourth factor which explains the mess that we are now in is the combined effect of the Government's tax and benefits problems. Over the past decade, the poorest 10 per cent. of households have lost 156 a year in higher VAT, national insurance and other taxes. By contrast, the wealthiest 10 per cent. have gained £1,612 a year as a result of income tax cuts alone. The biggest gains of all have gone to the top 1 per cent. of the population—those with average incomes of more than 120,000 a year—for whom the cumulative gain from tax cuts since 1979 has been a staggering £75 billion. That is almost the equivalent of the entire annual budget of the Department of Social Security. When all tax policies over the past 15 years are taken together, the poorest 10 per cent. of the population now pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes than the richest 10 per cent.–43 per cent. and 32 per cent. respectively.
  In Cumbria, the position has substantially deteriorated over the past 10 years. The most disadvantaged wards in the county of Cumbria had a lower measure of economic prosperity in 1991 compared with 1981. Over the same period, the extent of economic disadvantage in those wards increased. Most of the deprivation in Cumbria can be found in Carlisle, along the county's west coast, and in the Furness area. However, much of the economic disadvantage in Cumbria is concentrated in my constituency, which includes four of the five most deprived wards in Cumbria.

  825
  Present Government policies are simply inadequate to deal with the scale and extent of that disadvantage. If the Secretary of State wants examples, he should attend some of my advice surgeries on Fridays and Saturdays, when he could see the real position at first hand. It is not as he described to the House this afternoon, when he said that growing prosperity was shared among all income groups and across every community in the country. In my constituency, the position is close to a crisis.
  Unemployment lies at the background of many of those problems. It is extremely high in many parts of my constituency, where more than 10,000 jobs have been lost since 1990. There is growing evidence of low pay in Barrow and throughout the north. The problem of unemployment particularly affects women in Cumbria, whose average earnings are 11 per cent. lower than nationally. More than a third of Cumbrian women are on low wages, compared with a national average of only a quarter.
  Health indicators in my constituency and the north paint an extremely grim picture. In 1992, the northern region had the highest mortality rate in England and Wales, as measured by the standard mortality ratio. The death rate in the northern region was 13 per cent. higher than the average in England and Wales. In Barrow-in-Furness, that rate is 15 per cent. higher than the national average. Those are not bogus or fabricated statistics; they are Government statistics.
  Those are the consequences of Tory economic mismanagement combined with incompetent social and taxation policies, which have demonstrated consistent disdain for those of our community who are forced to live on benefit. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has now left the Chamber. She expressed the view, which is commonly shared among Conservative Members—perhaps not by all those present, but we have certainly heard it before—that the solution to unemployment is to get tough with the unemployed because they are to blame. The theory is that, if the Government prod unemployed people harder and harder, they will find jobs. The truth is that the jobs are not there. They do not exist in my constituency—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) would like to come to my constituency, he would discover that 4,500 unemployed people are chasing 230 job vacancies registered at the jobcentre. There is simply no credible or logical strategy in forcing our unemployed constituents into a fruitless search for jobs that simply do not exist. Moreover, they constantly face the prospect of losing benefit because they are deemed not to have complied with rules set by the Government.
  Unemployment is central to the topic of today's debate. It underlines a clear pattern in the growing inequality of deprivation across the country; in pockets, it is now completely unacceptable, both morally and economically. The solution lies with a policy designed to secure full employment, which recognises that full employment is a responsibility of Government. The damage to health caused by mass unemployment is clear. Unemployed people are much more likely to suffer a chronic illness or disability. For example, a middle-aged man who is made redundant or takes early retirement is twice as likely to die within five years as a man who stays in work. Unemployment can also have a devastating effect on
  826
  psychological health. That has been confirmed by recent research in Edinburgh and Oxford. Unemployed men are between 10 and 15 times more likely to attempt suicide than employed men. That is the reality; it is not as the Secretary of State described to us tonight.
  It is also clear from the Rowntree report that urgent action is needed across a range of Government Departments if we are to tackle the distorting effects of growing inequalities in Britain. We need a national debate about how we can bring about a sense of national renewal with full employment, a fair tax system and a modern welfare state as essential preconditions for any return to decency and sanity in our society. Bringing about such a transformation will be Labour's big ideal when we resume responsibility for the government of Britain into the next century.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: One of the reasons why these occasions are invaluable is that they give me an- opportunity to debate with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I have enjoyed debating with him before, but this is not one of his better efforts. Although no one can doubt the sincerity of what he said, it seemed to me that he was fixing on a prescription and a definition of poverty that simply do not exist. One cannot begin to get to grips with a problem unless one knows what one is talking about in the first place.
  There is no doubting the sincerity of the hon. Member for Garscadden or the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), but they were defining poverty in terms of the gap that exists between the rich and the poor.
  It is easy to fall into sloppy language and sloppy thinking, but sincerity does not justify that sloppy thinking. It is completely ridiculous to define poverty in terms of the gap between the rich and the poor. It is tantamount to saying that people are better off in countries where the living standards of the poor are lower, but the gap is narrow, than they are in countries where the gap is wider, but the living standards of the poor are improving. That is the reality of the language about gaps. Frankly, it is complete nonsense.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden talked about seeing people in his surgery and wondering how they survived under strains and pressures that he had never understood. I quite understand the sincerity of his feelings and his compassion for those people, but perhaps he should talk a bit more to them. Perhaps after a period of Labour Government he should tell them, "Guess what? You are much better off now because the gap is narrower." What help is such language to impoverished or unemployed people? They cannot pay their bills with a gap or take it along to a building society and say, "The gap has narrowed, therefore I must be better off." They cannot pay the milk bill with a gap.
  The gap itself means nothing whatsoever. What is relevant is the money that the poor actually have. Opposition Members should also remember that the lowest standards of poverty in Britain would be regarded as well beyond most people's dreams in other parts of the world.
  Poverty is an absolute measurement. One cannot talk about it in terms of gaps. A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness equated the language of

  827
  the gap with saying that the rich have had tax handouts. Let us get it clear. The rich have not had handouts from the Government; the Government have simply taken less money from them than the previous Government did. It is about time that the Conservatives had the courage and confidence to say that, whether a taxpayer earns £10,000, £100,000 or £1 million, every single penny–100p in the pound—belongs to him. The Government give nothing; they simply take away. The idea that the poor have been prejudiced because the Government have given money back to the taxpayer—although one does not doubt the sincerity of the language—is sloppy thinking and sloppy thinking does not help the most vulnerable.
  I accept that—it will be common ground on both sides of the House—we have to consider those who have to pay tax. On the one hand, if we tax people 100p in the pound, they will do no work; on the other, if we tax them zero pence in the pound, we will raise no tax. Obviously, somewhere between those two extremes there is a level of taxation that will provide the money that the Government need to discharge the functions that are necessary to help those who cannot look after themselves and will enable them to provide enough incentive for those people capable of earning greatly to make them continue earning and paying tax.
  When I first started work as a solicitor's clerk in the 1960s, I remember trying to retain a particular barrister who was very popular. I telephoned his clerk in chambers and he said, "Is that a case for a Thursday? Counsel does not work on a Thursday." I said, "Surely the courts sit on Thursday." The barrister's clerk said, "Obviously, you do not understand. Counsel works on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, but have you not heard that the tax rate is 89p in the pound? He does not work for the rest of the week. It is not worth his while." That was the position under the Labour Government. Where is that ideal tax line? It is known in economic terms as the Laffer curve.
  The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) understands the debate and I wish he were here today. In 1986, he asked a parliamentary question about taxation. In addition to having prodigious knowledge and talents, the hon. Gentleman has a keen sense of humour and one never quite knows whether the answer to his question was a surprise or something that he had expected. He asked the Treasury to provide a calculation of the proportion of the total income tax that was paid by the rich under the Conservatives and the proportion of the tax take that they had paid under the Labour Government.
  Those who talk about giving money to the rich and the gap between rich and poor would assume that if the tax rates came down, the amount of money that the rich contributed to the welfare of others would also go down—not a bit of it. The answers to the questions from the hon. Member for Birkenhead revealed that, as tax rates had come down, the amount of money that the rich contributed had gone up.
  That is an inconvenient piece of thinking for the class war worriers who talk about gaps and think that people can pay their bills with gaps. It produced an answer that they find difficult to accept. When the Government leave the rich with more of their own money, there is more money to spend on those who need it. Indeed, we have seen a hint that behind the Follettised exterior lurks a Stalinist soul and the idea that at the end of the day there is not an ever-growing cake; there is a fixed cake out there
  828
  and the question is how to slice it up. The marvellous thing is that behind the designer suits are the same old prejudices.
  Where does one go from there? We had the fact that the rich are contributing more. I am surprised that Sir fain Valiance has not been mentioned here today.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: We have mentioned him.
  Mr. Nicholls: I am pleased about that and I am quite happy to mention him again. I understand that he earns £1 million a year. That has two advantages. First, it enables me to do income tax calculations on my feet and, secondly, it enables me to talk about the contribution that Sir Iain Valiance has made to the poor of the country. Even under the present Government, he will have paid approximately £400,000 into the national coffers to be used in ways of which Opposition Members would approve.
  In the bad old days, what happened to people who earned that sort of money? Either they simply stopped work on Wednesday, like my barrister colleague, or they fiddled or went into various schemes which existed to exercise an accountant's ingenuity but really were to save tax. Ultimately, they went abroad. These days, they are here paying their tax. Coupled with that, the idea that we are giving handouts to the rich and the question of the gap become relevant.
  The final nonsense which I expect the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) will stand up and justify in a moment is that poverty can be defined by the level of benefits. It really is profound cheek for Opposition Members to urge at every turn an increase in benefits and then, the moment there is an increase in benefits, to turn around and say that there must be more people in poverty.
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and telling us again the pet theory of the Laffer curve which no economist takes seriously any longer. Is it better to have Sir Iain Valiance earning £1 million and paying £400,000 in tax than some of the 50,000 people he sacked earning £10,000 or £20,000 and all paying tax? In other words, perhaps we should consider the labour market policies of Japan, Switzerland, Germany or northern Europe, rewriting the whole tax base, rather than hoping that a handful of the rich will throw some crumbs to the poor via the Treasury.
  Mr. Nicholls: The kindest thing that one could say about that intervention is that it was completely daft. The idea that there is some correlation between a multi-billion-pound business which has to decide whether it needs a particular staffing level and saying that if Sir Iain Valiance received a smaller salary more people could be employed is ridiculous.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham confirms either that that is ridiculous or that he is daft—I am not sure which, but it matters not. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that everyone could do Sir Iain Valiance's job and therefore everyone should be on the same sort of salary. It is a profoundly silly argument. The idea that efficiency will be increased by imposing penal rates of taxation on those who are truly talented and by overburdening businesses through overmanning is the product of a bygone age. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should advance that argument today.

  829
  Having disposed of the language of gaps and handouts—the idea that the rich are in some way the problem whereas, in terms of the money that is needed, they are part of the solution—it is worth while examining what the real problem can be. The cause of poverty, and the breakdown of family life which goes with it, is not that the level of benefit is not sufficient but that the level of benefit is too great.
  The American sociologist, Charles Murray, has done some work in this area—both to the right and to the left academically. The breakdown of society in parts of this country is similar to that which occurred in America. The state is no longer the father of last resort; it has become the father of first resort. What does it do to the confidence and moral well-being of a family unit when, at a stroke, the state is prepared to maintain the wife and the children of a union at a greater level than the breadwinner could expect to maintain them himself? That undermines the social fabric and increases poverty dramatically.
  The figures speak for themselves. We do not have time tonight to examine Charles Murray's work and statistics. However, a report which appeared in today's Daily Mail illustrates my point. The article is entitled "Who needs work?" and refers to a family of five who are living on benefit and netting about £18,500 per year. In a phrase which I think sums up the situation very well, a family member says:
  "Wages are disgusting at the moment".
  I think that quite a few people would retort, "She would say that, wouldn't she?" That family receives take-home pay of £18,500 a year gratis by virtue of the taxpayer.
  What would people have to do to earn wages of that sort? Firefighters do not earn that much money, nor do ambulancemen, midwives, metal workers, prison officers, senior computer operators, classroom teachers, Army sergeants, junior doctors, first-year registrars or ward sisters. Speaking personally, perhaps the good news is that it is £3,000 a year short of what a Member of Parliament earns—but perhaps that will alter in due course.
  Why should people work in accordance with their own skills and abilities when someone can sit at home and net that sort of money at taxpayers' expense? That is not about the alleviation of poverty; it is about the creation of poverty, because it impoverishes people's ambitions and desires and their ability to work.
  In addition to that sum, the Department of Social Security made the sort of mistake that it is easy to make—it popped a cheque of £6,000 extra into the post. To be fair, the mistake was discovered 10 days later, but by then it was too late. What had happened to the money? About £1,000 had been spent to buy mountain bikes for the children for Christmas, £600 had been spent on a fitted kitchen and hundreds more pounds had been spent on new furniture. None of the money was spent to clear the £1,000 in rent arrears which had resulted in the family's eviction from a previous council house. The article goes on to say that the couple concerned
  "are trying to persuade Wolverhampton Borough Council to allocate them a three or four-bedroom house".
  That encapsulates what the problem of poverty is really all about: the state has gone so far down a particular road that, instead of encouraging people to stand on their own feet, it mocks their efforts by completely undermining
  830
  their ability to do so. In the end, it is not enough to say that that is the way in which the scales are balanced, the scales have been applied by Parliament and the adjudication officer can always challenge the outcome. We have to look beyond that argument.
  We have to ask whether the benefit rules should be changed drastically. We have to ask whether, having served due notice, we should tell people that the maximum benefit that they can obtain for themselves and their families is the regional average for a person without skills and experience. If we do not do that, we will undermine the position of those who think before they have children about whether they can measure up to their responsibilities. We will undermine the position of those people who come to my surgery and tell me that they cannot get a council house because they do not have enough children, but that they do not want to have more children until they can bring them up in a safe, secure environment. If we do not address that problem, we will create poverty.
  We can examine the amount of money which the Government have devoted to addressing poverty at the taxpayers' expense. For all Labour Members' sincerity, it is easy to expose the nonsense of the idea of relative levels of poverty, benefits equalling poverty, and so on. If we do not address those vices, the situation will become a powder keg. I hope that the debate tonight will stimulate the thought process and we will begin to address those issues.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: I pass on to the House the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who is unable to attend the debate as she is serving on the Committee which is examining the Disability Discrimination Bill. She asked me to mention that she would have been here if she had not been otherwise detained.
  The aim of any civilised and democratically governed country must be that its citizens should be free from the spectre of poverty. I have listened to most, if not all, of the speeches this evening and I think that all hon. Members agree on that point—that people can be enabled to develop their skills and their talents fully; that they can be engaged in worthwhile employment to the benefit of themselves, their families and our society.
  It must be a priority to develop and implement policies which enable citizens to live and to work in healthy surroundings, motivated to contribute to our society. A prime function of Governments must be to provide a ladder of opportunity to those who slide down into poverty and despair through unemployment.
  Let us not forget the scale of unemployment and the way it has grown in this country in the past four decades. The figures are quite staggering. In the 1950s, the unemployment rate was 386,000 per year. By the 1970s, it was some 976,000. Today it is about 2.5 million, counting only those claiming benefit.
  Mr. David Lidington: That is appalling.
  Mr. Chidgey: Indeed. Unemployment is linked inextricably to poverty. In 1979, some 5 million people were living on incomes which were less than half the national average wage. About 58 per cent. of that number

  831
  were unemployed. By 1991, 13.5 million people were living on less than half the average income, of whom some 78 per cent. were unemployed.
  We have heard it argued that that is the result of a general rise in incomes and that, on average, we are all better off. However, it is important that the House should not deny the outcome of the Rowntree report. The Minister said that he was cognisant of it and that he set great store by what it said. We may argue about the statistics, but let us not forget the report's underlying theme.
  Income inequality in this country has grown faster and gone further than in any other comparable industrial country. The poorest 20 to 30 per cent. of the population have not benefited from rising national prosperity. Since the 1980s, the incomes of those who are dependent on social security benefits have fallen further behind the incomes of those who are in work.
  Just as poverty is linked inexorably to unemployment, so is poor and degenerating health. Unemployed people are less healthy, both physically and mentally, than those who are in work. As the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton)—who has unfortunately left the Chamber—pointed out a few moments ago, unemployed middle-aged men are twice as likely to die within a decade as those who are employed.
  The long-term unemployed have weak social support systems and they tend to congregate with other unemployed people. They tend to have a poor social structure which leads to the breakdown in family life. It is interesting to note that divorcing couples are twice as likely to be unemployed as those who are in stable marriages. The mortality rate of children under four years of age is three times higher in the lowest income group than in the highest income group. Deaths from asthma and from similar ailments among children under 14 is twice as high in the lowest income group as in more affluent families.
  It is a stark reflection on the division between the poor and the mainstream in our society that Oxfam, a charity established to provide aid and support to impoverished peoples in the third world, is actively considering projects targeted at poverty in the UK. It is against the backdrop of unrelenting long-term unemployment, increasing poverty and widening division in our society that I believe that the Government's policies must be tested.
  What, for example, has been the record of the training for work programme? A major stumbling block has been that it has not targeted the long-term unemployed. Those out of work for more than 12 months occupy a minority of places on those schemes—some 42 per cent. last spring. That is broadly in line with the proportion of long-term unemployed within the overall jobless figures. There is little incentive within the schemes for training and enterprise councils to target the long-term unemployed.
  TEC schemes concentrating on the long-term unemployed find it more difficult to meet the Government's targets for "outcomes". Less than one third of those out of work for between one and two years entering a training for work scheme end up with a continuing job. For those who are out of work for more than two years, the record is even more disturbing. Less than one in five ends up with a permanent job. Overall, of those entering training for work schemes, more than
  832
  half end up unemployed and less than a quarter complete their training with a qualification or even a credit towards one.
  The Government have decided to cut training for work funding by some 20 per cent. That would be a positive move if the funds were redirected to schemes aimed at getting the long-term unemployed into work, and providing the training that they need to keep them there. But the recent Budget proposals provide little incentive and even less investment. They fail to get to the core of the problem. The much heralded extension of the community action programme has the net result of a reduction in places of some 10,000 compared with the current provision of 50,000 this year.
  The introduction of the jobseeker's allowance will deny benefits to some 90,000 people at a time. It will extend means testing and—as is widely argued outside the House—could create disincentives for people to move into work.
  The whole tenor of the Budget was to force the jobless from out-of-work benefits and thus into in-work benefits. The JSA and other schemes will have the power to force and coerce the jobless into poorly paid, insecure and dead-end jobs. There is little provision for high-quality training, which is essential to improve employability in the long term.
  The one glimmer of light from the raft of the proposed measures to date has been the workstart pilot schemes. The evaluation of the four pilot projects—released, I believe, a month or so ago—shows that nearly 80 per cent. of the participants are likely to be offered permanent jobs. I welcome that. That is an important result from a pilot scheme which shows us what we can do in the future.
  Sadly, the Government's response in the Budget was to launch yet another pilot scheme involving a mere 5,000 of the long-term unemployed. With nearly 1 million people on the long-term unemployment list, each costing our economy some £9,000 per year in terms of benefits and lost taxes, here was the chance to grasp the nettle, to take some active measures to try to resolve the problem. I wanted to see a national benefit transfer programme introduced: instead of the benefits being paid to the long-term unemployed, they would be transferred to the employers, as a training subsidy, to improve skills and to secure worthwhile, permanent jobs.
  I am sorry that the Secretary of State had to leave, but I wrote to him on this very subject in October last year. I urged him to build on the success of the pilot workstart schemes. His Department replied in November, saying that it was too costly. I wrote again and asked him what the costs were—bearing in mind the fact that it costs us £9,000 per year for every person who has been unemployed for more than a year. I am advised that my queries have now been passed to the Employment Service. I await its reply with some interest, because we should get to the bottom of the figures and show why it is costing so much when we could be saving so much more.
  The Government's proposals to tackle long-term unemployment lack imagination, application and conviction. For example, instead of providing a national insurance contribution rebate for 12 months to employers who take on long-term persons, the Government could have taken on board our policies, which would eliminate the lower rates of employee national insurance contributions, taking 50,000 low-paid workers out of tax altogether.

  833
  To help small businesses—the job creators of the future—the Government could have taken on our proposals to raise the VAT threshold to £60,000, which would take 125,000 small businesses out of the VAT net. But most importantly, to tackle long-term unemployment and the poverty that it causes, there must be a programme of long-term investment: in a citizens service—as we propose—which would provide opportunities for some 250,000 unemployed people to gain skills for the first time, or to share their skills with young people who are inadequately trained or who are becoming long-term unemployed; in public transport and in our public infrastructure to provide jobs now; and in education and high-quality training, to provide the skilled work force that we need if this country is to compete successfully in the global market-place.
  I can only endorse the conclusion of the Rowntree report. We can bandy the statistics around the House until tomorrow morning, if we so wish, but let us look at the conclusion of the report:
  "Market forces, left to themselves, cannot deliver the investment that will most benefit the economy and society as a whole."
  I urge the Minister to think again, to recognise that mass long-term unemployment is not acceptable in our society and to accept and implement the policies that are at hand to tackle it.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: There must be huge sympathy from the whole House for the long-term unemployed, to which both the motion and the amendment refer. The boredom of long-term unemployment, the feeling of waste, the lack of self-respect, and sometimes the loss of hope, are very severe in their effect on individuals and their families. I for one do not agree that it can simply be resolved by the will to work.
  The will to work can sometimes help, but it is not always enough. Many of the long-term unemployed are decent. honourable people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. The causes of their unemployment are several, but they certainly include the world trade recession, which in recent years has had a severe impact on employment in all the main industrialised countries, not only in Europe but throughout the world. Of course, a recession in world trade tends to hit hardest those countries which are dependent on trading if—due to relative over-population for the size of their countries—they have to import and export more in order to survive than more sparsely populated countries such as France or the United States, which are likely to be more self-sufficient. As Britain is one of those over-populated industrialised countries, the world trade recession was certain to bite very hard on us and severely damage employment, with the dreadful effect on individuals and families that I have just described.
  Secondly, there is the changing technology. I was interested in the reference earlier in the debate to redundancies at BT. I have to declare an interest in BT as it sponsors concerts in which I perform, although I am unpaid. It is, of course, a company which has been greatly involved in modernising its technology and in computerisation, electronics, and so forth. That increase
  834
  in technology will have reduced the number of jobs, but if it has resulted in keeping down the price of telephone calls and the price of BT's other services, it means that its customers have more money in their pockets to spend on other things. That purchasing power will generate employment in other ways. When considering these matters, one should always look at the knock-on effects.
  As the Secretary of State said, unemployment is now falling. It is falling quite fast: it has fallen by half a million in the last year or two. That is a very substantial number. It leaves a tragically large number still unemployed, but it is substantial—it is far from negligible. I have been very surprised that not one Opposition Member has shown any pleasure at the fact that unemployment is currently falling quite fast.
  The fact that unemployment is falling fast is due, admittedly, to the beginnings of an upturn in world trade, although Britain has come first of the countries in Europe and among the first in the world in that upturn. I believe that the fall in unemployment is at least partly due to the United Kingdom's having come out of the exchange rate mechanism in the summer of 1992, which I advocated and which I believe was the right thing to do. It had to be done—there was no choice, eventually—and I wish that it had been done sooner. That enabled interest rates to drop further than they had already begun to drop, and faster than they would otherwise have dropped.
  Increased purchasing power for individuals and companies who were not having to pay out so much in interest increased the profitability of businesses and their propensity to take risks and make positive investment decisions. I am quite sure that coming out of the ERM has been one of the causes of the improvement in our economy, and I am very surprised when sometimes some people seem to deny it. But it is only one of the causes.
  Another cause has been the highly successful management of our economy by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer since he took office. We now have a real growth rate of about 4 per cent. per year in our economy, and that is having a substantial impact on the number of people employed and the reduction of unemployment.
  I believe that it is very important indeed to keep that reduction in unemployment steady—falling at a fairly steady rate. It is very important not to try to hike it up artificially: if we do, we shall get once again a speeding up of inflation, which will threaten the very unemployment that it is intended to diminish. The inflation will increase the price of British goods sold overseas, which will limit our opportunities to sell overseas and damage the very employment to which both the motion and the amendment refer. It is vital for employment—I am surprised that Opposition Members have not mentioned this—not to allow inflation to let rip, but to keep a very steady and strong hand on the tiller and not be tempted.
  I believe that there are three main threats to the drop in unemployment and the improvement in employment. Two of those come from the Labour party. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) would kindly do me the courtesy of listening as I am about to refer to her party policy.
  It is very important that the Labour party is not allowed to encourage, by what it says on employment, any increase in inflation. Secondly, it is very important that the party is never allowed, and never given the

  835
  opportunity, to bring in the minimum wage that it has proposed, because that would diminish employment prospects, too. But at least we know where we are with the Labour party on that: it would bring in a minimum wage. We would not bring in a minimum wage. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), who has just spoken, was of course quite unable to say whether his party would bring in a minimum wage or not. He is sitting on the fence, and his party conference disagreed with the leadership.
  Mr. Chidgey: It is perfectly clear to anyone who reads our policy documents that we are in favour of a regional minimum wage. I did not mention it in my speech, however; the hon. Gentleman must have been listening to someone else.
  Mr. Jessel: How can we know, if the hon. Gentleman's party conference blatantly contradicts the policy of the leader of his party as to what he would do? But as his party does not stand the remotest chance of ever being in office—indeed, when the general election comes his party is highly likely to lose some seats below the fairly small number that it has—this is not a matter which is ever likely to be put to the test.
  The third threat to employment—a very serious one which has not been mentioned at all in the debate so far—is the enormous industrial growth of the Pacific rim. As in Britain 40 per cent. of our exports go to the European Union and the other 60 per cent. to other parts of the world, this is an extremely serious matter for us, because that 60 per cent. of our exports will be in competition with exports from the Pacific rim countries. So often we hear discussion, both in this House and in European assemblies, about trade within Europe, and there is not nearly enough discussion of Europe's exports to and trade with the rest of the world.
  Let me put the position as it affects employment into perspective. Going back 30 or 40 years, everyone was aware of the growing industry in Japan—first in cameras, then in audio equipment, then in cars—and of how all those were selling all over the world. Then we found it emanating from countries like Taiwan, Hong Kong, and North and South Korea. Now we are into a sort of third wave. Many countries in south-east Asia and the far east are developing industries. I went with a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to India two years ago. The threat to our export industries from the type of modern industry that one can see in Bangalore, and hence the threat to our employment, is very significant.
  In Bangalore there is a factory making a telephone exchange—the size of a rugger ball—which can sell to any village, and the telephoning can all be done now by radio, or at least without wires, through this mini-exchange which costs about £3,000. It is selling now to villages all over Asia, Africa and other parts of the world. There is a huge growth of industry in China and a huge growth in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and all over the far east. It is burgeoning, and it is a huge threat to employment in this country. I believe that the policies of the Government must be directed more to how we are to uphold our employment in future in the face of this tremendous threat to it from the far east and south-east Asia.
  One of the main causes of poverty, however, has nothing to do with unemployment. The hon. Member for Eastleigh said that unemployment was tied inexorably to
  836
  poverty—or it may have been the other way round—but it is certainly not true that the sole cause of poverty is unemployment or the state of the economy. I find in my constituency that a major cause of poverty is the existence of single-parent families in large numbers. I am not making any kind of moral judgment; I am just saying, as a matter of fact, that they come to my surgery and write to me. I know that they exist in large numbers, and indeed the remarkable document, "Social Trends"—which was published a week ago—refers to the increasing number. One third of births in this country are now out of wedlock, and "Social Trends" says that marriage is a declining institution in this country, as we all know already. Some of the single-parent families are due to deserting husbands or deserting lovers who have jilted their wives or their partners.
  Ms Corston: I note the hon. Gentleman's concern about the growth in single-parent families. Will he explain what policies he would support and propose to the Government for improving child care so that those women do not have to be dependent on the state; they sure as hell do not want to be dependent on welfare?
  Mr. Jessel: Of course we need more child care. The hon. Lady will have heard the Prime Minister speak of an increase that he intends, as Government policy, in nursery education and, presumably by the same token, in the provision of play groups. But that is to deal with the symptoms rather than the cause of the problem.
  The cause of the problem is the increase in the number of single-parent families. In some cases, the women concerned may wish to have children without being married. In other cases, it may happen because they have been seduced. Whether it is intentional or not, it is tending to increase and it is a major cause of poverty. Unless there is some change in that cause of poverty, it is likely to continue. I mention it because it is completely false to attribute all poverty to the state of the economy or to unemployment.
  I wish to turn from that to the subject of diet.
  Mr. Roger Godsiff: I represent a constituency with one of the highest percentages of single-parent families in the country. The hon. Gentleman has referred to, as he sees it, the problem of young ladies being seduced. Would he like to enlighten the House as to what his policy would be to try and stop them being seduced?
  Mr. Jessel: I think that I might be called to order by Deputy Speaker if I attempted to give a full answer to that very interesting question, but I will take the hon. Gentleman aside afterwards, if he wishes, and explain to him the facts of life, which I think go beyond the scope of this debate, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I was about to turn to the factor in poverty of diet. "Social Trends" gives a considerable description of changes in the pattern of diet. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will consider this as relevant because other hon. Members have referred to health and education in the context of poverty and the content of diet undoubtedly affects people's standard of living. It is most interesting to see that in the past 20 years there has been a substantial drop of about two thirds in the consumption of sugar, which was a staple for poor families, and a drop in the consumption of beef, veal and eggs—the beef and veal, of course, being relatively expensive items and the eggs a

  837
  sort of half-way item. The Information about healthy eating, whether in terms of cholesterol or in relation to an excessive intake of calories, has diverted people away from those diets. They are eating instead more fruit, more chicken and more cereals.
  If more people could be encouraged to have allotments and to grow their own vegetables, if they are in poverty, that would help to relieve their situation. In my constituency, about one third of the allotments are out of use. No one wants to be bothered to grow his own vegetables. People sit in front of the television for hours on end, complaining about their poverty and not growing vegetables when they could do so easily and cheaply. [Interruption.] The president of the National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners Ltd., Lord Wallace of Coslany, is a distinguished Labour Member of the other place. Opposition Members of this House would do well to stop laughing and encourage people who are feeling the pinch—as unfortunately some people are, whether due to unemployment or to other reasons—to go out and take an allotment. That would be a positive step, which could be a healthy activity and at the same time relieve poverty.
  Of course expectations change. Going back 50 years, people's idea of poverty was completely different. Today, everyone expects to have a television, for example. I believe—and the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that more than 40 per cent. of pensioners in this country now run cars, or more than 40 per cent. of pensioner households, including married couples who are pensioners, whereas 20 years ago the figure was only about 20 per cent. That is a remarkable social change and shows that an increasing number of pensioners are not in poverty.
  I like to think of elderly people driving around in cars, making visits and going to see their children and grandchildren, which they can do more easily thanks to the large number of main roads that we have built, as these days most people live in a different place from their grown-up children and their grandchildren. It is a fact about the pensioners' standard of life, which contradicts those who say that this country is living in poverty, that so many pensioners now own cars.
  Likewise, I have found from our Library here in the House of Commons, which sent me a paper on the matter this morning, that 57 per cent. of households have access to a video, which would never have been the case 20 years ago as there were not any around; that 78 per cent. of the poorest 20 per cent. have access to a freezer; that 85 per cent. of the poorest 20 per cent. have a fridge; that 73 per cent. have central heating in their house or their flat; and that 72 per cent. have a telephone.
  Some people are therefore exaggerating the amount of poverty in this country. It remains a serious problem for some people, and we must strive to continue the improvement in our economy, so as to mitigate poverty, but I believe, with Abraham Lincoln, that one cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. The egalitarian policies of the Opposition will, in the end, not benefit those who are in poverty, but will have the reverse effect. So I hope that the House will, by a decisive majority, support the Government amendment and reject the Opposition motion.
  5.57 pm
  Ms Mildred Gordon: I was very surprised to hear the Secretary of State for Social Security trot out that hoary old phrase, "the politics of envy". I think it was indicative of his callous approach to the problems of poor people. Does he condemn poor people as being envious, when they aspire to have good clothing, good diet, good education and a neat warm home for their children? When richer people rightly want to give their children the best of everything, that is described as a laudable ambition. When unfortunate people sleeping in the streets envy those of us in our warm beds, are we to condemn that?
  It has been my opinion for a long time that working-class people do not demand enough. They are too easily satisfied. They are not envious enough. They set their sights too low and they allow themselves to be ripped off time and again by this Government. Pensioners whose pensions are no longer linked to wages have been ripped off by the Government. Women pensioners, whose pensions are lower than those of men, will be ripped off by losing five years of their entitlement. That will add to the number of women who are living in poverty, and it is women who are the largest proportion of the poor.
  When those who have paid national health insurance contributions all their lives are old and need help from the health service, they often find that the help that is needed in hospitals and in the community is no longer there. Those who paid their national insurance contributions in the expectation that, if they were ever unemployed, they would be taken care of by the safety net of the welfare state will now lose half their entitlement. All those people are being ripped off by the Government.
  Conservatives rubbished the Rowntree report as left-wing propaganda, but very few noticed that it was in fact in full agreement with a series of reports on deprivation published the previous week by the Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment has not exactly been known for left-wing propaganda. Its reports set out the stark facts of poverty at the beginning of the 1990s. They showed that 20 per cent. of households, or approximately 20 million people, are living in poverty, and that includes one third of the country's children. They also showed that 10 million people in Britain live in inadequate housing, which means, for example, that their homes are unheated or damp or that older children have to share bedrooms. Seven million people go without essential clothing such as warm waterproof coats or solid shoes because of lack of money, and 5 million are not properly fed by today's standards. We should be taking those standards into account, something that many Conservative Members have not done.
  The Rowntree report argued that, left to themselves, market mechanisms will not deliver levels of education, training and investment in human capital that are optimal for the economy and society as a whole. Similarly, the Department of the Environment's reports stated on the basis of past trends that any economic recovery in the 1990s will have very limited impact on the numbers experiencing poverty and deprivation.
  Although Government policies have made things bad in the country as a whole, the situation is far, far worse in Tower Hamlets where my constituency is located. There, 38 per cent. of households are forced to live on the

  839
  breadline, and 46 per cent. of children—almost half—live in households without any earners and which are dependent for survival on benefits and the help of their families. They have little future to look forward to.
  In the east end of London, for every 100 16 and 17-year-olds with a job, 74 are unemployed and 25 are on a Government scheme. Some of those youngsters have been on a number of training schemes, with no job at the end of the line. Half the young population is unlikely to get work in the foreseeable future, and the situation is no better for many of their parents. Thirty-five per cent. of men between 55 and retirement age in the east end have been thrown on the scrap heap and are unemployed and have little prospect of ever working again. The household of the poor child is often also the household of the unemployed older sibling and the redundant father, and there is no role model of anyone in gainful employment. It is no wonder that people become deeply depressed.
  However, in the sea of poverty and despair in Tower Hamlets live and work some of the wealthiest people in our society, in what was planned to be "Manhattan on the Water" on the Isle of Dogs. Billions of pounds of public money were poured into it. The Government's policy of voodoo economics has caused some of the greatest social polarisation and poverty that this country has ever had the misfortune to witness, and nowhere is it more glaring than in my constituency on the Isle of Dogs.
  Recent research points to the fact that countries such as Japan, where inequalities are fewer than in Britain, have less ill-health among the lower-paid and a longer expectation of life. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) was incorrect when he tried to point out that absolute poverty was the important factor. Because people in some countries live happily on a handful of olives, bread, oil and some rice and nuts, we cannot expect the same in a European country. Conditions are very different.
  Conservative Members should take into account the fact that it is not only the shortage of money but relative poverty and inequality that create the stresses which add to breakdown in health. Poverty is relative—that is the important point that the Minister and most Conservative Members have failed to recognise. If that were not so, how would the hon. Member for Teignbridge and other Conservative Members explain the fact that, after decades of rising expectation of life, the trend has now gone into reverse for men in lower-income groups between the ages of 15 and 44? The chances of dying before the age of 65 increased for men in those groups in the 1980s.
  Even though the average expectation of life is 79 years for women and 73 for men, among the poorest people, men are more unhealthy and dying younger than those at the opposite end of the income scale. Their life expectancy is 10 years less. Poor people are also 75 per cent. more at risk after surgery than rich people.
  That inequality in health begins at birth, or even before. There is now an increase in the number of babies born with a low birth weight in poorer families and there is higher infant mortality and infant illness in deprived groups. The baby of an unskilled manual worker is one and a half times more likely to die in the first year of life than the baby of a professional worker or manager. That is a dreadful statistic.
  Asthma is a major problem in my constituency. It is partly due to air pollution, but also due to other social conditions. The number of children with asthma has
  840
  almost doubled and two thirds of them come from poor families living in cold, damp houses. The poorest children are twice as likely to die from respiratory diseases as children from social class 1.
  The Black report showed that material deprivation played a major part in causing ill-health. It is true that poor people have always been less healthy than the rich, for obvious reasons, but since the 1980s the gap has grown wider. That is the disgraceful fact. Stress, unemployment, financial worries, the inability to afford normal social activities—small things such as buying birthday and Christmas presents become very important when one cannot afford them, and repairing broken equipment such as a cooker or fridge is a cause of worry when one has no financial reserves—and the hopelessness of long-term unemployment all bring on depression.
  It has been mentioned that the suicide rate has increased by 75 per cent. in Scotland. Young unemployed men are 10 to 15 times more likely to attempt suicide than others and, in some areas, suicide is the third most frequent cause of death in young men after heart disease and cancer. That is not a very good reflection of our society.
  When people without hope who are living in poverty and despair are put side by side with those who flaunt their wealth, the former are often seduced into looking for scapegoats and the fascists are only too willing to provide scapegoats, as we saw in Millwall not too long ago. I warn the Government that if the gap between rich and poor continues to increase, the problem will spread to the rest of the country, just as it has spread in Tower Hamlets. All the police and private security guards will not be enough to prevent the breakdown of society.
  Despite the philosophy of the previous Prime Minister and this Government—I believe that the previous Prime Minister said that there was no such thing as society—society is about far more than feeding the greed of the men at the top. The overwhelming majority of my constituents and the British public are appalled that £23 million is being given to the heads of electricity companies, while we have children begging in our streets.
  As the eminent sociologist Peter Townsend has said:
  "poverty kills, this is not a political opinion, it is not a social comment, it is a scientific fact".
  6.9 pm
  Mr. David Lidington: Anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with the areas of inner London represented by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) will have some sympathy for the passion with which she spoke about the problems there. Although I represent a constituency which is—in average terms—much more prosperous, pockets of it mirror at least some of the problems which she described. Indeed, when I contested another inner-London seat next door to the constituency of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) in 1987, I remember being moved and impressed by the scale and the history of the social and economic problems that I saw in north Lambeth.
  The disagreement between Conservative and Opposition Members today is not over the importance of finding the right mix of policies with which to tackle the challenges posed to our country by unemployment and poverty. There is—I believe—common ground and common motivation on that front. The difference between

  841
  us lies in our analysis of which policies would be most effective in ameliorating those severe and deep-rooted problems.
  Some Labour Members have expressed some recognition of the fact that the problems which we are debating go deep into the history and social structure of the country. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) spoke about the importance of family circumstances, and he touched on racial discrimination. Indeed, several hon. Members, Labour and Conservative, have focused on the way in which poverty and unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, have become concentrated in particular parts of the country, sometimes in very small neighbourhoods in towns and cities. That should warn us that there is no quick fix.
  Roughly 35 million people are unemployed in the developed countries which are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That is certainly the highest level since such records were kept. The incidence of unemployment, especially of long-term unemployment, is higher in Europe than in North America or Australasia. Indeed, the problems of unemployment are more severe and, if anything, tending to worsen, in the nations of continental Europe which pursue the policies advocated by many Labour Members. Conversely, in the United Kingdom, unemployment is falling sharply, and falling well ahead of the trend in most of the rest of the continent.
  I shall speak a little about the Rowntree report, which, rightly, has been at the heart of much of the debate so far. I do not dismiss the report's findings out of hand, but it needs to be looked at critically. My doubts were first stimulated when I considered a paragraph and a graph on—I think—page 9, that sought to compare the position in the United Kingdom with that in other industrial countries. I found that a set of international comparisons compared different countries over different periods of years.
  The graph ran from 1977 to 1990 for the United Kingdom, it ran from 1983 to 1990 for Germany, and for France it ran from 1984 to 1989. For other countries, the period studied and used for the purposes of comparison varied from as little as four to as many as 18 years. The author may be a reputable academic, but that failure to compare like with like suggests flaws in the methodology of the report.
  My doubts were reinforced when I considered the evidence relating specifically to the United Kingdom. I saw a great reliance placed on one particular measure of wealth—the survey of households receiving below average incomes. That survey, with its strengths and weaknesses, shows that only half of the so-called lowest tenth of the population are dependent on income-related benefits.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, about half those who reported to the survey that they had an income of zero or less spent more than the average for the nation as a whole. In addition, the Rowntree report does not provide any thorough analysis of the movement in and out of the different deciles which it tabulates.
  Perhaps most important of all, there are no costings whatever in the report. Of the menu of policy options, come are attractive, and some I have grave reservations about, but, in every case, what is needed and what the
  842
  report does not provide is a clear economic analysis of the tax measures needed to finance those policy changes, and an outline of the effect that any such changes in this country's fiscal arrangements would have on the broader economy. Money can be spent only once. When it is taken out of the pockets of the workers to pay for what the Government of the day consider desirable projects, it cannot be spent on other forms of consumption or savings.
  We need, too, to look at the survey of households in the Rowntree report alongside other measures of wealth and income—notably, some of the measures in the report in the 1995 social trends survey. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out earlier that ownership of consumer goods has grown significantly, even among the lowest tenth of the population with regard to income. However, when one looks elsewhere in the social trends survey at records of wage rises during the 1980s, a very different and much less gloomy picture appears than that described by Opposition Members.
  Let us consider the records of gross wages for people in work during the past 10 years. Stripping out inflation and considering the figures at 1994 prices, the average weekly wage of a nurse in 1981 would have been £188, yet in 1994 it would be £316. For a cleaner, the average weekly wage would have risen from £110 to £180, and wages for a waitress would have risen from £138 in 1981 to £157 in 1994.
  The same survey estimates net incomes after deductions for tax and additions to income by state benefits. Let us not consider the rich—nobody denies that the wealth of the richer members of society has increased over the past decade—but look at the figures for those on the lowest decile point.
  A married man with two children who, in 1981, would have earned £137 net, including earnings and benefits, would have received £174 in 1993, including family credit. The net income of a single woman on the lowest decile point, again with two children, would have risen over the same period from £70 to £172. From those figures, we see the need to treat the despairing noises from the Opposition Benches with extreme caution. We also see evidence that tends to endorse the Government's policy of trying to concentrate money available to be spent on social security towards those people in the greatest need.
  Ms Corston: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about incomes in the lowest decile, is he aware that figures released by the Department of Social Security reveal that a single adult in the poorest one tenth of the population, at April 1994 prices and in comparison to 1979, is £364 a year worse off, while a single adult in the richest one tenth of the population is £5,616 better off? That is the scale of the change, and that is what the debate is all about.
  Mr. Lidington: The hon. Lady is wrong to assume that an increase in the earnings of the better-off is necessarily a bad thing. It is clear that the evidence I have seen—the hon. Lady did not say which figures she was quoting—from the small print of the Rowntree report and from the broader surveys reported in "Social Trends" shows that the growth in net incomes has taken place across almost every group in society, regardless of whether they started on a low or a high income.

  843
  I acknowledge the fact that we confront real problems in deciding how to spread opportunity among people who have relatively little opportunity at the moment, and, above all, how to get people back into work.
  It can be inferred from the Rowntree report that the composition of the lowest decile of the population has changed over the past decade. There are far fewer pensioners in that group. The Rowntree report suggests that the regrettable rise in unemployment in recent years has been responsible for much of the pattern in incomes that it reported.
  Mr. Clappison: Has not my hon. Friend touched on a very important point, namely, the improved position of pensioners since 1979? As more and more pensioners have the benefit of occupational pensions and savings which are protected from inflation, does not that mean that, in future, it is likely that pensioners will comprise an ever smaller proportion of the bottom one tenth of the population?
  Mr. Lidington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he has put his finger on an extremely significant point. As new pensioners bring with them into retirement the benefit of savings and personal occupational pensions policies to which they have contributed during their working lives, the proportion of pensioners in the lowest income groups will continue to fall.
  Having acknowledged the problems, I want to suggest measures which the Government should or should not take to tackle the problems. I want first to consider what the Government should not do. It is vital that they do not abandon a macro-economic policy which gives priority to the need to contain and to reduce inflation.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, more pensioners these days can take advantage of income other than the state retirement pension. However, as the Rowntree report states, and as we are all aware from our constituency surgeries, there are still pensioners who are not well off. Often they are pensioners whose income is slightly above the threshold at which they become eligible for various state benefits.
  However, those pensioners are very often people who were thrifty during their working lives in the 1960s and early 1970s, and who saved only to find that their life savings were eroded, and almost completely dissolved, by the high rates of inflation of the late 1970s through to the beginning of the 1980s.
  It was not the free market that betrayed those people; it was successive Governments who debased the currency for political motives at the expense of those people's savings. Whatever our political allegiance in this House, that experience should mark all of us. There should be a common determination to ensure that such a disastrous state of affairs does not occur again.
  Nor do I believe that the Government should succumb to the dangers and temptation of protectionism. There was an episode in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) in respect of which I feared that he was urging a protectionist course on the House, in—in my view—the mistaken judgment that that would help to protect jobs here.
  The growing prosperity of countries, like India, which we have previously described as part of the undeveloped or third world, is something that we should welcome. We should welcome it because it means that millions of
  844
  people in those countries can now seek to aspire to the material standards of living that people in this country and in the rest of the developed world have taken for granted for many years.
  In addition, growing prosperity in those countries provides market opportunities for British businesses to go out and sell their goods and services to the consumers in those countries. I want the Government not to shut the doors against world trade, but to encourage our businesses to take full advantage of the opportunities as they present themselves.
  With regard to what the Government should not do, I warn them against any thought that redistribution is somehow the answer to the problems facing this country.
  Mr. Graham: Why?
  Mr. Lidington: I will explain why. Opposition Members should also ask the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) why, because he took great care to tiptoe around specific commitments to redistributive measures. However, implicit in his critique of the Government, and implicit in the critique of every Opposition Member who has spoken so far, was the idea that somehow our problems could be solved by taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden seems to see himself as a Presbyterian Robin Hood preparing to distribute goodies from the undeserving to the deserving. However, the truth is that there is no phalanx of plutocrats waiting to be milked in order to distribute extra resources to the poor. If serious redistributive policies are followed, that will mean very much higher rates of taxation for middle-income workers and their families.
  An interesting analysis in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study on employment suggests that, for the United Kingdom to provide every family with a basic income of 30 per cent. average earnings, it would take a standard income tax rate of about 37 per cent., together with the abolition of housing benefit, council tax benefit and other income-related benefits.
  Frankly, Opposition Members are trying to fool the House and to mislead the British people if they seek to insinuate that a policy of redistribution could begin to tackle the problems which this country confronts without causing the need for very high rates of taxation, with the consequent disincentives to work for the majority of the working population.
  What should the Government do? In that regard, I want to refer to several areas of policy.
  Mr. Jimmy Wray: Is it fair that every senior citizen and every gas, electricity and telephone bill payer must pay standing charges? Is it fair that 78 per cent. of Glasgow council tenants receive housing benefit? Is it fair that the Government's policy is to transfer housing stock to Scottish Homes and other housing authorities, thereby leaving local authorities with massive debt? Local authorities have been borrowing for more than 60 years to house a small number of tenants. That situation has been created—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is a very long intervention.
  Mr. Lidington: I am sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) will try to catch your eye

  845
  later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To take the first of his points only, not every pensioner lives in poverty. Help for pensioners should be concentrated, through the social security system, on those who are in need, rather than there being a blanket subsidy which benefits dowager duchesses as much as people who need help.
  When I urge a course of policy upon the Government, their decisions will be influenced by what can be afforded in a certain year and by the competing demands of the various good causes which present themselves to the Treasury every autumn. However, the key seems to be action to reduce unemployment. More could be done to relieve the burdens on business, which still provide disincentives to recruit extra people.
  Only this weekend, I talked to small business men in my constituency. They said that they would like to hire extra workers but that the combination of payroll taxes, form-filling and the regulations that apply to adding to a payroll act as a very significant disincentive. I hope that, as scope becomes available to the Government to reduce taxation again, they will look at ways in which to lift further the tax burden on businesses and encourage them to recruit more people. Deregulation, especially through the new powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, can play a part.
  The Rowntree report and numerous commentators have pointed to the importance of education. It is true that people who have a poor education and few skills are most likely to join the ranks of the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, or to end up in low-paid, insecure jobs.
  The answer is certainly not a matter of money: it is a matter of ensuring that choice, rigorous inspection and testing act together to drive up education standards, so that all children, before they reach the labour market, are equipped for the working world in which they will have to live and in which they will have to be prepared to be adaptable throughout their working lives. Much more could be done—for example through Ofsted—to disseminate best practice among schools.
  In the end, it will be partly a matter of money. I hope that, when the pressures on Government borrowing have been successfully reduced by the tough but correct decisions of the previous two Budgets, the Government will place education firmly at the head of their priorities.
  My personal view is that primary education is a higher priority than nursery schools, colleges or universities. It is in the five-to-11 or 12 age group that the crucial learning period takes place. To a great extent, it determines whether a child will succeed in his career.
  The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar and I sat on the Education Select Committee inquiry into the disparity of funding between primary and secondary schools. We found that, since the second world war, under Governments and local authorities of both political colours, primary schools had been funded at a much lower level than secondary schools, for no scientific reason but simply because that had always happened. There is a cause that the Government could take up.
  The Government must look carefully at their family policy. Again, the Rowntree report mentioned family policy as one cause of the problems of poverty and
  846
  unemployment. We must look rather deeper than hints about a tax allowance for nannies, such as we have heard from the Opposition.
  I am fully aware that one must be conscious of sensitivities in discussing such matters. All hon. Members handling casework on the Child Support Agency have been made fully aware of that. We must be aware also that family policy matters touch on personal morality. Although all Members of this House are honourable, very few of us are candidates for sainthood. We should speak cautiously as a consequence.
  We should bear it in mind also that we cannot legislate to provide for human affection, one to another. Having made those qualifications, I believe that Archbishop Habgood was right: the Government should seek, when it becomes possible, to provide an incentive for people to marry and to stay married, perhaps concentrating on families on lower income levels. It has been recognised by the Leader of the Opposition that it is within stable families with two parents present that children have the best chance of an upbringing which will allow them to develop their full potential.
  In the past 10 years, the Government have taken many initiatives to tackle the problems spelt out in the Rowntree report and in this debate. I am confident that, not by sermons or indignant speakers, but by the application of practical intelligence in working out a policy day by day, year by year, the Government will continue to succeed in that common endeavour.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Denis MacShane: I hope that I shall not make an indignant speech, but I am certainly very angry about the quality of our debate so far. We have heard some remarkable interventions by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) wanted the poor to improve their diet. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), if I understood him correctly, suggested that the poor should be made to stay married. Presumably, the rich could gallivant and have what and whom they want. Before that, we heard the speech of the Secretary of State for Social Security. It was a weird mixture of old clichés, such as lamp posts more for support than for illumination, and wonderful metaphors about lights from black holes, which suggests that the right hon. Gentleman knows as much about astrophysics as he does about social security.
  The Rowntree report is the bubble that has come to the surface. It has finally exploded and revealed seething uncertainty, fear and anxiety about the growth of poverty in our society. I cannot believe that hon. Members can fail to acknowledge that fact.
  This is an important, historical turning point. In 1979, the Conservative party, after a century of it being constructed by many different parties, inherited one nation, with all its frayed edges. When the Conservatives leave office—the sooner the better—they will bequeath two nations as their historical legacy. Those nations will be divided not just geographically. We have the problem of what might be called the M25 Administration—a Cabinet most of whose members represent constituencies

  847
  within commuting distance of London. Not one member of the Cabinet represents England's biggest county, Yorkshire.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman suggested that in 1979 the Conservative party inherited one nation. Would he describe Britain in the winter of discontent as one nation?
  Mr. MacShane: I said that the Conservative party inherited a tradition of one nation, although the tradition was frayed at the edges. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about developments in the 1970s; Opposition Members need not be proud of all of them. But the challenge is to rebuild one nation, not to drive the two sides further apart and create the two-nation Britain in which we live—two nations not simply geographically or politically, but two nations even within so many of our constituencies. There are also two nations as between the genders, and between the cultures of community and of greed.
  The Conservative party came to office when family life still counted for something, but it has presided over the single biggest assault on family life. In a sense, the family has been seen as the metaphor for the nation this century. The statistics have already been mentioned—such as the number of divorces and single-parent families, and the growth in the number of illegitimate children.
  I believe strongly that the message from Archbishop Habgood is both good and timely: there are fiscal and social policies, many of them cost-neutral, which could be implemented to strengthen family life. As the Secretary of State said in his lecture in Northern Ireland, one of the most important problems today is the absence of the single wage earner—male or female, because modern family life is about partnership—able to provide an income on which a family can grow up in tranquillity and decency.
  We need many more jobs for full-time male workers. I know that I shall be criticised by leading members of my own party, but I must court unpopularity by saying that the inability of the male breadwinner to earn a salary sufficient for a family to grow up on is a labour market problem that we have not dealt with. On the contrary, we have made earning such a salary all but impossible for so many of the half of the population who are not women.
  The debate is split between social security and employment matters, yet the Chamber is not graced with the presence of the Secretary of State for Employment. No doubt he is off in some rich Swiss ski resort pontificating on various aspects of policy. What a pleasure it must have been. There he was in Davos—a place that ordinary Members of Parliament visit only to be sportsmen and to ski—telling us about our country's policy on the intergovernmental conference. He was Mr. Foreign Secretary there. Then he was Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and came back and told us what our policy on the single currency should be. I find it deplorable that he is not prepared to come down from planet Portillo, give up being the pontificator maximus of the Cabinet and defend in the House his labour market policy, which is the shame of the modern world.
  The modern labour market is rather like an ecosystem; it is something that we must preserve, cherish, support and perhaps change. As has happened over the past 16 years, it can be put grossly out of kilter by elementary
  848
  blunders. Labour market policy is at the heart of the debate, of Britain's future and of both social cohesion and economic growth.
  Not many hon. Members have so far mentioned the example of the dynamic Asian economies, although I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham, who brought them into the debate. Those economies set out to achieve economic efficiency and found that they had created a more equal society. That is the paradox of the dynamic Asian economies—wage differentials, social and education policies, the total state ownership of all land, as in Hong Kong, leading to progressive housing policies, go hand in hand with—
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Gentleman spell out more clearly whether he is advocating that we adopt the tax and benefit policies of, for example, Hong Kong, Taiwan or Korea?
  Mr. MacShane: If the Secretary of State stays and hears all my speech, he will realise that I have strong views about the pay policies in those societies. I am nervous of suggesting that the Government should take on the ownership of all land in this country and simply lease it, but doing that has certainly made one of the most important contributions to the development of a stable economy in Hong Kong. The great development of social housing in Kowloon has allowed the workers of Hong Kong to feel that they have not simply been left at the margin of economic development.
  As I said, labour market policy is at the heart of the discussion, so I find it deplorable that the Secretary of State for Employment is boycotting the debate; I did riot realise that secondary picketing now extended to the Cabinet. We need a policy for pay—although admittedly the Conservatives have had a policy for pay since 1979; Mrs. Thatcher was undoubtedly the greatest free collective bargainer of all time. As a detached political scientist rather than a Labour Member of Parliament, I pay tribute to her.
  Conservative Members have said, and have been right to say, that—apart from a tiny blip at the beginning of the 1990s, when we were in the exchange rate mechanism and the recession was biting—pay increases for the people who remain in full-time employment in the private sector have constantly outstripped inflation. However, that has had consequences. There has been a massive redistribution, not just from the bottom decile, full of all those accountants and taxi drivers who declare zero earnings and are thus included, but from all the weaker sections—the bottom 20 or 30 per cent. of society.
  The economic consequences of that were that in the 1980s, because the pay policy allowed the private sector significantly to outstrip inflation, our unit labour costs—the key to successful exporting—outstripped those of all our main competitors; hence the growing trade gap and the collapse of so much of our export-led manufacturing industry. The pay gap has widened so grotesquely that even the Prime Minister has had to express concern about the pay awards to the chairmen of the privatised utilities.
  The pay rise for Cedric Brown, who started life as a gas fitter in Rotherham and has never changed the company for which he works, means that he now earns nearly 100 times what one of his employees might earn. That ratio is far higher than those in our successful and dynamic competitor or partner economies—certainly far higher than that in any of the successful Asian economies.

  849
  In a Japanese company, it would be most unusual for the chief executive officer to earn more than 10 times the average pay of his employees.
  Compare that with the chairman of Marks and Spencer, who has been set up to head the Confederation of British Industry, Institute of Directors, "turkeys will vote for Christmas" committee to examine how executive pay could be curbed. He is earning about 100 times what one of his employees would earn. That grotesque pay gap has finally woken public opinion to what has been happening in the past 15 years.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Why is the hon. Gentleman concentrating on a comparatively small number of high-profile individuals in the private sector who make major contributions to the industries in which they serve? Has he anything to say, for example, about the huge salaries that are paid to certain sportsmen, media personalities and newscasters? We hear not a word of criticism about those people from Opposition Members.
  Mr. MacShane: I did not know that we were debating the salary of the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), but we can come back to that.
  I take the hon. Gentleman's point. All leadership is, in my judgment, about leadership by example. When a field marshal is earning 10 times more than a private, that is right. When the Prime Minister earns what he does, that is right also. But when people are earning 100, 120 or 200 times more than their employees—as has happened following the awards in the past three or four years in our banks and big companies—that is wrong, and it is rotting the sense of social cohesion, work loyalty and managerial efficiency that we need.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I realise that there will be more important parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech and of the debate, but will he mention by name who it was who, by salary and share options, contributed £80,000 to the successful campaign of the present leader of the Labour party? Have any of those people, their salaries and share options, ever been mentioned by any Labour spokesman?
  Mr. MacShane: I may be open to correction, but I believe that Anita Roddick—who earns about £138,000—chipped in some money. She earns 10 to 12 times the average earnings of the people working in the Body Shop.
  In the autumn, I presented a ten-minute Bill about the introduction of a maximum wage, and I suggested a ratio of 20 to one. To my horror, somebody wrote to The Daily Telegraph—he or she had not read my speech—to say that we needed a maximum wage ratio of 12 to one. For me to be outflanked on the left in the letters column of The Daily Telegraph symbolises how concerned the British people are about the issue.
  The issue is not just pure poverty—it is not just the big issue of the people selling The Big Issue. Poverty in work is finally being taken seriously. Working hard used to be a way, if not to riches, at least to a decent standard of living. It is no longer. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary for the honest replies that he sent me, which show that one in six blue-collar workers earn £150 a week or less. Some 2.5 million part-time workers earn less than £4 an hour. One in four women in manual jobs have gross pay of under £132 a week.
  850
  The majority of those people have to be subsidised by the Department of Social Security, and I would have thought that that was an extraordinary denial of Conservative economic policy. Massive Government handouts are subsidising firms to allow them to employ people on low wages.
  The answer to that is, of course, the minimum wage. I am doubly grateful to the Under-Secretary, because he has sent me detailed figures. The Secretary of State for Social Security held up a visual aid earlier, but I shall not hold up mine. The figures show that in countries with a form of statutory minimum wage—including America, with a rate of £3, and France, Australia and Japan—the rate of employment growth between 1980 and 1990 was significantly higher than in the UK.
  Between 1990 and 1993—here, the economic conditions were very different—the rate of employment growth was again higher in most of those countries.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): It would help if the hon. Gentleman quoted the correct figures. He has previously stated that employment growth in the UK over an economic cycle period was just over 1 per cent., but the correct figure is nearly 7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman should look over the economic cycle from 1979 to 1990, when Britain had a faster rate of employment growth than minimum wage countries such as France, Belgium and the Netherlands, which had a high minimum wage, as opposed to the United States and Japan, which had minimum wages so low that almost no one was paid at that level.
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful that, at long last, we have had that exchange. The Under-Secretary wrote two letters to The Guardian to put me right on the matter. I wrote one letter, and then a second one, which I faxed on paper with a House of Commons letterhead. The Guardian did not publish it. I can say now across the Floor that the Under-Secretary is fundamentally wrong. I do not have the time to read out all the figures, as other hon. Members want to speak.
  The United States has a statutory minimum wage of £3 an hour, but President Clinton wants to extend it. It is in fact going up, because our currency is going down as I speak.
  Mr. Oppenheim: The minimum wage in the United States is £2.60, and it was hardly raised at all in the 1980s. When President Clinton came to power, he committed himself to raising it. Unfortunately, two years later he has still not done so because his Secretary of Labour, Robert Reich, said that it would threaten the recovery. Mr. Clinton waited until there was a Republican Congress and Senate before announcing that he would raise the minimum wage by all of 25 cents. I suspect that he knows in his heart of hearts that the Congress and Senate will throw it out. Why did not he raise it in the past two years when there was a Democrat Senate and Congress? I suspect that it was because even Democrats realise that the minimum wage destroys jobs.
  Mr. MacShane: The Under-Secretary is now reading his letters to The Guardian at the Dispatch Box, but I shall not read mine back to him. In the United States,

  851
  where the minimum wage is set—at current exchange rates—at just under £3 an hour, the rate of employment growth from 1980 to 1990 was 18.4 per cent.
  Mr. Wray: Does my hon. Friend agree that we would need a minimum wage of £6 or £7 an hour to deal with the misery that has been created by the Government? People have been left in debt with their mortgages, as they have had to pay 16 per cent. instead of the 8 per cent. rate when they first bought their houses. Has not that been caused by the Government?
  Mr. MacShane: Even a minimum wage set at the United States rate of some £3 an hour would be an extraordinary step forward for social justice in my constituency of Rotherham.
  Mr. David Evans: If Labour was in power, what would the minimum wage be?
  Mr. MacShane: I am delighted to have an intervention from the most legendary Conservative Member, who must soon be in the Cabinet. The minimum wage will have to be set at a fair level that is not destructive to employment. It must be decided at a time when, in government, we see what the economic data are. It would be preposterous to set any particular figure now.
  Working time is also causing much difficulty in our labour market. The figures that the Secretary of State for Social Security quoted did not show the amount of working time that workers have to put in for their wages. All the evidence suggests that working time has increased significantly, and it is another growing inequality in our society.
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry boasted in a debate before Christmas about a factory that he had visited in Essex—it would be Essex—where men worked 65 hours a week. That is 120 years after Disraeli legislated for the 56-hour week in the 1870s. The 65-hour working week will make family life impossible and cause immense trouble with cohesion.
  The amendment to the Opposition motion welcomes
  "the high priority accorded by the Government to education and training".
  I wish that the right hon. Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) were in his place. Yesterday I asked him, "Rhodes, what can we do to improve the quality of education in this country?" He answered that it was an impossible task, that we are 18 months behind all our main competitors in mathematics, that we have lost all sense of standards and that there is no cohesion in Government education policy. In some colleges of higher education, the A-level pass rates have fallen to about 25 per cent. They have to keep up their rolls and do so by keeping on students. Training budgets have been cut by one third.
  The Government claim in their amendment that
  "employment is the best route to higher incomes".
  As I showed when I cited the figures for fair pay, labour market policy must be based on partnership and on planning—as is the best company policy. It must be a labour market policy with some moral purpose. On the latter, it is deplorable that the Prime Minister appears to be snubbing the world social conference in Copenhagen next month, while every other world leader is acknowledging that employment and the labour market are issues that we must take far more seriously.
  852
  Planning, purpose and partnership are three concepts that are utterly inimical to the Conservative party. The worst poverty—the poverty that makes me angry—is the poverty of our nation's ambitions. When I was born, three years after the war, we ranked fifth or sixth in the world for gross domestic product per capita. In the mid-1960s, when I left school, we were in the top 10. Italy had half our GDP per capita and Korea had an average per capita income of $250 per year. In some areas, Korea and Italy have overtaken us. We are now sinking into the second or third division of nations.
  I am in the House because I have the ambition to put that right. We want a society in which ambition is encouraged and communities are ambitious. We want Britain to rise again, for all its people and, unlike the Conservative party, we want it to rise with all its people. That is Labour's ambition and its programme for the 21st century, and I hope that under Labour we shall once again live in one nation.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Madam Speaker placed a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief contribution. This debate calls for realism and I hope that I am being realistic in reflecting that life is not easy for people on benefits. Many of my constituents suffer similar, complex social problems to those to which other hon. Members referred.
  The debate also calls for realism from the Opposition—realism about how they will deliver the high expectations that they set out in their motion. One of the telling points in this debate was when my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) asked the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) how he would flesh out his proposals. There was no answer. The hen. Gentleman was short on delivery throughout his speech.
  The debate also calls on Opposition Members to be realistic about something else. They talk of gaps, the redistribution of wealth, relative this and relative that. They must face the fact that there is irrefutable evidence that there has been a massive and widespread increase in prosperity and incomes during the past 15 years.
  We have heard much about evidence from "Social Trends", which is plainly evidence of people and ordinary families having access to items that were considered luxuries not long ago. I welcome the fact that people in the lowest decile of the population by income apparently have increasing access to such important items. It is a good thing.
  The evidence goes beyond that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the increase of 39 per cent. in the average incomes of non-pensioner households, which is reflected by a similar increase of 36 per cent. in median incomes for households, according to Department of Social Security figures.
  I accept the caution that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) offered about the Rowntree report and the way in which it was compiled. Even that report, on which the Opposition rely for so much else, shows that there was a substantial increase of 26 per cent in median incomes between 1979 and 1981. I invite

  853
  Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is looking at the report, to exercise some caution. The hon. Gentleman may find that his fingers get burned.
  The report surveys the period between 1961 and 1991 and estimates that, after taking housing costs into consideration, median incomes increased by a miserable 2 per cent. between 1974 and 1979. Opposition Members had better be careful when they refer to that report. They might provide evidence that people would be much worse off if the party which was in power from 1974 to 1979 had continued after that time with the policies that were impoverishing the nation by 1979.
  Health has also improved. During the debate we have heard many misconceptions about the health of the nation—misconceptions based, to some extent, on the "Panorama" programme last night. It is important to make it clear that, in absolute terms, health and life expectancy have improved considerably. The figures for changes in relative positions on which the programme rested its case were for young men in certain small areas of the country. Throughout the country as a whole during the past 15 years, there has been a substantial increase in life expectancy—two years and six months for men and two years and one month for women. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) gave figures for the northern region and for regional differences, but those were differences from the national average. There has still been an absolute improvement within that region. The hon. Gentleman is not in his place, but, if he looks again at the figures for 1978, he will find that the regional difference was much the same then as it was in 1994. There has been an absolute increase in life expectancy.
  Infant mortality is another indicator; there have been great improvements during the past 15 years. The hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) spoke movingly and said how she cared about that subject. If she consults the latest figures from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, she will find that there has been an enormous reduction in infant mortality during the past 15 years. In fact, the reductions have been greatest in the lowest social class—a reduction of 56 per cent. in infant mortality for social class V. I welcome that achievement.
  Although there obviously has been a widespread increase in prosperity, we need to tackle the issues that arise in respect of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population. I take note of the words of caution that were expressed about the way in which that figure has been analysed, and I agree strongly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is important to consider the composition of the bottom 10 per cent. and to concentrate on ways of helping specific groups in it. Obviously, in the past 15 years, the number of unemployed people in that bottom 10 per cent. has increased; therefore, it is most important to concentrate help on those unemployed people, providing them with ways out of unemployment and back into high levels of income and prosperity.
  I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friends have put in place to help the long-term unemployed specifically, and I do not pour cold water on proposals such as work trial and workstart, which are good ideas, which need to be considered carefully and implemented with great thought. I also do not pour as much cold water
  854
  as the hon. Member for Garscadden did on the increase in family premiums for unemployed people who want to enter full-time work. That is a valuable measure.
  Beyond that, I have no doubt that the most important way of helping those unemployed people and helping people in the bottom 10 per cent. is to continue our policies, which are designed to bring about sustainable economic growth. We have not mentioned that sufficiently in the debate, but it is important that we continue sound economic management, which will provide the growth to return those unemployed people to work. That is our answer to the questions that were asked by Opposition Members about that bottom 10 per cent.
  I turn now to what Opposition Members have said. What are their policies, we may ask, for helping the less well-off—those in greatest need? My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), in a thoughtful intervention, asked the hon. Member for Garscadden about that, and especially how he was going to pay for his aspirations. The hon. Gentleman, in an illuminating reply, began to speak about levels of executive pay.
  We have returned to that theme repeatedly in the debate. The idea is held on the Opposition Benches that there is a pot of gold of executive pay and high earners, which can be raided to fulfil all the Labour party's social aspirations. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury' disposed of that idea effectively in his careful analysis, but, if the Opposition will not take his word for it, will they take the word of a recent Chancellor, who wrote about the subject in his autobiography? He said:
  "There will always be controversy about taxation, and, since it directly affects the interests of every individual, the argument is unlikely to be very objective. My own experience as Chancellor led me to certain general conclusions".
  He said that one of those was that
  "any substantial attempt to improve the lot of the poorest section of the population must now be at the expense of the average man and woman, since the very rich do not collectively earn enough to make much difference, and the average man does not nowadays want to punish those who earn little more than he, since he hopes ultimately to join them."
  That is the answer to the arguments of the redistributionists. [Interruption.] The Opposition Members who are heckling may want to know that that Chancellor of the Exchequer was no other than the former Member for Leeds, East, Lord Healey. He knew a thing or two about taxation. Perhaps new Labour needs to learn a few lessons from old Healey, although all Conservative Members remember the painful price that we paid for those lessons in taxation.
  The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has expressed his ideas for helping the less well-off and for creating employment. In a recent interview for She magazine, which is described as "the magazine for women who juggle their lives," he said, in response to a pressing interviewer, that tax relief on nannies was one of the things that the Labour party was considering, although he said that he was cautious about that. I think that he is right to be cautious, because, although there may be some interest in that subject in some parts of Islington and certain other quarters, I do not think that it will have the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) going into the Lobby dancing with glee. I think that he is right—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  7.13 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I welcome the way in which the issues of poverty and long-term unemployment have been brought together, because there is no doubt that the two are linked. Coming as I do from Wales, I know that we have had a history for many years of difficult areas that suffer from unemployment and its accompanying problems.
  Those problems appeared to be improving for a time, but now we seem to be slipping back rapidly. The problems, which were witnessed decades ago, of real, biting poverty, hitting not only individuals but communities, are returning, especially in the old industrial areas. That is happening in my constituency, the slate quarry constituency, and especially in some of the old coal mining areas—the valleys of Glamorgan and Gwent and the old steel towns down there. People there have become out of work; there is no alternative work; the work that may be available is often poorly paid, part-time work; and the standard of living is deteriorating rapidly. That hits the quality of the physical environment in those areas and has an impact on people's health and well-being.
  That surely must be, in part at least, a moral question, not simply an economic one. We have unemployment in Wales of slightly less than 10 per cent. I believe that it is absolutely wrong that the whole burden of the depression should fall on to the shoulders of the last 10 per cent. in the job scale. I further believe that it would be possible to bring those people into work if a concerted effort were made to do so. I accept that that may well mean higher taxation, and it may well mean higher taxation on average earnings, and not only at the very top. I believe that that bullet must be bitten, for social as well as economic reasons.
  In Wales, we have watched our gross domestic product per capita drift back in comparison to the figures for the United Kingdom as a whole. In 1977, our GDP per capita was 87 per cent. of that of the UK; it had decreased to 83 per cent. by 1992. Wales has the lowest GDP per capita of any part of the UK, and the counties of Gwynedd, Dyfed and Mid Glamorgan have a smaller GDP per capita than the Irish Republic. The Irish Republic has a greater GDP per worker than Wales as a whole, and soon it will have a greater GDP than Wales as a whole. The Irish Republic is succeeding, while policies in Wales obviously are not succeeding.
  Among the factors that bring about the small amount of income per head are unemployment, to which I referred a moment ago, and high inactivity rates, which are highlighted not only in the Rowntree report but in "The Geography of Poverty and Wealth" by Anne Green, published in July 1994. That report shows that many of the areas with the greatest inactivity rate are in Wales. About 300 areas throughout the UK were rated on their degree of inactivity. Ten of the 12 worst are in Wales. They are Rhondda, Afan, Cynon, Merthyr Tydfil, Blaenau Gwent, Rhymney valley, Llanelli, Neath, Dinefwr and Islwyn. Eight of the worst 10 areas for women's inactivity are in Wales. They are Rhondda, Merthyr, Afan, south Pembrokeshire, Blaenau Gwent, Rhymney valley, Cynon and Ynys Mon. We are at the worst end of the queue on a whole row of indicators concerned with inactivity.
  856
  Other dimensions contribute to the poverty that is rampant in many of those old industrial areas—illness and disability. In the constituencies in the Mid Glamorgan area—Merthyr, the Rhymney valley, the Caerphilly constituency, Cynon, Rhondda and Pontypridd—there are about 17,000 unemployed people and 34,000 people on invalidity benefit. That is largely the result of the effects of old industry. Those factors, together with low activity rates—which some people have in common—lead to the very low incomes on which families must live.
  In addition, there are demographic factors. There are older families, sometimes as a result of young people having left the area to seek work. There is a preponderance of older people who depend on state pensions. In Wales last summer, the unemployment rate for 16 and 17-year-olds was 28 per cent. Of those, 89 per cent. had no income whatever. All those factors contribute to the problems that we face.
  It is no use saying that, provided that we give those at the top enough money, there will be a trickle-down factor. In Wales, we simply get a trickle-out factor.
  Mr. Booth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wigley: I am sorry, but I cannot give way because we are under a time limit.
  Money that goes to those at the top of commerce or industry goes outside Wales and does not trickle down into the Welsh economy. Incidentally, the trickle-down factor does not even work to a great extent within the United Kingdom economy because those with the highest earnings often spend them overseas on items such as holidays and they do not necessarily work through the economy.
  It is all very well criticising and explaining the problem, but what can we do about it? We must create jobs to do the work that needs to be done in our communities. There is scope for some 100,000 jobs in Wales. Goodness only knows, the environment needs tidying up and protecting for the future. We need community nurses and even bath nurses and home helps to assist people who, 10 years ago, may have been in institutional care and have difficulty in surviving at home. Work is also needed in terms of pollution control, water quality programmes, education and training, and police and security.
  Although jobs exist in those areas, they do not command an expenditure capacity that will immediately create extra jobs. We therefore need public sector intervention not only to create jobs in the categories that I mentioned but to stimulate projects such as the cabling of Wales for the Internet development, which will be important in future years.
  Given that unemployment costs on average £9,000 a year when expenditure and taxation are deducted, by spending an additional £4,000 a year to bring unemployed people back into work to undertake the much needed social, environmental and infrastructure work in all our communities, we could solve some of the economic arid social problems that face us. I admit that that would cost some £400 million a year in Wales and a rolling programme might cost a similar amount in capital terms. That would mean a couple of pence in the pound on income tax, a slightly greater borrowing requirement, and some extra money from the private sector.

  857
  That is a challenge to not only the Government but the Labour party. If we are to deliver the programmes that are needed in terms of training, facilities, social work and the environment, we must pay for it. There is no soft option; we must bite the bullet. If it costs a couple of pence extra on income tax—not just for the very rich but for average wage earners—to bring people into work and carry out the work that is needed in our communities, the Labour party as well as the Government must face that fact. Morally, we should be prepared to pay that, because it is wrong to have 100,000 people on the dole in Wales, becoming long-term unemployed because there is no short-term work available.
  That is a challenge to this and any other Government and I hope that both sides of the House will bite the bullet.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I apologise for not being present earlier in the debate, but I have been sitting on the Standing Committee that is studying the Disability Discrimination Bill. As soon as it adjourned, I felt the urge to race back to the Chamber, if only to fend off the charges of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that I am somehow a Government stooge in everything that I say on this topic.
  The hon. Gentleman would not allow be to rebut that charge and refused to take an intervention from me. I have learned why he was not prepared to take an intervention, interrupting a pattern to debates that we have both enjoyed on many encounters. It is because he, as a man of integrity and a master of his brief, who always enlightens the House with what he has to say on social security, is ashamed of the manner in which his Front Bench has hijacked an issue, distorted it and used it so viciously against the interests of the impoverished, whom he pretends to champion.
  Contrary to the motion, everything that the hon. Gentleman said concerned inequality rather than poverty. He tries to parade inequality before the media to suggest that, somehow, those who have earned money are to blame for those who have not. Inequality is unconnected with poverty, but the hon. Gentleman knows that, in the current mood of politics, he can seize on a rich seam of grievance to play that political card.
  The Labour party is covering up its lack of a policy to try to alleviate the poverty that should be the proper cause of our concern and focus of our attention. In discussing inequality and poverty, the hon. Gentleman links two unconnected phenomena to try to convey the impression, for his own purposes, that the one is to blame for the other: it is not.
  The real issue, which the motion addresses but the hon. Gentleman did not, is poverty and it is separate from the question of what other people earn. The hon. Gentleman has raised the phantom of the issue of inequality before every camera prepared to point in his direction. If one had listened to what he said, one would have heard many an attack on inequality but no solution to the problem of poverty—except, perhaps, one, which was more of the same.
  Where the hon. Gentleman and I differ is in trying to study and assess the origins of poverty. One of the main causes of poverty is the very policy that he would like to
  858
  see more of. That is why, from a sedentary position I said to him, "Socialism." Contrary to what Beveridge envisaged, the workings of the welfare state have gradually impoverished many people, particularly in Scotland.
  Mr. Graham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: Although we are under a 10-minute limit, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Graham: I shall be courteous and give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to intervene in my speech. Does he realise that, from 1979 to the present day, Strathclyde alone lost nearly half its manufacturing jobs under his Conservative Government? The Government have done nothing to encourage folk to work by stimulating the economy and providing enough money for companies to keep their business.
  Mr. Duncan: Stooge though the hon. Member for Garscadden might label me, I assure the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) that it is not my Government. I do not accept his thesis. Socialist Scotland has denied many opportunities to those who wish to be in work.
  Let us take the hon. Gentleman's starting point of 1979 and look at the Rowntree report, which based its thinking on that starting point. In a so-called "scientific" exercise, it simply took a household incomes survey and extrapolated it through some extraordinary set of contortions to reach the conclusions that have been broadcast widely over the past couple of days. In 1979, punitive taxation so suppressed, reduced and squashed the earnings of the so-called rich that it was inevitable, to return to a modicum of sanity, that in the years that followed the diversity between the extremes of those who earned a little and those who earned a lot would widen. So what? It is good for prosperity that that should happen.
  Furthermore, over those 15 years, the Rowntree report took a moving target for the purposes of making comparisons and drawing conclusions. The definition that it used to say that inequality had increased had itself moved for ever upwards. Therefore, to argue that the poor have got poorer is a falsity. Only because it was a comparative figure for ever moving upwards in the 15 years of the survey was Rowntree able to draw that conclusion.
  The Rowntree report revealed a tale of two systems: a system of progress and enrichment based upon capitalist behaviour, which has been shown to work, and an alternative system of welfare, which by comparison has gradually impoverished those who have become increasingly dependent on that system.
  Let me once again look the hon. Member for Garscadden in the eye to prove to him that I am not the stooge that he so loves to label me. Let me advance what I believe would be a solution to the way in which those he pretends—and perhaps genuinely wishes—to help have been impoverished, which perhaps is not fully in tune with Government policy.
  The Social Security Select Committee has done much work on what should be the future of the welfare system in Britain. We have not considered it in as much detail as I would have liked. One of the problems of the welfare state is that many people have become increasingly trapped by so many conflicting influences in the various

  859
  different benefits that are distributed by different offices. We need to address that problem. One solution would be to have a citizens income.
  The hon. Gentleman might not have expected to hear this from me, but I favour a citizens income whereby, regardless of people's means, condition or predicament, someone would be guaranteed a basic wage of, for example, £50 a week. That person would be freed from benefit traps, distortions of labour markets and everything else that impoverishes the category of Britain about which he could have spoken more today.
  Beveridge said in his principles:
  "The state, in organising security, should not stifle incentive, opportunity and responsibility. In establishing a national minimum, it should leave room and encouragement for voluntary action by each individual to provide more than the minimum for himself and his family."
  At the moment, that principle is not being delivered in practice. If somehow across the Floor of the House the parties can find some common ground for alleviating poverty, we will have done the country a great service. However, we are not going to find it simply by making great political noises and talking only of inequality. which has nothing whatsoever to do with poverty and diverts attention and proper thought from all our dutyon>: to help those who are poor to the best of our means and not to use them as some Opposition Members risk doing—as political pawns for their own political objectives.
  7.33 pm
  Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am grateful for the opportunity to add my voice to the growing public concern about the divide in society.
  Last night, I attended a meeting in my constituency of parents and governors who were concerned about the cuts in schools and the effect that would have on class sizes. The unanimity in that hall and the despair about the damage to the fabric and the future of society was such that one of my constituents pleaded with me that we in the House should forget party politics and agree to halt the deepening crisis. If that constituent had been here this afternoon, he would have realised that it is not so easy.
  The Rowntree report, which was published last week, is simply a further particularly authoritative report about the bald facts of the growing divide of income, poverty and wealth in Britain, but it is not even recognised by Conservative Members.
  Government statistics—most of the reports are based on Government statistics—analysed back in December by the Low Pay Unit show that the disposable net income of the bottom tenth of the population after housing costs had dropped by 17 per cent., while the top tenth showed an increase of 52 per cent. The report is further evidence of that fact. It leaves Ministers clinging desperately to the statistic of the average, the median and the mean—as the Prime Minister did this afternoon—because that is how they can disguise and hide the deepening divide. Average statistics may be all right, but the Government increasingly use them to mask the truth or flounder in waffle about self-employed accountants in the bottom wealth decile.
  If deepening relative poverty is universally recognised, except by Conservative Members, Rowntree has shown us the hopelessness of absolute poverty. There is no question about some of the examples in the report that we all know
  860
  well. The pensioner couples living on £63 a week are straight poor. It makes a nonsense of the Government's frequent insistence that they are about providing choice. If people are poor, they do not have the choice of private health care or education; they do not have the choice of where to go shopping. They have to take the cheapest possible route.
  I am not interested in looking only at the bottom end of the scale; we must also examine the 20 per cent. of people at the top of the scale. I well remember doing just that in Sheffield when the poll tax replaced the rates. In the leafy suburbs of south-west Sheffield, that change represented tax windfalls of up to £2,000 a year. At that time, such a windfall was being enjoyed by a number of Conservative councillors on the council. The council tax never righted that injustice, but every time an essential charge supplants one that is wholly or partly met by tax revenue, the wealthy benefit and the poor struggle to pay or do without.
  The examples are too numerous to count. Prescription charges of £5 do not hurt the people in the top fifth of the income scale, but are a struggle for people in the bottom fifth, who may go without. Deregulation of bus fares is no problem for those who have two cars and do not use public transport, but those who are poor struggle or do without. What about water meters? It is no problem for those on a high rateable value to have a water meter, but those charges matter for people who are poor and have large families. That was behind the anger on VAT on fuel. It was thrown out so convincingly because it was a charge on an essential service.
  Where do we start? I suggest that in the first instance we have to examine three areas. We must, first, look at wages, salaries and income. At the bottom end of the scale, we believe that a minimum wage adds dignity to people's efforts in the workplace. It tames the excesses of the free market, whereby people are asked to work for as little as they feel they can possibly manage. They survive on the crumbs. There is no reason in a free market why people should not work for 50p or £1 a hour if the market will stand it, but that is not okay for the dignity of people's efforts. Most employers agree that the minimum wage adds efficiency to the workplace and does more than any other penalty system to reduce the problems caused by the working of the cash-in-hand, black economy for the poorest tenth of the population.
  It is simply not on to say that the salaries of the top executives and chairmen of public utilities, whose incomes are derived from our electricity, gas, and water payments, should be left to company shareholders to decide. Our money is being creamed off in totally obscene and excessive salaries, share options and pay rises way above the sum that any British household today requires to enjoy a high standard of living.
  We must control the top level of wages and salaries. An unfair system breeds increasing unfairness. That was evidenced by the public pay round last year, under which the nurses received a pay increase of 1 per cent., the doctors received 2.5 per cent. and senior civil servants received £150,000 or whatever they deserved according to performance pay. An unfair system puts pressure on the public pay rounds to increase that unfairness, not just for those at the top and the bottom of the wage and salary scale but for those in the middle as well.

  861
  We must address the question of equal treatment for all. The Fawcett Society and other pressure groups concerned about equality believe that, if the Government continue on the course outlined in the Pensions Bill, two out of three women who will retire after the year 2030 will live in poverty. The Pensions Bill, which is now being debated in the other place, passes over the needs of part-timers, divorced women and housewives. They are denied any real benefits which will flow from that pensions reform. An enormous opportunity has been lost.
  As we saw last Friday, the Government are unable or unwilling to do anything meaningful for the disabled. The incapacity for work legislation will affect those on invalidity benefit as well.
  We must recognise the role that public services play in determining standards of living. I was shocked to hear that the Government propose to bring down the shutters on one more tenuous, but valued, route out of poverty—the 21-hour rule, by which people can gain entry to adult education courses. That is an appalling proposal. It shows that, unless core public services are valued as being integral to our standard of living in Britain, the present divide between the rich and the poor will remain for a very long time.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The Rowntree report should be a landmark in our public debates. Its tone—calm and reasonable, but earnest and urgent—is in the best traditions of Rowntree and the data that it assembles give us much food for thought. In October 1993 I wrote an article in The Guardian in which I said that trickle-down theory had not worked out for the poorest 10 per cent. of the population. It gives me no pleasure that the Rowntree report powerfully endorses that observation.
  I shall not repeat the statistics that have been quoted so often today, but they confirm that the standard of living of households on the lowest incomes has not risen since 1979 and that the dispersion of income has widened greatly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security made a characteristic speech on that subject last November, blending his intellectual rigour with his humane concern.
  The Conservative party need not apologise about the main thrust of economic policy in the 1980s. It was in the interests of all of our people to bring down inflation, balance our public finances, deal with some of the rigidities of the labour market and provide managers with the opportunity to manage. We never pursued what the hon. Member for Dumfermline, East (Mr. Brown) called in his article in The Independent on Sunday "simple-minded" free market policies.
  We were not so naive as to suppose that the untrammelled operation of market forces would optimise social outcomes, and there has been massive intervention and expenditure by the Government in the inner cities, on the education system and on social security—and rightly so.
  Of course, we have not found all of the answers and the policies that are appropriate in one phase of our development may become less appropriate in another phase. We may need to alter the emphasis. We should
  862
  certainly not pursue the reduction of taxation or the reduction of public expenditure as a proportion of national income to the ultimate, and I suggest that we should be extremely cautious about further deregulation.
  In its leader last Saturday, The Times offered siren advice. It said that the Rowntree findings were "dubious" and it even accused the authors of manipulating the data. It asserted that inequality in Britain was within the bounds of the tolerable. Even at 20p a copy, I fancy that The Times is expressing very much a minority opinion. It did find three academics to offer comfort to the complacent—Messrs. Minford, Anderson and Green: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. Admittedly, Professor Minford observed that it is a "savage world".
  It is indeed a savage world, and we must respond to that. Our policies must emphasise healing the divisions within our society. It is perhaps all too predictable for me to quote Disraeli, but in "Sybil" he wrote of
  "two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy, who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts and feelings as if they were dwellers in different zones or inhabitants of different plarrets".
  If any hon. Members are tempted to think that that is a purple passage from a Tory Member of Parliament who turned his hand to writing novels because he had nothing better to do, they are wrong. I refer them to chapter 6 of volume 2 of the Rowntree findings if they need to be persuaded that the problem of the two nations is still with us.
  The section on "The Location of Poor and Rich Neighbourhoods" shows that there was a concentration of poverty in 8.9 per cent. of wards in this country in 1991, compared with 7.5 per cent. in 1981. Far too many of those wards are the same in both surveys.
  Other research shows concentrations of poverty, in Oxford and Oldham, which are geographically cheek by jowl with areas of affluence. They are worlds apart in terms of income, yet extremely close together geographically.
  In 1872 Disraeli concluded that the "great object" of the Conservative party should be"the elevation of the condition of the people".
  In 1965 Iain Macleod, addressing the Conservative party conference, reiterated those Tory values when he said:
  "We shall be called upon to convince the electorate that we stand for humanity as well as efficiency; for compassion as well as competition".
  Latterly, we have perhaps been at risk of neglecting that balance and I think that we should attend to its restoration. That Tory tradition is the authentic Tory tradition and it is the only one to which the voters of this country will give continuing loyalty.
  Perhaps not many voters read Coleridge, but he observed to Harriet Martineau, an eager radical, that
  "Society is not an aggregate of individuals".
  It is the role of Government to maintain the cohesion of society—a society that embraces all its members. Extremes of inequality are not acceptable. My right hon. and hon. Friends should note very carefully the outrage that is being expressed at the extremes of pay increases and rewards that are being reaped by the directors of some privatised companies. It is not the politics of envy; it is the politics of fairness. I put it to my hon. Friends that they should not insist that only absolute poverty matters. Relative poverty matters very much indeed because we define ourselves as members of society.

  863
  Certainly, our Government should not practise the politics of exclusion. It is wrong to propose in the Jobseekers Bill that some young people should live on £21.70 a week, or even nothing at all if they are sanctioned. It is wrong to chip away at national insurance and the contributory principle, because they are the keystone of our social contract. It is wrong that in the Disability Discrimination Bill we should exclude from the scope of protection people who happen to be employed in firms employing fewer than 20 people.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales observed in an article recently that "markets are social events", as no doubt they are—for those who can get to market. But if the Disability Discrimination Bill largely ignores transport, the disabled will not be able to get to the party or to the labour market. I use the term "'labour market" because it is the term that we all use, but we might care to reflect that its dehumanised language may tell us something about our own deficiencies. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend considers the foreign exchange markets as social events, but it strikes me that those young men with their braces and champagne omit to invite the low-paid to their exclusive celebrations.
  Efficiency is not the same as fairness, and unfairness is inefficient. If people are to be excluded from our society through unemployment or marginalised through low pay and low skills, we deprive ourselves of their talents and potentialities. The costs of maintaining law and order, of repairing our inner cities or our social fabric are immense. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security grimly points out, they are unsustainable. Nor would I wish to sustain the present pattern, and indeed we shall not, of course. Only the extreme short-termism of the Treasury could provide an open-ended subsidy for low pay by way of family credit. We can see it coming: next year's public expenditure crisis will be about family credit, just as this year's—allegedly, at least—is about housing benefit. Mr. Howard Davies was right to say that inequality is a sign of a malfunctioning economy.
  If my hon. Friends are not moved by the thought that poverty is a drag on the economy, let them consider what it does to families and children. We find five times the number of children on at risk registers in the poorest areas compared to the better-off areas. There is an estate in Wales where only 7 per cent. of adults are in full-time employment. How can they provide role models for the children? The disadvantages that those children suffer early on—in terms of language skills and health, for example—persist. They are our future. There is an obligation from one generation to the next. As Burke said:
  "Society is indeed a contract … a partnership … between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born."
  The Conservative party must accept the need for public investment, in the interests of us all, in those services that are not going to be privatised. We should not—we could not—privatise education. If we devalue our schools, as I fear that we shall in this year's local authority settlement, it will be as damaging to this generation as devaluation of their money through inflation was to a previous generation. Education is crucial in terms of opportunity—fullness of life—for every individual. It is crucial in terms of the quality of our future society, and in terms of our future competitiveness.
  7.53 pm
  Ms Jean Corston: The Rowntree report is no surprise to those who have followed the course of changes in income and wealth in the past 16 years. Even official Government published statistics make the growing gap between the rich and the poor indisputable.
  The growth of inequality is no surprise to the Government either. Several times in the past 18 months a succession of my right hon. and hon. Friends have asked the Prime Minister to confirm both growing inequality and poverty. Since 1979, the average disposable income of the richest 20 per cent. of households has increased by £6,000 a year, at April 1994 prices. But the average disposable income of the poorest 20 per cent. of households has fallen by £3,000 a year, compared with the incomes that they would have received if policies and the distribution of earnings had stayed the same. That is one way of bringing out the dramatic and unprecedented growth of inequality in Britain.
  The Prime Minister told me, none the less:
  "The net disposable income of people at all ranges of income has increased".—[Official Report, 22 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 146.]
  He told the late Leader of the Opposition, John Smith:
  "There is an improvement in living standards at all levels, even among those who are the least well off."—[Official Report, 24 February 1994; Vol. 238, c. 428.]
  That was untrue then, and it is untrue now. After the exchanges in the House, which other hon. Members as well as myself have sustained to this day, I wrote a detailed letter to the Prime Minister citing Treasury and Department of Social Security evidence to show that substantial groups of the population now have disposable incomes which in real terms are lower than such groups had in 1979. He dodged the issue, and continued to do so after I wrote again at length. He replied in August 1994, but he and other Ministers continue to dodge the issue because it is too uncomfortable for them.
  Even the 1995 jubilee edition of "Social Trends" no longer has the critical table showing the absolute decline in real income of the poorest 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the population—it was table 5.21 in the 1994 edition. I can presume only that Government statisticians were under pressure not to publish that table, or were inhibited from doing so by the deliberate deception now being exercised by the Government as a whole on the issue.
  This is a key point in the sorry tale of Tory deceit and prevarication, and one which the otherwise admirable Rowntree report hesitates to drive home. It is not just the growing inequality or poverty, but the smaller real income among millions of poor people. Their incomes are falling and, unhappily, more people are joining them. I do not just mean the rise in the number of homeless people, especially the young homeless, although that is tragic enough, but families with children, the unemployed, those in casual, part-time and self-employment, and pensioners, too.
  On 31 August 1994, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People informed me, in response to a written question, that in 1991–92 the disposable income of the poorest 20 per cent. of families with children, after adjustment for composition and size of household, was lower than that of the poorest 20 per cent. in 1979. We are talking about 7 million people in families with children who are worse off than their 1979 predecessors, whether income is measured before or after housing costs.

  865
  Among the poorest tenth, the situation is even worse. At 1994 prices, the income of a couple with two children aged three and eight was £996 lower in 1991–92 than in 1979, whereas for the same period an identical family in the richest tenth of the population had an extra £14,300 a year income. That is what has happened under the Conservative Government—and the Prime Minister has the brass neck to tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he agrees that it is a responsibility of the Government to reduce inequality.
  Even pensioners in the poorest tenth of the population have a lower real disposable income than in 1979. Single pensioners in that category experienced a decrease of £676 a year, and couples £52 a year at April 1994 prices. The Department of Social Security does have a standard of low income in 1979 terms—buried away in the deep recesses of the "Households Below Average Income" report. It is defined as the median income in 1979 of the poorest tenth of the population, adjusted for inflation to the present day. It would be bad enough if, after 16 years, that figure was still relevant to today's conditions, but the situation is worse than that. It is contrary to all the statistics of average growth. It shows that the number of children living below the 1979 standard of low income has increased—from 790,000 to 1,060,000.
  The DSS gives another measure of low income in 1979: half average household income in that year. The number of children in families still below that miserable level has also increased—from 1,310,000 to 1,850,000. The same source discloses that the number of people living below the 1979 standard of low income who are in employment has also grown. That group includes more self-employed people and more people in both full-time and part-time work.
  A range of statistics that I received in August was published in Hansard on 26 October 1994. When I wrote to the Prime Minister again, he referred the matter to the Secretary of State for Social Security, who did not deny any of the figures that I had put to the Prime Minister. His reply, on 18 December 1994, dodged the responsibility of agreeing on what factual basis we could have a reasoned debate about the implications for action. He added, at the end of his letter,
  "The most important point is that the Government should identify what trends underlie the results and put in place policies that ensure that everyone has the opportunity to share in the increasing wealth that the HBAI results show for the vast majority."
  The Government must recognise that there is a momentum against the poor: a multiplication of tax, social security, employment and deregulation policies which are reducing Britain's poor to third-world status and desperation rather than merely continuing a process of polarisation. That momentum of divergence has been built into the entire range of institutions and policies in this country. It is like a geological fault built into the social landscape, with sections of the population sliding into an abyss.
  We can no longer speak only of the deterioration of the conditions of poor people relative to those of others; this is a deep and deepening social divide, with millions losing absolutely rather than just relatively. It is self-destructive social engineering, manufactured by the Government—
  Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Corston: No, I have only 10 minutes; the hon. Gentleman can make his own speech.
  That self-destructive social engineering is harming the security, the common interests and, indeed, the future prosperity of rich and poor alike.
  All that is thrown into stark relief by recent examples of magnified greed. PowerGen's Ed Wallis says that he is worth £1.2 million; British Telecom's Sir Iain Valiance says that his £770,000 salary is "modest"; British Gas's Cedric Brown is revelling in a salary of nearly half a million. Meanwhile, question 18 in the proposed jobseeker's allowance questionnaire asks, "What is the lowest wage you are willing to work for?"
  Yesterday, at my constituency surgery, one of my constituents—a qualified chef who used to work for Rolls-Royce—was put in touch with an employer who had a job going in a bakery. He rang up, and was told that the pay was £1.90 an hour. A job was advertised in Bristol just before Christmas at £1.61 an hour. What implications has that for the family credit budget, in which good employers are subsidising bad ones? What implications has it for the "feelgood factor"? Anyone who watched "Panorama" last night would have been shocked to see the difference between the life chances of the rich and those of the poor.
  John Maples was right: the people of this country know that the rich are getting richer on the backs of the rest, who are getting poorer.
  8.2 pm
  Mr. Hartley Booth: I understood from the Order Paper that the debate was supposed to be about poverty. Although I respect much of what the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) said, I intend to return to that subject, rather than wallowing in the politics of envy: I want to get away from the whole business of inequality. Equality is not the sole yardstick that we should use when discussing the crucial and often sad issue of poverty.
  I also wish to set a new analysis alongside that of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I have benefited from the excellent work of the House of Commons Library researchers, whom I asked a number of questions about comparative income, benefit and tax figures between 1979 and 1993. As other hon. Members do not have the result of that analysis before them, perhaps I could devote most of the 10 minutes allotted to me to presenting it. I believe that it is illuminating, and puts in context what has been at the core of much of the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Rowntree report was the fons et origo of the debate from Labour's point of view.
  According to the Library, in 1979 the income of the top 20 per cent. started at £11,000, and that of the bottom 20 per cent. at about £1,800. When state benefits are added, the figure rises to nearly £11,000 for the top 20 per cent. and more than £2,000 for the bottom 20 per cent.—in terms of gross income with benefits. When tax is taken off, the income of the top 20 per cent. falls to £8,000 and that of the bottom 20 per cent. is lowered very slightly, remaining at about the same £2,000 level.
  Let us then add or subtract—depending on whether we are dealing with the bottom or the top quintile per cent.—the indirect taxes and benefits in kind. That produces a

  867
  figure of £7,800 for the top 20 per cent., and just over £2,300 for the bottom 20 per cent. Thanks to the contribution of the rest of us, the income of the bottom 20 per cent. in 1979 has thus been raised by 30 per cent., while 259 per cent. has been taken from that of the top 20 per cent. by the rest of the community. The gap exists.
  I need not go laboriously through every stage in the same process in 1993, but hon. Members will know that process: add benefits, take off tax and then deal with indirect taxes and benefits in kind. The top 5 per cent. are now giving the rest of us 290 per cent.: in other words, the tax take from that group has increased by 31 per cent. Meanwhile, the income of the bottom 5 per cent. is up by 28 per cent. The gap referred to by so many Opposition Members is narrowing by 30 per cent., from the top; it is about 2 per cent. in all. I do not want to confuse the House.
  Even on those figures—before we employ other yardsticks relating to money and poverty—it is clear that the findings of the Rowntree Foundation, honest and well meaning though it doubtless is, need to be reinterpreted. I believe that poverty should be viewed not only in terms of money and goods, but in terms of ideas. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Garscadden for widening the debate slightly and discussing poverty in those terms, but he did not go on to make the obvious point—he wouldn't, would he; it is a point in our favour—that, while one in eight school leavers went to university in 1979, one in three go now.
  The university figures mean that the ladder of opportunity is there for all to see. We have tried to help education in a number of ways—for instance, through the provision of city technology colleges. Apart from a reference at the beginning of the debate, I have heard nothing about that; although, unfortunately, my membership of a Standing Committee meant that I had to be absent for part of the debate.
  My time is getting thin, so I shall be quick. The context of our debate has been muddied considerably because we have failed to talk about the reality of poverty as we see it worldwide. No proper reference has been made to the fact that poverty in this country is comparative riches compared with poverty in the third world. A proper analysis has not been made of the various definitions of poverty. Nowadays, apparently, even not having central heating is a criterion of poverty, but there are millionaires without central heating.
  Ms Harman: They are not poor, are they?
  Mr. Booth: That is why we need to analyse what is and what is not poverty. That is the core of the debate and of our discussion. That is why we need to define it ourselves.
  The Bearsden pictures on "Panorama" last night were heart-rending. That is not surprising if one considers what we saw—housing provided by the state, the man who had gone through endless training sessions provided by the state, and the sad woman who was being provided with national health service benefits. All that was a microcosm of the promise of Attlee and of socialism. The scene was poverty-stricken in terms not only of money, but of ideas. Those people's lives had no purpose.
  Not surprisingly, we heard in last night's tragic film of a high incidence of suicide. No individuality or uniqueness could live in those drab socialist-inspired
  868
  buildings. There was no dignity there that is the other aspect of poverty with which I want deal, and with which socialism does not deal. The solutions that Conservative Members have wanted have not been supported by the hon. Member for Garscadden, or by other Opposition Members during the part of the debate that I have been able to hear.
  We have not heard that the number of people on the lowest wages fell from 1975 to 1978. We have not heard that there has been a distortion in the figures, thanks to rich people being able to return to this country following the 1979 election. Some reference has been made to this, but we have not heard much about the fact that, thanks to a strong and growing economy, income support has increased by 24 per cent. for a typical unemployed couple, by 18 per cent. for a typical pensioner couple, and by 30 per cent. for a single pensioner.
  Equality is not a helpful yardstick; real poverty is. Compulsory equality, ordained by socialism, communism and Opposition Members—if they ever had the chance—is the one sure recipe for poverty.
  8.12 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: Like other hon. Members in the Chamber and elsewhere, I rejoice at the increase in incomes since 1979. It would be folly for anyone to deny that basic fact. The debate tonight is different from that. It deals with the impact of rapidly rising incomes. How has that increase been shared? Has it been fair? Is it sustainable? The charge against the Government is, in a sense, a unique charge. It is that, under their stewardship, they have done well in increasing national income, but that a part of the British political tradition has been destroyed.
  In the past 400 years, incorporating more people into the body politic has been one of the great movements in politics. Great struggles took place, therefore, for equality before the law, and for freedom before the law. There were the struggles over the franchise. Great efforts have been made in this century to establish greater economic and social equality.
  It would have been fair, therefore, to think of British society as being like a train journey. There were first, second, third and fourth-class compartments. The living standards of those in the four compartments were clearly different. One could say with all certainty that the train was heading in the same direction and that all the carriages were linked. The charge that we are making tonight is that, despite the growth in wealth, or perhaps because of the way in which that growth has been gained, the fourth coach has been decoupled and no longer heads in the same direction.
  I do not have the statistics that other hon. Members have deployed in this debate. I merely wish to bring some of my constituents and their faces, feelings, hopes and aspirations into our discussions. One can see the faces of the people in that fourth-class carriage, which has been decoupled from the train on the main journey that the rest of us, fortunately, are embarked upon. They are the very elderly poor—those who have had no chance of building up a second pension.
  Clearly, important policy recommendations have been made on how everyone can receive those second pensions. Of course we know what to do to ensure that the poorest pensioners can be part of the train journey again. We

  869
  could credit them into the state earnings-related pension scheme, so that the entitlement would not live beyond them but die with them, and their standard of living would increase appreciably
  We know that single-parent families are one of the biggest groups in that fourth-class carriage. All hon. Members must be worried about the rate of the increase in the number of children who are cared for by only one parent. We all have an interest in their welfare. As taxpayers, perhaps paying up to 5p in the pound for non-payment of maintenance, we have an interest in the Child Support Agency working a little more effectively than it does.
  Given that large numbers of those single mums, for they are single mums generally speaking, will get out of the fourth-class carriage by marrying—perhaps the Secretary of State for Social Security should spend more time on how to make that easier for them—we need not be too concerned about them in the long run, although we are immediately concerned about them. We must be concerned about the males in that fourth-class carriage who are semi-skilled and unskilled. If things go on as at present, they will never work again in their lifetime.
  In Birkenhead and in Liverpool about 20 years ago, 26 million tonnes of goods came in and out of the port on both sides of the river, and 20,000 dockers were employed. This year, an additional tonnage has gone in and out of the port, and only 400 dockers have been employed. Semi-skilled and unskilled jobs for male workers have been wiped out. What are we going to do about the disfranchised male? That is one of the issues that we must face.
  Clearly, as a group, those males are far less able than women to adjust, and to box and cox in the labour market. Males have all sorts of hang-ups about our roles and about what we deserve. Clearly, however, other factors are at work, which prevent jobs from reaching that group. We are concerned about that.
  I applaud the Joseph Rowntree Foundation study for considering how the Government have decoupled that fourth carriage of Great Britain Ltd. so that it no longer heads in the same direction as others, but I disagree about where we go from here. I am pleased beyond belief that the Rowntree study talked about self-interest, which is an important part of human motivation. The biggest three motivations are self-interest, self-improvement and altruism. The weakness of the left has been to believe that we can build a social or even an economic policy on altruism. We cannot.
  Let us consider what the Rowntree report thinks of as self-interest. It states that middle England—the people in the first three carriages—will give up some of their privileges or the speed of their train for fear that they will be set on by bandits. I have news for Rowntree: if that is so, in the next 10 years middle-income England will be voting for and insisting on corporal punishment to deal with disorder rather than voting for tax increases. Any welfare reform has to be built on the basis that there is something in it for those in the first three carriages. That brings me back to the national insurance fund, a subject that has already been mentioned.
  Clearly, we have to rethink the scheme and make clearer the link between people's benefits and earnings. If there is to be a redistribution—the altruistic side that I
  870
  believe exists—it has to be above board. We must not think that we can kid people that we can fiddle their contributions and pay them to someone else. There has to be a positive decision by the taxpayer via the Exchequer. The reform of the welfare system is, I hope, the task in hand. We need a new system in place soon if there is to be a clear alternative to what is being offered by the Treasury Bench and its supporters.
  We have had a clear model of how the Treasury will deal with the inhabitants of the fourth-class carriage who are no longer participating in the journey being undertaken by the rest of us. The Secretary of State devises raiding parties to catch a few and drag them to join the rest of us aboard the main train. He devises back-to-work benefits and the additional bonus, in cases where the Child Support Agency is working and collecting the maintenance, when the mother goes back to work.
  All these measures are to be applauded, and every experiment must be examined with interest and extended if it is a success, but I do not believe that we shall get back to the policy of incorporating people into the mainstream of society if we are concerned only with devising even more effective raiding parties. We need a strategy to get the fourth-class carriage back on to the main line to be a part of the journey that the rest of us are, fortunately, making.
  I end as I began. I do not dispute the figures that show an increase in incomes since 1979. I rejoice in them, and I am pleased that some have been able to benefit, but the flip side of that is a very—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Michael Trend: I am sorry to have missed parts of the debate. I was present for the opening exchanges but then had to attend Standing Committee A.
  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who made a characteristically thoughtful speech. However, I cannot agree that the fourth carriage has become decoupled. That is certainly not the case according to the evidence of the Rowntree report to which I shall refer in a moment. I was, however, intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's idea that the Secretary of State should "cure" single mums by what seemed to be an advocation of serial bigamy. The idea that he should somehow marry them all off was rather nice.
  I heard the speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, (Mr. Dewar), but I was rather disappointed. Like other hon. Members, I had a high opinion of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I once had the honour of working for some time at Toynbee hall in London's east end. I can confirm that the foundation's work in many spheres is widely respected. On this occasion, however, I regret that the foundation has been drawn into the smokescreen beneath which the Labour party is hiding its reluctance to make policy.
  The Rowntree report is in many ways a very old-fashioned piece of work. It covers ground which we have been over many times but does not appear to notice that the debate has taken new directions in recent years.

  871
  We must all look more widely and deal with the great issues of social change, especially marriage breakdown, over which we all admit that the Government have little or no influence.
  The report's proposals are familiar enough. Many Conservatives feel that most of them have been or are being tried, and some have been found wanting. Moreover, it is very important to note that the proposals are not costed and overlook the progress that has been made by the Government in many of the matters under discussion. In brief, the proposals call for a huge increase in public expenditure in nine respects, and that is simply not on.
  As well as political doubts about the report, I have doubts about its methodology, a point that some hon. Members have mentioned. The hon. Member for Garscadden quoted from the front page of this week's edition of The Sunday Telegraph, but I wonder whether he read as far as page 21 where the admirable journalist Mr. Paul Goodman exposed the flimsy starting point for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's evidence, or what lies at the heart of the report.
  In his article, Goodman makes the distinction between relative and absolute poverty. I shall return to that issue in a moment, but I shall deal first with his point about the report's most important claim, which was also quoted by the hon. Member for Garscadden. That claim is:
  "Since 1979 the lowest income groups have not benefited from economic growth".
  If that claim were true, it would indeed be proof that the very poorest have experienced an increase in absolute poverty. However, as Mr. Goodman states, the claim is unproven.
  The report's judgment relies on two key figures to identify the poorest 10 per cent. of the population, examining their incomes before and after housing costs are taken into account. The claim is that the incomes of this group have remained the same before housing costs are considered or have fallen by 10 per cent. afterwards, but, as Mr. Goodman also points out, those figures are based not on firm evidence, such as tax returns, but on the "Households Below Average Income" survey.
  I would go much further: the HBAI figures themselves have a number of important methodological limitations. They are based on a sample rather than a census and did not track individuals for any length of time, so they cannot reveal how many people have seen their incomes rise or fall. The HBAI figures are in turn based on the family expenditure survey whose data are collected mainly from expenditure figures, not from income figures. Moreover, the FES uses interviews to gather data, and we must admit that it is at least possible that some respondents might misreport their circumstances.
  We must also observe that the HBAI figures relate to the period up to 1991–92 when interest rates and unemployment were still high. Since then, unemployment has fallen substantially—by more than 500,000. In addition to its methodological problems, the HBAI gives a picture of the past. In more general terms, the survey also provides conflicting evidence about the living standards of the poorest.
  A large number of self-employed people such as farmers, taxi drivers and accountants report no income at all, although perhaps we should not be surprised that
  872
  accountants manage to show no income. Surely it is rather odd that only about half the people in the bottom 10 per cent., excluding pensioners, are on income-related social security benefits. What are the other half doing? That question must be asked.
  The Secretary of State cited HBAI survey figures for individuals in the bottom 10 per cent. of income distribution who now have access to freezers, fridge freezers, telephones and video recorders. They show substantial percentage increases in the possession of these consumer durables. That is at the heart of the debate. It is important to note that, in relative terms, things are not as bad as they were. Based on such statistics, Mr. Goodman is right to say that the Rowntree report's main claim is, to say the least, disingenuous.
  I should like to comment on the distinction between absolute and relative poverty. There can no doubt that we all deplore absolute poverty, and the ever-increasing billions of pounds that are put into the welfare system are evidence that we deplore it; but we must be careful not be trapped by any absurd definition of an abstract poverty line. It is plainly ridiculous to use any definition in which to be below, say, half the average income or any other similar specification is to be poor. Such a definition would mean that poverty would rise every time average incomes rose.
  Others define the poverty line in relation to income support levels and that, too, has severe problems, as does the definition of a poverty line based on average expenditure. What happens to those who save rather than spend? Under that system, some very rich people would easily be classified as poor. None of those definitions will do. Poverty is a very emotional word. If we are beguiled by any of those definitions, relative poverty will, self-evidently, always be with us. I have severe doubts about the use to which the Rowntree report can be put.
  There is, however, another much more reliable document which shows what has happened in recent years in the social conditions of the country. I refer, of course, to the annual publication "Social Trends". Unfortunately, I do not have time to go through the various figures that show the great increases in public expenditure, on social security, health and education, and, indeed, show the changes in people's lives that have resulted in the majority of people becoming wealthier. However, the figures from "Social Trends" show clearly that while the country is getting wealthier and healthier, it may not be getting any wiser.
  I wonder sometimes whether the great problem which we face nowadays is not relative poverty but relative prosperity. Why will not many people simply accept that they are getting richer and not count themselves as poor? Why do they seem to get more miserable as they receive more of the supposed material benefits of life? That, of course, is another debate, but it has some bearing on today's continued exhibition of the arid politics of envy expressed by the Opposition.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. John Denham: My father was employed as a village schoolmaster in east Devon. When I was seven years old—the same age as my daughter now—we did not have a refrigerator, a television or central heating. Does that mean, as Conservative Members suggest, that when I was seven I was poorer

  873
  than my present constituents who have a television and a refrigerator? I think that is absolute nonsense. Of course poverty is relative to the wealth, income and life styles of those who live around us. Any other definition of poverty makes no sense at all.
  Whatever else the Rowntree report may prove, it establishes beyond doubt that many, many people in our society live in poverty because their income is insufficiently high to enable them to participate fully in the activities of society and to enjoy in a reasonable way the benefits of that society like other people. That is not the politics of envy. My constituents are clear about that and I do not think that a distinction can be drawn between Labour and Conservative voters. If they were to see somebody from the constituency set up a business, work hard and make a success of it, they would wish him good luck and think it right that that person should be rewarded for his enterprise and effort.
  My constituents know the difference between such enterprise and somebody who happens to be the boss of a privatised industry, who has the power to write his own cheques on the basis of a monopoly which he can exploit. People understand and do not resent justified inequalities in our society, but they resent rampant unfairness and greed that sit side by side with deep poverty.
  The Secretary of State told us that he did not wish to pursue the phantom politics of envy but, rather, wanted to show how the Government were concentrating on helping people to get out of poverty and to help themselves. The Government's record does not suggest any significant degree of success in that self-defined enterprise. Poverty is no longer a northern or a Scottish problem, but a problem which has been made national by the failure of the Government's policies. Let us dwell on some of the measures of that failure.
  At Christmas, 400,000 children in Hampshire, Sussex, Dorset, Kent, Berkshire and Surrey—the main southern counties—faced what I would regard as Christmas in poverty because they and their parents were dependent on state benefits. Ministers do not grasp the reality of juggling inadequate incomes to buy presents. In all probability, all too often, people have to borrow money at extortionate interest rates to be able to afford to buy presents at Christmas for their children. That poverty, right across the heart of England, has been created by the Government and they appear to be unwilling to do anything about it.
  When people turn to the state social security system, there are certainly plenty of disincentives which prevent them from receiving assistance. The truth is that a third of the applications for social fund loans for items as basic as beds, cots and clothing are refused, not because the applicant does not meet the criteria for a loan but because the cash-limited funds have run out. The Secretary of State has devised a cruel system, which tells people that their needs will be assessed and, yes, by the Government's criteria they will qualify for a loan, which will have to paid back, but, having decided that that assistance is needed to buy a bed, or some clothing, or a cooker, or, dare I say it, even a refrigerator, they are then turned down because there is not enough money in the system.
  The Government say that they aim to help the long-term unemployed. What is the position in my constituency and in Hampshire? Between 1990 and 1994,
  874
  the number of long-term unemployed in my constituency, as well as in Southampton and Hampshire as a whole, trebled. What is more, the proportion of long-term unemployed people rose. We have heard a lot from the Government about helping the unemployed get back to work. Even when one disregards the high point of the recession to be fair, the reality is that the number of people who have gone on to the dole queues, who have stayed there and who are unable to get off, has risen dramatically in absolute terms and as a proportion of those out of work. There is absolutely no evidence whatever that the Government's policies, which they say are directed towards those most in need, are enabling people to get back into work.
  A comparison of the figures for long-term unemployment in 1990 with those for 1994, the most recent year for which figures are available, and the impact of Government training schemes, show that a higher proportion of the long-term unemployed who go on training schemes remain unemployed today than four or five years ago. Indeed, 60 per cent. of the long-term unemployed go back to the dole queue six months later and only 16 per cent. of the long-term unemployed manage to get into full-time work after one of the Government's training courses. Five years ago, at least a quarter of those who had been out of work for a year or more managed to obtain full-time work after a Government training course.
  Where is the evidence that any of the Government's policies help those who are most in need to get out of unemployment and to achieve security? There is no evidence of that if we consider the operation of the social security system or the operation of the Government's policies towards the long-term unemployed. There is no evidence when we consider the number of people who are trying to raise their children in poverty.
  The Secretary of State delighted in a nit-picking performance on the statistics. However, he ignored the real issue, skating over it in about 30 seconds. After spending 20 minutes nit-picking on the statistics, he said that he did not think that there was absolute poverty in this country, inequality was not relevant and therefore there was nothing to debate.
  However, inequality is relevant. Poverty is relative and the inability to participate normally in our society is undermining society itself. The Government must recognise that fact. There is a price to be paid for deep poverty, on the one hand, and ostentatious greed, on the other. It is the price of sending the message, as so many Conservative Back Benchers have done this evening, to the country at large that, if people feel excluded, that is the natural state of affairs.
  There are great dangers for our society in sending out that message, as so many Conservative Members have done. We need a Government who say that it is a disaster to have so many people whose incomes are so low that they cannot reasonably share in the benefits of the society around them. We need a Government who will say that they will do everything possible to include those people in society.
  If the Government do not do that, the whole of society will pay the price of the inevitable breakdown of the sense of community, and all that follows in relation to crime and deprivation. We will all pay a price. The Secretary of State looks pained by my comments. I understand that he does not like what I am saying, but we will all pay a price

  875
  for all the children who are raised in poverty and who will not succeed at school as well as they might if they had been raised in wealthier surroundings.
  One need only speak to the teachers who are educating those children to understand that many such children—not all—bring a disadvantage to school that is no shared by children who come from wealthier and more comfortable backgrounds. We need an education system that enables those children to overcome that disadvantage. However, the Government are not providing that opportunity because, as we have heard time and time again—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen).
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: As this most important debate on poverty was initiated by the Labour party, I thought that it was important that I should be in the Chamber to listen to the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He is a sincere and intelligent man, but I was disappointed by his speech. He drew attention to many problems of which we are all aware, but he failed to make many proposals to tackle those problems. On the rare occasions when he was drawn into proposals on, for example, a minimum wage, he was unable to tell the House at what level it should be fixed and what effect it might have on the employment prospects of the very people who—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want conversations between the Front Benches while another hon. Member has the Floor.
  Mr. Stephen: The hon. Member for Garscadden was unable to tell us what effect a minimum wage might have on the employment prospects of the very people whom the Labour party claims to seek to help.
  I was impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). His was a very thoughtful speech, but, with respect, he too was rather long on diagnosis and short on prescription.
  I have read, as I imagine we all have, the Opposition motion which calls for
  "a major welfare-to-work programme, a national childcare strategy and action to improve education and skills."
  I listened to Opposition Members' speeches and I remain of the view that the only Member of the House who has thought seriously about the matter, who has made proposals and who is doing anything about welfare-to-work is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. In that regard, I refer to the jobseeker's allowance, the back-to-work bonus and the agreement that applicants for the jobseeker's allowance will have to make in future.
  Many Opposition Members believe that every unemployed person is desperately seeking work and is quite unable to find it. However, our constituents know, even if we do not, that a great many people are working in the black economy and a great many others are not making a very serious attempt to find work. Therefore, the agreement is important. It is important that a clear programme is mapped out with the assistance of the Department of Employment so that the person concerned can get back into work as soon as possible.
  876
  Education is, of course, of great importance if poverty is to be avoided. That is why the Government have introduced some very imaginative reforms which, sadly, have been resisted root and branch by the education establishment and, it goes without saying, by the Labour party.
  Those reforms were introduced not because the Government wanted to mess teachers about, but because employers were approaching us as constituency Members and saying, "We spend more money than ever before on education per child, but the results are appalling. You are sending us too many young people who cannot read, write or do arithmetic and, more important perhaps, who have entirely the wrong attitude to work."
  That is why we have had to introduce the national curriculum and testing. We are interested not in what children have been taught, but in what they have learnt. If we do not find out what they have learnt until the end of their formal education, it is too late to do anything about it.
  The Opposition motion calls for "a national childcare strategy". Opposition Members did not expand on that, but we are all aware that some single parents are genuinely in need. They are single parents through no fault of their own. However, we close our eyes to the real world if we do not recognise that the number of teenage pregnancies and illegitimate births has soared to epidemic proportions. Providing childcare facilities for women in that position involves taking money in taxes from many families who have decided that the mother should stay at home to look after the child. It is not easy for us to ask those families to pay taxes to support those who choose to, or have to, go out to work.
  We must, of course, manage our economy well and I congratulate the Government on their management of the economy. Business people in my constituency say that what they need to create jobs is not on offer from the Labour party. They want low inflation, low interest rates and a competitive exchange rate for the pound. The most compassionate society is a society in which no one needs welfare.
  In the few short moments remaining to me, I want to turn to what I consider to be an even more important subject, which has not even been mentioned in the debate so far. This debate is about poverty and we have focused throughout on material poverty. I want to refer to spiritual poverty. Throughout the land there are empty churches. The lights have gone out and, perhaps, will never be rekindled. In a very real sense, much of the light has gone out of our individual and collective lives. That has happened in the past 30 years, not just in this country but throughout the western world. The most important phenomenon throughout those 30 years has been television, which has found its way into every house in the land.
  On television today, religion is treated as though it were a science—as though it were part of biology, physics or the like. Every day on our television screens we are treated to examples of people and communities where the lowest standards of personal behaviour are to be found. Today, morals are like clothes—they are whatever suits the individual. Perhaps D.H. Lawrence put his finger on it when he said that whatever is natural is right.
  We have so much of a man-centred attitude to our lives today that one feels almost embarrassed to mention God in the House of Commons. There has been a breakdown

  877
  of respect in our society in the past 30 years—a breakdown of respect between men and women and between parents and children, and a breakdown of respect for all forms of authority. There has been a breakdown of respect within and for the family.
  It seems that in order to reach the highest ranks of the Church of England one has to show that one does not believe in God. The Church used to be a rock upon which we could found our lives. It is now much more like shifting sand.
  Of course, the economy, education and social security are important, but, however wealthy in material terms we may be, a nation which lives in spiritual poverty is truly destitute.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Thomas Graham: I have listened to the debate with great interest. As usual, Conservative Members have said that Opposition Members' speeches are not so good. The reason for that is that Conservative Members do not like the truth when it is spelt out to them.
  The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) mentioned lone parents. I shall quote to him some facts and figures on lone parents. Three in five lone-parent families, compared with one fifth of couples with children, live in poverty. Seventy per cent. of lone parents receive income support–1 million lone parents in all. Nearly all lone parents would like to have a paid job at some point, and 55 per cent. would do so sooner if child care was available. Instead of castigating lone parents, the Government should do something to help them. They have the power and position to do that. It is time that they got off the backs of lone parents and gave them some assistance.
  I heard the Secretary of State reply to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). It was the old theme of "on yer bike" to look for a job. The hon. Lady said that people must get up and go. What absolute nonsense. The Secretary of State agreed. He said, "If you get up and go, you will get a job." I live in an area which has suffered unemployment. The local factory, which employed nearly 7,500 folk at one time, has shut. I am not saying that we are devastated—we are too proud to be devastated and we have talent—but we must get access to the finance markets. We must have access to something which gives us life. Many folk who worked in our factories are dead and buried, but their families live in the area. They have no job and no income. They rely on the state. It is nonsense to tell them and people in other parts of Scotland to get up and look for a job when nearly 300 to 400 kids chase one job and nearly 4,000 folk chase one job.
  The Secretary of State agrees that people should get up and go. I have always believed in people getting up and going, but there are some folk who cannot possibly get up and go for the job market that the Government have made unavailable to them. In Strathclyde alone, we have lost 50 per cent. of our manufacturing jobs. If we do not have producers, we will have nothing. If there is wholesale slaughter of companies, manufacturers and industry, how will Britain get out of the pit? It will not get out of the pit with the Government. They have no vision to get Britain working again. We provide work
  878
  only by producing and selling goods. The Government have no intention of doing that. They keep trying to shift us into the services market.
  A taxi driver in my constituency drove me to the airport today. He told me about his wife who had a job. Do you know what the job paid, Madam Deputy Speaker? It paid £2 an hour. She was making sweets. I know the company for which she worked. I can take you there any day, Madam Deputy Speaker, and show you people swanning about, guzzling champagne and stuffing themselves with steak, when that wee woman will be lucky to have a bit of cheese and some milk while her husband struggles as a taxi driver. Get up and go—would you get up and go for £2 an hour, Minister? Would his family work for £2 an hour? That is the Minister getting up and going. I am in favour of getting up and going. The Government should provide a minimum wage for workers such as that woman. She wants to work, but not for £2 an hour. She wants to bring her money to help to put bread on the table and put food in her family's belly. Two pounds an hour will not go very far, Minister. Is that the society that you want to create? I could go further.
  I now refer to the iniquitous extension of VAT on fuel to pensioners. Obviously, I know that there are pensioners who have a few quid, but I meet pensioners all the time in my constituency, and I ask them what they had for breakfast, dinner and for what we call tea. It is shocking to hear of the poverty of people in Scotland. I know that that happens all over Britain. When they are told that the Common Market will give us a wee free handout of milk, eggs, butter, cheese and a can of mince, they say to me, "Will it come here, Tommy? It was good the last time." That breaks my heart. Their husbands fought for this country and probably saved it from slavery and fascism, but they now live in poverty that was created by a cringing creature of a Government who are not looking after our people at all. There is too much poverty, yet the Minister says that there is none. I have lived in poverty; I have been unemployed and I know what it is like.
  I know what it is like to sweat because the electricity bill is coming in, and to sweat when I see that my son has holes in his shoes, because my wife or I will have to find the money to buy him new ones. I know what it is like when there is no job available; I have suffered that indignity. I was a fully qualified engineer, but there was no work. I have an older brother who worked for 37 years and had never been unemployed before. He is a design draughtsman, yet he cannot get a job. He is trying everything—further education, the lot—but there is no job for him. I have another brother who suffered unemployment for a long time until he got a job.
  Does the Minister realise what problems that creates in households? Last week in my surgery a woman was breaking her heart because her house had been repossessed and she was desperate to be housed. She and her husband had split up. I asked her what she had done with her money, and apparently her husband worked in a shop, but because of the economic depression and the lack of money in the community his hours were cut and therefore so were his wages.
  Then the man was ill with a stomach problem and his wife spent the money on dietary requirements, which were not subsidised by the national health service. She had put the money in to try to keep her man well, and at the end of the day the mortgage did not get paid and they lost their house. Now they are out of the house and have been

  879
  split up, so there is a huge problem. The man is still in a low-paid job and has been separated from his wife and child because they cannot live in their home and are having to sleep in other people's homes. That is what poverty is, Minister.
  It is all right for the wealthy folk who have a few bob, such as the folk here. When people earn 06,000 a year they can put their hands into their pockets and buy their way out of any trouble. Our folk cannot buy themselves out of trouble. They cannot find the jobs to earn the wages to buy what they need. I shall give one more example. I tell you, Minister—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me, rather than telling the Minister directly?
  Mr. Graham: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Poor diet causes obesity, tooth decay and loss, anaemia, rickets, coronary heart disease, strokes and cancers. I believe that the worst cancer that Britain has had for the past 16 years is the Government. Only through a general election will we able sensibly to get Britain back to work and enable people to earn a wage so that they will not have to live off the state. There are many jobs that need doing in this country. The roads are falling apart, and so are the schools. We need new schools and hospitals, and we need care and attention. I say to the Minister, "Get our folk back to work, and we shall not need to pay so much money to keep folk out of work."
  9.1 pm
  Lady Olga Maitland: As the debate is based on the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's inquiry into income and wealth, I thought that I would devote a few moments to some observations about that foundation as a whole. I entirely endorse what the Secretary of State said at the beginning of the debate when he pointed out what a left-wing bias the foundation has.
  I should have more confidence in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's reports if there were any recognisable right-wing figures among the trustees. Sadly, such people are missing. The foundation will sponsor any number of inquiries into topics dear to its heart, but I should like to see it accept a few propositions put to it by right-wing organisations. Why, for example, did it not examine a paper about the breakdown of the family, or an analysis of family responsibilities? Or am I asking too much?
  I find the report emotive and biased; the foundation is damned if it can recognise good news and it relishes bad news. The report makes the simple claim that the poor have got poorer since 1979, but does not back that up with any hard facts. It is based on figures from the Government publication, "Households Below Average Income", which contains information collected on the basis of samples designed to provide illustrations of spending rather than on the basis of numerically sound income statistics.
  The report is therefore impressionistic, and gives no proof of widespread impoverishment. No allowance is made for the black economy and the report cannot explain why even the very poorest in the bottom tenth of society now have access to a video recorder. It does not distinguish between different types of the poor. For example, there are many more students today than there were in 1979, thanks to the Government's policy of pushing up standards in schools and getting young people
  880
  into further and higher education. Grants have, of course, become more strictly controlled, but a temporary lack of funds does not make students a social problem. After all, students—by virtue of their education—are likely to achieve reasonable prosperity.
  The report makes false assumptions that the very poorest are always the same downtrodden group. That is not so. Some people who were very poor in 1979 are not poor today; I refer particularly to pensioners who, because of higher state pensions and better occupational pensions, have to a large extent improved their position.
  We should look at groups that are held in the benefit trap. Fifteen years ago, 600,000 people collected invalidity benefit. Today 1.6 million people do so. Is there really so much more long-term illness and injury about, or has a culture grown in which living off the state's money is normal and acceptable?
  The same question must be asked about another group—the single, never-married mothers. They make up a significant group, and are bereft of support from the fathers of their children. Those absent and feckless fathers are rightly chased to support the children by the Child Support Agency. The group is interesting because the problems of poverty caused by single parenthood are often of the parents' own making. I have yet to see any mother in the never-married category who has given any thought to planning a structure for her life when mothering a child. What discussions has she ever had about commitment with the father of her child? Nobody can blame the Government for the breakdown of a relationship between a man and a woman.
  I welcome the remarks of the Archbishop of York, Dr. Habgood, who is suggesting that he would support a tax devised to make marriage more attractive, which would thereby bring children within the family circle of parental commitment—above all, the father's commitment—to the family good. I can say only that children always do far better when there are two parents rather than one.
  Let us look at the definition of poverty. The goalposts have moved so significantly that we take comforts for granted today, which we would never have taken for granted 10 or more years ago. Even the one tenth of society at the bottom level have improved their living standards. For example, in 1979, 47 per cent. of people had a telephone, while today the figure is 68 per cent. In 1979, 42 per cent. had central heating. Today, the figure is 70 per cent. When one starts looking at those basic goalposts of poverty to see how things have changed, one understands that the debate has gone off on completely the wrong tack.
  I draw the House's attention to a story in the Daily Mail, which states that the Watters family legitimately claim £18,000 a year in social security handouts. On top of that, they went on a spending spree with almost £7,000 extra that was wrongly sent to them by the Department of Social Security, which is not claiming the money back. The Watters family spent the money on Christmas gifts, including £1,000 on mountain bikes for their children. Some £600 went on a fitted kitchen and new furniture, while £2,000 was spent on a Montego car.
  The Watters family have admittedly been hit by ill-health. Both parents are on disability living allowances, and one of their five children has a groggy knee. But it must be said that while they are unlucky in health, they are fortunate in welfare. Are the poor getting poorer under the Tories, as the Rowntree foundation insists? Ask the

  881
  Watters family, and they will tell another story. Indeed, hard-working taxpayers who heard that story today may be forgiven for wondering whether we have lost our plain common sense. The truth is that that family are a symptom of how far we have gone in generous social benefits and show clearly how the goalposts of poverty have moved.
  In the short time remaining, I shall cite another example of how the definition of poverty has become unreal. The case of Paul and Georgina Stokes was reported in The Daily Telegraph. They provide a good home for their three obviously happy children. Mr. Stokes is a computer technician, who lives with his family on an estate in south-east London on a disposable income of £156.60 a week which, in the view of the Child Poverty Action Group, puts them on the poverty line.
  Let us consider the family's life style. Admittedly, their flat is cramped, but it is warm. The children are well cared for. There is no denying that it is not easy to meet costs each week—it takes planning. After the bills are paid, the couple say that they are lucky if they have £20 or £30 a month for luxuries. Neither drinks or smokes and a luxury might be a Chinese meal once in a while. Mr. Stokes has a car, although it is in his father's garage at present as he cannot afford the running costs, and meanwhile he goes to work on a small motor cycle.
  Last year, life improved sharply for Mr. Stokes when, having been unemployed for two years, he went on a Government retraining scheme and thence into a job. Although he is still reckoned to be on the poverty line, today his children are well clothed and have toys and Pinky, the cat. Using catalogues and hire purchase, the family can afford a stereo system, colour television, fridge, freezer, washing machine and microwave.
  Over and above all that, this Conservative Government have given that family the peace of mind of knowing that the children will grow up certain of a real education—an education with standards, which will get them into further and higher education, to university and into professional life. They have the peace of mind of knowing that they need never worry about hospital bills, unlike families in other countries in the developed world.
  In view of the very prosperous conditions that this Conservative Government have given all the people, this debate on poverty should be revised.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Bill Etherington: One thing is certain—the contribution of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) was a good example of impoverishment of thought, vision and compassion.
  I must also take the Secretary of State for Social Security to task on part of his statement, in which he quoted the percentages of families who have fridge-freezers, washing machines, cars and television sets. He reminds me of the prerequisite for a cynic:
  "A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
  The Secretary of State certainly demonstrated that in that part of his speech.
  If the Secretary of State had wanted to deal with people who are really affected by poverty or impoverishment, he would have considered those who do not have good
  882
  housing or eat well and whose children do not have the best education facilities because of the area in which they live. Those people do not have good transport and cannot afford holidays.
  Despite the roseate glow that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam painted on society, my experience of life with my constituents does not fit in with her philosophy. There are various types of inequality—inequality between people and groups and, perhaps most important, inequality between regions. I speak for a constituency that is the 63rd most impoverished out of 623. All life within the constituency is based on that fact. The inequalities are a result of deliberate Government policy. It is no good the Government saying that they are accidental and that the trickle-down effect does not work.
  Nothing new has come out of the Rowntree report. The truth has probably been obvious for the past seven or eight years to anyone who has been prepared to read about those things, although it has not been put quite as starkly as it is in the report.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) mentioned that deprivation brings about bad health. That does not appear to cause too much concern to the Government, judging from the way in which they treat the health service. A study that was carried out—albeit about two years ago—by the university of Bristol, said that, in the north-east, Easington, which is adjacent to my constituency, and Sunderland were two of the bottom five districts for bad long-term health. That proves that the 15 years of Conservative Government have been a failure for the health of the people in my constituency, and in the region in general.
  Government policy has guaranteed that we shall get low pay in large amounts. The legislative thrust has been for the weakening of trade unions and the abolition of wages councils. The Government's various economic policies have ensured that there has always been a large number of unemployed people, to be used as a threat to other people who were in low-paid employment and therefore would not be in a position to better their conditions.
  It is coincidental that New Zealand was quoted as having a record of disparity of distribution of wealth similar to that of this country. That does not surprise me, because I was talking recently to a chap whom I went to school with—[Interruption.] If the Secretary of State would like to intervene, I am willing to sit down.
  Mr. Lilley: Much of the period covered in New Zealand was under a New Zealand Labour party.
  Mr. Etherington: I accept that, but it certainly does not apply to the 15 years of misery that we have had in this country. The Secretary of State might like to reflect on that.
  Hardly a week goes by without the introduction of a piece of legislation that disadvantages unemployed or sick people or, in some cases, both. Since Christmas, we have had the Jobseekers Bill and legislation to prevent the payment of mortgage interest for unemployed people. Legislation has also been introduced to make things worse for people who are suffering on invalidity benefit. Perhaps worst of all, we have had the Government's revenue support grant estimates, which have decimated the services that local councils can provide, most of which are of benefit to the poor. If one is wealthy, one is not too

  883
  worried if the citizens advice bureaux close or if there are no welfare benefits officers, but if one is poor, that can be one's lifeline to try to bring about a little bit of improvement in one's life.
  It has been shown beyond doubt under the current Government that, every time that there has been a boom, the wealthy have benefited, and every time that we have had a recession, the poor have paid. It is no surprise, therefore, that the gap is opening up between the wealthy and the poor. It is intentional. It is an indictment against the Government and, if they had had anything about them, they would have done something about it many years ago. It may well be that, with the coming general election, the Government might start to show a little bit of compassion, purely to win votes, which is about the measure of them.
  The tax policies that have been carried out have exacerbated the gulf. Every tax policy that has been introduced by the Government, which has helped to direct tax away from direct taxation to indirect taxation, is a bigger burden on the poor and less of a burden on the well-off.
  I shall finish, because I know that time is short and I promised that I would wind up by 9.20 pm. The Secretary of State mentioned the back-to-work bonus three times. I cannot help being slightly cynical about that, because it reminds me of the story that I once read in which there was a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow. The problem is that the Secretary of State does not recognise that most people are busy trying to find the rainbow, and there is no chance of their finding the crock of gold until they find the rainbow.
  I am pleased that we are now receiving more publicity for the results of the dreadful policies pursued for many years by this deplorable Conservative Government. The sooner that we have a general election to get rid of the present Government, the better.
  The Government have made the mistake of assuming that economic success will lead to a successful society. They have not learnt the lessons that everyone should have learnt from the failures of the Webb policies. I am pleased that my hon. Friends on our Front Bench are listening attentively. It will not be enough to get rid of unemployment and get the economy moving a bit better. Something radical must be done about a proper redistribution of wealth, to get rid of the comparative poverty that is becoming worse daily.
  9.19 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: This debate has shown clearly that the Tory Government have presided over growing divisions. But it has also shown that they are not prepared to address the problems that they have helped to create. So we have a divided Tory party, a divided Cabinet and now a divided nation.
  The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report highlighted two principal causes of the growing divide: long-term unemployment and low pay. The Tory Government will act on neither, because they are locked into the ideology that wealth will trickle down from a privileged elite to the rest of Britain, that inequality is essential for economic efficiency, and that the free market and deregulation will ensure prosperity for all.
  It has been made clear in this debate that making the rich richer has not made the poor better off. The Government cannot deal with poverty and inequality by
  884
  waiting for wealth to trickle down. They must take action to attack poverty and inequality at their source, which must mean dealing with long-term unemployment and low pay.
  Not only are the Tories a divided party with a divided Cabinet presiding over a divided nation, but some of them seem to be divided even in their own minds. For instance, the Secretary of State for Social Security clearly has two voices inside his head. The one we heard tonight tells him that everything is fine, but the other tells him that the earnings gap is growing. In a speech that he made in Ulster, which was very different from what he told the House tonight, he said:
  "Over the last couple of decades, although average earnings have grown strongly, the differentials have widened.
  This widening of earnings differentials lies behind or is intertwined with many of our social problems … the break up of families, the growth of lone parenthood and a growing welfare dependency."
  He went on:
  "It may even play a part in explaining delinquency and crime".
  Outside this House, he can accept the facts of growing inequality and recognise the social and economic consequences of growing inequality, but he will do nothing about them, because the Tories are locked into an ideology which, even where it does not prevent them from observing the problems, prevents them from doing anything about them.
  The divisions were spelt out in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's chilling report. Those problems demand action. Those on low pay struggle to survive, working harder and harder just to stand still. The experience of millions of families is summed up by the words of a man to whom I spoke in Islwyn:
  "We feel like we are running up the down escalator … every time we try and get ahead … we are pulled back down"
  or the woman in my constituency of Peckham, who said:
  "My husband works all hours that God sends … he's always exhausted but we've still got no money at the end of the month."
  Does the Minister accept that low pay is a problem for those people?
  Low pay is a problem for people trapped on benefit who cannot go out to work, because the only job that they could get would make them worse off than if they stayed on benefit. It is also a problem for the public purse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, employers who pay low wages leave the taxpayer to pick up the bill in family credit and housing benefit.
  I challenge the Minister to admit, when he winds up the debate, that, according to his figures, 75,000 people receive less than £1.50 after an hour's work. I shall give way to him if he will seek to justify the fact that, in this country and this day and age, people work for £1.50 an hour or less.
  Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady should bear it in mind that, although the £2 a hour she quotes is low, only four workers in 1,000 get paid less than £2.90 a hour. We would all like people to be paid more, but it has to be sustainable and based on the productivity and efficiency of the economy. Unfortunately, just to impose a minimum wage by political diktat would merely replace low pay with no pay for hundreds of thousands of people.
  Ms Harman: The Minister's response has done two things. He has sought to defend the indefensible and say

  885
  that £1.50 is acceptable, and he has suggested that all the Tories can offer is the choice between £1.50 or no job. What a testimony to economic failure that is.
  Mr. Lilley: Will the hon. Lady tell us what she considers the minimum wage ought to be?
  Ms Harman: I was expecting the Secretary of State to get up and ask that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] If hon. Members will get back into their prams for a moment, I shall reply.
  The difference between us and the Conservatives is not that we want one level of minimum wage and they want another, but that we consider that low pay is a disgrace, and that there should be a floor under wages.
  When Ministers tell us what the level of national insurance will be after the next election, if they win it, or the level of taxes or other benefits, it will be reasonable for them to ask us what the minimum wage would be. It is a sign of their desperation that the only way to avoid justifying their figures and their appalling record is to continue asking us questions that we have said we will decide at the time of the next election.
  Low pay is a problem, and it is getting worse. There are now more people on low pay than there were in 1980. While the gap between the low-paid and the rest has been getting smaller in many other European countries, here in Britain the gap between the low-paid and the rest has been growing.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I agree with her that low pay carries with it enormous problems for households and for the public purse. If she believes that there is a minimum wage that in principle would be high enough to alleviate poverty satisfactorily and to attract people into work who at the moment are discouraged from working, but not so high that it would discourage employers from offering jobs, I do not ask her to tell me what it is, let alone what it will be when the next general election comes, but on what principles and by what methodology she would establish what it should be.
  Ms Harman: We see the minimum wage as part of our welfare-to-work strategy, so that there is a floor under wages and the in-work benefits are used to top up wages as an incentive for people to go from benefits into work, whereas at present in-work benefits are being used to top up the bottomless pit of low wages.
  Of course it is possible to have a floor under wages, and it has been done in every other country. Britain is the odd one out. Other countries have been able to have a minimum wage, and better records of job creation.
  The Government are against a minimum wage, because they do not care about low pay, and they are crying crocodile tears when they say that they are worried about the effects of low pay. While we condemn the growing divide, the Tories excuse it. Sir Iain Valiance, the chairman of British Telecom, earns at least £180 a hour, following the privatisation of BT, while a security guard in Rotherham earns £1.80. [HON. MEMBERS: "So what?"] Conservative Members say, "So what?", but they always excuse top pay and perks. They never condemn them or act to stop them. They are always on the side of privilege and never on the side of people.
  886
  As for young people at work, there is no evidence that the low pay they receive will improve as they get older. They are stuck in a low-skill, low-pay trap with no prospects.
  Professor Patrick Minford, spokesman for the Tory right, was on the radio again this morning. He was echoed by the hon. Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth), who spoke earlier in the debate. Professor Minford said that inequality does not matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and Government Members agree. According to Professor Minford, all that matters is keeping people out of absolute poverty and deprivation. But that is not all that matters. Society must work together so that everyone has a stake in the future and is part of future economic prosperity.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made that point very powerfully, using the analogy of society as a moving train. He said that the fourth carriage has become unhitched from the rest of the train and is being left behind. Society is not working if thousands of people face only worsening prospects while others are better off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) showed in her forensic dissection of the Government's figures, absolute poverty matters as much as relative poverty. The plight of the poorest 10 per cent. of the population is worsening.
  Professor Minford and Government Members ask why we are against huge pay rises and perks. Professor Minford says, "Why not reward success?" He says that we should reward those who bring joy into our homes. But the directors of privatised utilities do not bring joy into our homes. What is he talking about? As the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) recognise, their only achievement is to award themselves millions of pounds in pay and perks, while telling those who work for them that they have to "act responsibly" and see their pay fall or lose their jobs.
  We believe that there must be fair taxation. Why should company directors receive thousands of pounds by way of executive share options, while everyone else pays more tax? Huge pay and perks are not about rewarding for success; they are about some getting super-rich on the backs of everyone else.
  The Tories say that low pay will cure unemployment. We say that low pay and unemployment go hand in hand. In the poorer areas of this country, we see low pay and unemployment—the twin symptoms of Tory economic failure. Every month, the Tories greet the headline claimant count unemployment figures with a blanket of complacency, They say that things are looking up, and that unemployment is no longer a problem. They accuse Labour of simply talking the country down. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who says that?"] Government Members say that—those opposite obviously have worse cognitive dissidence problems than we thought.
  Every time that Ministers tell the people of this country that everything is all right—as they have done tonight—they confirm people's absolute certainty that the Government are out of touch and do not care. They reinforce people's sense of despair.
  Unemployment remains a major problem—it is a problem for those who are locked out of the labour market, and it is also a problem for those who are in work.

  887
  They feel insecure, and they worry that each pay cheque might be their last. Of course unemployment is worse than the claimant count describes.
  There are pockets of structural unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) spoke about the problems of unemployment in his constituency. One in three people on Merseyside are unemployed, and two out of every three young black men in London are unemployed. It is no good telling those people to wait until the economy grows, and then the benefits will reach them. They will not. Structural unemployment must be addressed by specific measures.
  For example, the Government should establish a national child-care strategy for single parents who want to go out to work instead of bringing up their children on benefit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) said, there is a simple choice: the Government can provide child care or pay the income support bill for women who cannot go out to work, and who are condemned to bring up their children on the breadline.
  To deal with unemployment, the Government must also act on the lack of skills among the unemployed. What a joke that the Government say in their amendment to our motion that they are improving skills in this country. They have failed on youth training. The figures show that it is not working, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) said. They are also cutting training. They have cut the number of places on the training for work scheme by 55,000. They fail to understand the strong connection between long-term unemployment and inability to get a job.
  People with low skills or no skills are the first to lose their jobs, and they take the longest to find a job. That is why it is a particular disgrace that the Government have cut down on the 21-hour rule. Instead of extending the hours that one can study before benefit is cut for an unemployed person, they are reducing them. One can now study for no more than 16 hours before one's benefit is cut.
  That is throwing an obstacle in the path of people who want to study, to improve their skills and qualifications and improve their chances of getting back to work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) said tonight, it is a kick in the teeth for people who want to get skills and want to get on.
  Of course international factors such as global competition and technological change have affected the labour market, but the Government could do one of three things: nothing, make things better and ameliorate the problems, or do what they have done—make things worse. They stand guilty of failing to act on unemployment. Unemployment is not a price worth paying. It is a problem not just for the unemployed but for the whole community. It is also a problem for the public purse.
  In the face of that, however, the Conservatives have resorted to their instinct to blame the victim. The single effect of the jobseeker's allowance is that it will make the unemployed poorer. It will produce not one extra job. Not one person will find work as a result of it. It will simply make people worse off.
  What question do the Government now seek to ask the unemployed when they go to claim benefit? What
  888
  question is in the forefront of the Government's mind? The booklet that will be given to unemployed people—they will be asked to fill it in—asks:
  "What is the lowest wage you are willing to work for?"
  That is the question that the Government choose to ask the unemployed. Of course, they had better give the right answer, or they will get no benefit at all. There is a clear message in that question: there is now no bottom line; whatever an employer is prepared to offer is what one must be prepared to accept.
  I ask the Minister to tell us tonight: what is the amount that one can put in that box without losing one's benefit? What is the bottom line? That is a question that he is asking unemployed people. He should be prepared to answer in the House tonight. Of course, there is only one point in asking that question. It is a green light for employers to offer lower and lower wages, and the public will be left to foot the bill, because if employers do not pay the wages, the taxpayer will have to pay—in family credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit.
  No doubt the Government will say, as they always do, that all Labour proposals mean extra public spending, but let me remind Ministers that they promised to cut public spending, but they did not. Instead, they spend more and more on the consequences of economic failure: unemployment, crime and poverty. They have spent less and less as a percentage of our national wealth on the things that would bring economic and social renewal, the things that are investing in the future. The Government have not cut public spending: they have spent more and more on mopping up the consequences of their own economic and social failure.
  Howard Davies, the director of the CBI, said:
  "At present, far too much of our public spending is devoted to compensating for the effects of failure, rather than investing in the ingredients of success."
  Of course, low pay is a growing problem for the public purse as well. Family credit has become a subsidy for low pay rather than help for large families. As the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) pointed out, its cost has more than doubled in just four years, and that cost will double again. The Government are topping up what is turning out to be a bottomless pit of low pay. They are turning a blind eye to low pay and making the taxpayers pick up the bill, and the taxpayers will not stand for it.
  We firmly believe in a welfare-to-work strategy that uses the benefit system as an incentive to put people into work rather than paying them to stay out of work, but the public purse cannot go on topping up low pay indefinitely. There must be a floor under wages: there must be a national minimum wage. The failure of Tory economic and social policy has scarred millions of people, destroying communities and holding Britain back.
  People in this country do not want to see growing divisions, rising crime and the poverty and alienation that come with a divided Britain. They do not want to see their taxes constantly mopping up the consequences of the Government's failure, never building for the future. People in this country want a nation at work, not a nation on benefits; they want a nation of people working together, not growing apart. That is why we tabled the motion, and we shall vote for it tonight.
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): I am grateful for the chance to reply to today's debate. I listened carefully to nearly all the speeches—I was sorry to miss one or two—and particularly enjoyed that by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), which I thought extremely thought provoking. I also enjoyed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), which dealt very effectively with the flaws in many parts of the Rowntree report, and especially effectively with the issue of trade.
  I was interested by what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who was particularly enlightening about the relationship between vegetable consumption and the birth rate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) also made a number of good points. I hope that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will forgive me if I say that, although I did not agree with everything in his speech, I thought it balanced. I think that most Conservative Members enjoyed it and found it enlightening.
  I particularly welcome the opportunity to debate the key issue of the relationship between unemployment and poverty. The debate has shown the complexity of the issues involved in any sensible discussion of the subject. It is, I think, fair to say that all of us—regardless of party—would like to see the incomes and living standards of all our people rise. Later in my speech I shall examine the Government's policies in that regard—and, of course, the Opposition's—but, first, I shall dwell briefly on the Rowntree report, which has been widely quoted and occasionally even misquoted. Like most good reports, it rewards careful reading.
  One of the less well-reported aspects of the study is the fact that, in 1979, of the bottom 10 per cent. of the population, one third were pensioners, compared to only 12 per cent. now. Since 1979, average pensioner incomes have increased faster than those of the remaining households—a point that was made very effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere. Perhaps Opposition Members should also examine more closely the passage and graph relating to the growth of income inequality: it is interesting, because it shows that the growth in inequality began not in 1979 but in 1976, fully three years before Mrs. Thatcher came to power.
  We have heard much today about the growth in poverty, which was mentioned by the hon. Members for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) and for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). It is worth pointing out that the basis for the claim that poverty has grown is the so-called European decency threshold—three words that probably cause tremors in the spines of most of my hon. Friends; they are pretty bad individually, but together they are devastating. The threshold was introduced in 1977, and currently assesses the poverty line for Britain at nearly £12,000 a year. That level of income would not be recognised as poverty by most people. That is why no European Government have accepted the definition, and why the previous Labour Government did not accept it when it was introduced in 1977.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Oppenheim: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will let me get on for a minute and then I shall let him intervene.
  890
  The report talks about the polarisation between households with two earners and other households, but it also shows that participation in the labour market by women from low-income households has been catching up with participation by those from high-income households, and that women's pay is now closer to men's pay than at any time in our history.
  One important facet of the Rowntree report, however, should, and does, concern all hon. Members. It rightly points out that the growth of unemployment is one of the main causes of poverty. We must not duck that issue. If I were in opposition, however, I would not take too much comfort from that, as people have not forgotten that the Labour Government doubled unemployment in the five years they were in power. Unemployment rose at a faster rate between 1974 and 1979 than it has since 1979. The Labour Government's record on unemployment was worse than that of the European Community as a whole, whereas now we are doing considerably better.
  Ms Harman: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that unemployment is still almost 1 million higher than it has ever been under any post-war Labour Government, that long-term unemployment remains at almost 1 million and that the United Kingdom is the only Group of Seven country that has had no rise in employment since 1979? In short, will he start telling the truth, instead of just covering the argument with lies?
  Mr. Oppenheim: I thought that the hon. Lady had made her speech earlier. She should recognise that, when the Labour party was in power, Britain's record on unemployment was significantly worse than that of the European Community as a whole, whereas now we are doing better.
  I would be the first to admit that unemployment is still far too high in Britain, as it was when the Labour party was in power; but let us not forget that, if some panacea existed for the problem, which afflicts almost the whole of the industrialised west, France and Italy would not be suffering from unemployment rates of close to 12 per cent., nearly a third higher than in Britain.
  Equally important, Britain has not only fewer people out of work, but far more people in work. In Britain, more than two in three of the adult population—
  Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Oppenheim: I shall make a deal with the hon. Gentleman: if he will sit down for a few minutes and stop making those animal noises, I shall do my best, if he sits still—
  Mr. Graham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not made any animal noises. That is an insult.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The occupant of the Chair did not hear any.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am extremely fond of animals.
  Mr. MacShane: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Oppenheim: If the hon. Gentleman relaxes for a minute or two, I shall give way to him in a minute.
  In Britain, more than two in three of our adult population are in work—a higher figure than in Germany and far higher than in Italy or France. The figure is

  891
  certainly far higher than the figure in socialist Spain, with its highly regulated labour market and national minimum wage, where less than half the population are in work, and where nearly a quarter are unemployed.
  Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the Minister, to whom I gave way twice for very lengthy interventions. The pontificator maximus has arrived—wonderful, here he is. No Opposition Member mentioned the European decency level. We are Europeans and he is not very decent. but I suggest that he make his speech in Rotherham, and that he tell the people there that no poverty exists and that unemployment is not a problem—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister should be allowed to make his speech to the House.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for his intervention. He was good enough to give way to me twice in his half-hour speech and I appreciated that.
  The only way we shall create more secure, high-quality jobs for all our people is if our economy is a success. Whereas in the 1960s and 1970s we were consistently bottom or near the bottom of the league of major industrial countries on growth in manufacturing productivity, industrial output, inflation and manufacturing output, in the 1980s—and since then—we have been at least as good as the G7 average and, in the case of manufacturing productivity growth, as good as the best. That is why, while productivity and real pay stagnated at all levels from 1974 to 1979, the massive rise in productivity since 1979 has allowed for a large rise in real take-home pay at all levels.
  A single man in the bottom 10 per cent. of earnings has seen a real increase of 23 per cent. in his take-home pay since 1979; the same person would have seen a fall of 1 per cent. under the previous Labour Government. Under Labour, the rich got poorer, but the poor did not get any richer.
  Mr. Graham rose—
  Mr. Oppenheim: I must make progress.
  Mr. Graham: He is a big fearty.
  Mr. Oppenheim: That is not a description that my hon. Friends would recognise.
  Anyone who pretends that there is an easy, painless panacea is perpetrating a cynical con on the less well-off. This seems to be a good point at which to examine the Opposition's policies. How would they help the unemployed and reduce poverty? They have a policy—it is called the minimum wage. We know that because, on 5 January, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) proudly trumpeted it in a letter to Labour group leaders. Unfortunately, she cannot tell us at what level Labour would introduce the minimum wage, whether there would be different levels for young workers and trainees or what it would do about differentials. If the hon. Lady is now going to enlighten the House, I shall gladly give way.
  Ms Harman: Will the Minister answer this question:
  "What is the lowest wage you are willing to work for?"
  That is the question that he is asking the unemployed. What is the bottom line?
  Mr. Oppenheim: I shall give the hon. Lady the answer. The answer is that people will not have to accept
  892
  wages any lower than they had in their previous job. I have answered the hon. Lady's question; will she now answer mine? I see that she is not prepared to do so.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must settle down. The Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Oppenheim: Although I have answered the hon. Lady's question, she will not answer mine.
  Let us see what other Labour supporters have to say about the minimum wage. Baroness Castle backed a report which concluded that the higher the minimum wage, the greater the increase in unemployment, which is why she did not introduce one. John Grant wrote recently in The Guardian that it was a "pious hope" to expect better-paid workers not to want to maintain differentials—and he was the low-pay Minister under the previous Labour Government.
  Only a few months ago, Lord Healey said:
  "Don't kid yourselves—the minimum wage is something on which unions will build differentials … therefore the minimum wage becomes a floor on which you erect a new tower".
  The deputy leader of the Labour party said:
  "A minimum wage would cost jobs—any fool knows that".
  Well, apparently, only some fools have groped their way to that enlightenment. At least the deputy leader of the Labour party has spelled out his economic policy, which is:
  "Society should tolerate relative inefficiency in labour intensive sectors".
  In other words, local authorities should be able to employ more low-skilled staff.
  Let us briefly refresh our memories about the performance of those local Labour authorities, which will play such a large part in Labour's job creation plans, with the words of Mr. Leo McKinstry, who was the political researcher of the hon. Member for Peckham and a former Labour councillor. He said:
  "I could see only too clearly the spirit of Labour in local government—that mean-minded cocktail of political correctness, bureaucracy, intervention and abuse of public money—pervaded the whole party".
  Let us add that to the shadow Chancellor's pronouncements:
  "Our new economic approach … is rooted in the world of economic ideas, ideas which stress the growing importance … and the growth of post neo-classical endogenous growth theory and symbiotic relationships."
  There we have a crystal-clear vision of where Labour wants Britain to go. The deputy leader wants a nation of low-skilled public corporation workers and the shadow Chancellor—well, no one is quite sure what he wants.
  I quite understand that Labour would prefer to be coy about its policies. It says that it wants a minimum wage, but can tell us nothing about the level or differentials. It says that it wants to clobber the high-paid, but cannot tell us to what level it would raise the top rate of tax. It seems enamoured of the Rowntree report, but cannot tell us how many of that report's 20 recommendations it would implement and what it would cost.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Oppenheim: I am told that there is a Labour party publication entitled "Women Today", which recently held a competition which said:
  "Win a day in Parliament. All you have to do is say in no more than 100 words what the policies and priorities of a Labour Government would be."
  We will just have to wait until those good ladies have returned their answers before we can have some clear Labour policy.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Oppenheim: In the meantime, let us refresh our memory about the Labour Government's record on equality and fairness. Under Labour, while real earnings for the majority stagnated, one group did very well indeed.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Graham: He is a fearty.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is fairly obvious that the Minister is not giving way.
  Mr. Oppenheim: I am not sure what a fearty is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it a parliamentary expression or not? I seek your guidance.
  One group did very well under the last Labour Government—those able to exploit their industrial muscle to secure the largest possible pay increases, while weaker groups, such as pensioners, looked on helplessly as the resulting inflationary binge destroyed their savings.
  Let us not forget that, in the 1970s, pensioners formed a far higher proportion of the bottom 10 per cent. of households than they now do, and although two thirds of unemployed people now get a job within six months and can move out of that bottom group, once those pensioners, under Labour, were in that bottom 10 per cent., they were stuck there, watching doomed as Labour's policies ate into their life savings.
  We all agree that unemployment is one of the main problems that we face. Regardless of party, we all want to see people enjoying a better standard of living. The question is how to achieve that. We say improve training, boost productivity, so that employers can afford to pay people more on a sustainable basis. Labour says put up wages regardless of productivity. That would simply replace low pay with no pay. Since our economy is so much more productive now than it was in 1979, real pay has risen at all levels in contrast to the record under Labour, when both pay and productivity stagnated. That was the time when Britain risked becoming a low-wage skivvy economy—not under this Government, but under the last Labour Government.
  We have heard a great deal of loose talk from Labour Members and there has been much use of the word "obscenity". I shall tell the House what is obscene. It is obscene for politicians to pretend to the less well-off that there is some easy, painless route to higher pay. It is obscene for the Opposition to have spent three years since the last election without telling people at what level they would introduce the minimum wage, what they would do about differentials and whether they would have a differential rate for young workers or for trainees. It is obscene for the Opposition to pretend that the minimum wage in other countries, such as the Netherlands, Belgium and France, has not resulted in unemployment levels that are two or three times the UK level. It is obscene for them
  894
  to deny that a minimum wage would cost jobs. I urge the House to support the Government amendment.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 291.

  Division No. 72]

  [9.58 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dobson, Frank

  Ainger, Nick

  Dowd, Jim

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Allen, Graham

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Alton, David

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Eastham, Ken

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Enright, Derek

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Etherington, Bill

  Ashton, Joe

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Barnes, Harry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Battle, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Bayley, Hugh

  Flynn, Paul

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Beggs, Roy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Foulkes, George

  Bell, Stuart

  Fraser, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Galbraith, Sam

  Benton, Joe

  Galloway, George

  Bermingham, Gerald

  George, Bruce

  Berry, Roger

  Gerrard, Neil

  Betts, Clive

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Blunkett, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Boateng, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Boyes, Roland

  Gordon, Mildred

  Bradley, Keith

  Graham, Thomas

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

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

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Byers, Stephen

  Gunnell, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Hall, Mike

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hanson, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Hardy, Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Harvey, Nick

  Cann, Jamie

  Henderson, Doug

  Chidgey, David

  Heppell, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Church, Judith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Clelland, David

  Home Robertson, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cohen, Harry

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Janner, Greville

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

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  895

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Tessa

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Keen, Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Khabra, Piara S

  Radice, Giles

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Randall, Stuart

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Redmond, Martin

  Lewis, Terry

  Reid, Dr John

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rendel, David

  Litherland, Robert

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rogers, Allan

  Loyden, Eddie

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Rooney, Terry

  McAllion, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCartney, Ian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McFall, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKelvey, William

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Short, Clare

  Maclennan, Robert

  Simpson, Alan

  McMaster, Gordon

  Skinner, Dennis

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  MacShane, Denis

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

  McWilliarn, John

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Madden, Max

  Snape, Peter

  Maddock, Diana

  Soley, Clive

  Mahon, Alice

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mandelson, Peter

  Speller, 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

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Milburn, Alan

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Timms, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Tipping, Paddy

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Tyler, Paul

  Morley, Elliot

  Vaz, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Wallace, James

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Walley, Joan

  Mudie, George

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  mullin, Chris

  Watson, Mike

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Brien, Wiliam (Normanton)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Worthington, Tony

  Olner, Bill

  Wray, Jimmy

  O'Neil, Martin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Pearson, Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pendry, Tom

  Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Pickthall, Colin

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baldry, Tony

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bates, Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Bendell, Vivian

  Ashby, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Atkins, Robert

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  896

  Booth, Hartley

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gil, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Bright Sir Graham

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Hague, William

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butcher, John

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Butler, Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Haselhurst Alan

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cash, William

  Hayes, Jerry

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Churchill, Mr

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Colvin, Michael

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Congdon, David

  Horam, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

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

  Couchman, James

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

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

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Jack, Michael

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Delvin, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dicks, Terry

  Jessel, Toby

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Duncan, Alan

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dunn, Bob

  Key, Robert

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knapman, Roger

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

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

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evennett, David,

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Faber, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Legg, Barry

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Leigh, Edward

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Forman, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Lord, Michael

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Luff, Peter

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  MacKay, Andrew

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Maclean, David

  Gale, Roger

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gallie, Phil

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Madel, Sir David

  897

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  Malone, Gerald

  Sims, Roger

  Mans, Keith

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Marland, Paul

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Marlow, Tony

  Soames, Nicholas

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Mates, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  Merchant, Piers

  Sproat Iain

  Mills, Iain

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Stephen, Michael

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Stern, Michael

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Stewart Allan

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Streeter, Gary

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Sweeney, Walter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Sykes, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Norris, Steve

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Page, Richard

  Tracey, Richard

  Paice, James

  Tredinnick, David

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Trend, Michael

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Trotter, Neville

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Pawsey, James

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Pickles, Eric

  Viggers, Peter

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Walden, George

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Waller, Gary

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Richards, Rod

  Watts, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Wells, Bowen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whitney, Ray

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew(Mid Kent)

  Willetts, David

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Wood, Timothy

  Sackville, Tom

  Yeo, Tim

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. David Lightbown.

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put Forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.30 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 251.

  Division No.73]

  [10.14 pm

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Amess, David

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Ashby, David

  898

  Atkins, Robert

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Baldry, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Bates, Michael

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Bellingham, Henry

  French, Douglas

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Gallie, Phil

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Booth, Hartley

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Boswell, Tim

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowis, John

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Gorst, Sir John

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hague, William

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burns, Simon

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Burt, Alistair

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butler, Peter

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Harris, David

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Churchill, Mr

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hicks, Robert

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

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

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Couchman, James

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

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

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Hurt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jack, Michael

  Day, Stephen

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Devlin, Tim

  Jessel, Toby

  Dicks, Terry

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Duncan, Alan

  Kelett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Key, Robert

  Dunn Bob

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knapman, Roger

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Elletson, Harold

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

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

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Faber, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fabricant, Michael

  Legg, Barry

  899

  Leigh, Edward

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Lennox Boyd, Sir Mark

  Sackville, Tom

  Lidington, David

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lightbown, David

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Pater (Fareham)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lord, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Luff, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Shersby, Michael

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sims, Roger

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Madel, Sir David

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Malone, Gerald

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mans, Keith

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marland, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Marlow, Tony

  Sproat, Iain

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marshal, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Stewart, Allan

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Streeter, Gary

  Merchant, Piers

  Sweeney, Walter

  Mills, Iain

  Sykes, John

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thomason, Roy

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Tredinnick, David

  Norris, Steve

  Trend, Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Trotter, Neville

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ottaway, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Page, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Paice, James

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon Willam

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Walden, George

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waller, Gary

  Pawsey, James

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pickles, Eric

  Waterson, Nigel

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Watts, John

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Wells, Bowen

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Whitney, Ray

  Rathbone, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Richards, Rod

  Wilkinson, John

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Yeo, Tim

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. David Willetts.

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Ashton, Joe

  Ainger, Nick

  Austin-Walker, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Alton, David

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  900

  Bell, Stuart

  Gordon, Mildred

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Graham, Thomas

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Benton, Joe

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Berry, Roger

  Grocott, Bruce

  Betts, Clive

  Gunnel, John

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Hall, Mike

  Blunkett, David

  Hanson, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Hardy, Peter

  Boyes, Roland

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Bradley, Keith

  Harvey, Nick

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Henderson, Doug

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

  Heppell, John

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Burden, Richard

  Hinchliffe, David

  Byers, Stephen

  Hodge, Margaret

  Caborn, Richard

  Hoey, Kate

  Callaghan, Jim

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Home Robertson, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cann, Jamie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Chidgey, David

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoyle, Doug

  Church, Judith

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Clelland, David

  Hutton, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Coffey, Ann

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cohen, Harry

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Janner, Greville

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jowell, Tessa

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Darling, Alistair

  Keen, Alan

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

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

  Khabra, Piara S

  Denham, John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dewar, Donald

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Dixon, Don

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Dobson, Frank

  Lewis, Terry

  Dowd, Jim

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Litherland, Robert

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Eastham, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Enright, Derek

  Loyden, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McAllion, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McCartney, Ian

  Fatchett, Derek

  Macdonald, Calum

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McFall, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McKelvey, William

  Flynn, Paul

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maclennan, Robert

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Foulkes, George

  McNamara, Kevin

  Fraser, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Fyfe, Maria

  McWilliam, John

  Galbraith, Sam

  Madden, Max

  Galloway, George

  Maddock, Diana

  George, Bruce

  Mahon, Alice

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Golding, Mrs Lin

  Martlew, Eric

  901

  Maxton, John

  Rooney, Terry

  Meacher, Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Meale, Alan

  Ruddock, Joan

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Milburn, Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Short, Clare

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Simpson, Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

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

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Snape, Peter

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Soley, Clive

  Mudie, George

  Spearing, Nigel

  Mullin, Chris

  Speller,John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Stevenson, George

  O'Hara, Edward

  Stott, Roger

  Olner,Bill

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  O'Neil, Martin

  Straw, Jack

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pendry,Tom

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Timms, Stephen

  Pike, Peter L

  Tipping, Paddy

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Vaz, Keith

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wallace, James

  Purchase, Ken

  Walley, Joan

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Radice, Giles

  Watson, Mike

  Randal, Stuart

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Redmond, Martin

  Wiliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Reid, Dr John

  Worthington, Tony

  Rendel, David

  Wray, Jimmy

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rogers, Allan

  Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Dennis Turner.

  Rooker, Jeff

  Question accordingly agreed to
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the fact that the vast majority of people are significantly better off today than in 1979, and notes, in particular, that the average pensioner is now more than 50 per cent. better off; approves the Government's policy of ensuring that social security spending does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay while focusing resources on those who need it most; applauds the fact that the Government has channelled an extra £1 billion a year to low income families, and an even greater sum to poorer pensioners, since 1988; welcomes the high priority accorded by the Government to education and training; recognises that employment is the best route to higher incomes, and commends the package of work incentives, including the child care disregard and the Back to Work Bonus, which the Government has introduced; applauds the Government's achievement in reducing unemployment by over half a million since 1992 and notes the fact that a national minimum wage would increase unemployment; and deplores the Opposition's failure to reveal the level of their national minimum wage, how they would deal with differentials, their social security policies and their costs.

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I propose to put together the Questions on the 10 rating and valuation motions.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

  RATING AND VALUATION
  That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
  That the draft Electricity Distribution Lands (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
  That the draft Electricity Generation Lands (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
  That the draft Electricity Generators (Aluminium) (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
  That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
  That the draft Electricity Transmission Lands (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
  That the draft Formula Valuation (Revocations) (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
  That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
  That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.
  That the draft British Gas plc. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved,—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act—[Mfr. Bates]
  10.29pm
  Mr. David Jamieson: I ampleased to be able to speak for a few moments on this money order. I am also pleased that a number of Ministers have seen fit to come here to welcome the order.
  The order has come before the House because it is required for my private Member's Bill on safety in activity centres. It demonstrates the commitment of both sides of the House to the measures contained in the Bill. I do not wish to detain the House unduly, but I seek a few reassurances about the funding of the legislation.
  Since the Bill's Second Reading on 27 January, a number of further causes for concern have arisen. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will avail themselves, if they have not already done so, of a copy of the Radio 4 programme, "Face the Facts", broadcast last week, which uncovered the activities of Mr. Christopher Reynard and the fact that the literature for his outdoor activity centre was full of bogus claims of accreditation. That is further evidence of the need for the Bill. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of a case that came to light last week of another man who has given out bogus certificates of accreditation for leadership and has now received three months' imprisonment for his criminal activities in that regard.
  I make those points because, despite the Lyme bay trial, the considerable publicity that my Bill has had and all that has been said and done, some centres and providers still have a cavalier attitude to decent standards of safety for children in activity centres. The attitude of sales before safety will continue until it is stopped by the Bill.
  The funds within the order are required to implement the Bill. The sums needed are modest but extremely important, and I seek one or two assurances from the Minister. Funds are needed to pump-prime the whole scheme, although I accept—I believe that the Government also accept—that, ultimately, the accreditation scheme for safety in outdoor activity centres contained in the Bill should be self-financing. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and say whether sufficient pump-priming money will be available? That money is needed to set up the licensing body and inspection scheme. Some funding will be needed to advertise the accreditation scheme, because accurate information is required by parents and teachers. Most of all, informative and accurate literature, rather than the misleading information currently being distributed by some providers, is needed for consumers.
  I hope that the Minister will say tonight that funds will be available in sufficient quantity and over a sufficient period to ensure full implementation of the Bill. The modest funding required by the Bill is a small price to pay for parents' peace of mind.
  10.33 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) on his private Member's Bill and on the initiative that he has taken. It will affect the position not only in England and Wales but in Scotland, where we face a massive local government reorganisation.
  In my area, Strathclyde regional council, which covers a population of more than 2 million, will be split into 12 or 13 local authorities. At the time of the local government reorganisation, the Government's sentiments were that quality of provision and financial resources would be maintained. Alas, over the past 12 months we have learnt that that guarantee will no longer be provided and the birth of the new unitary authorities will be accompanied by a severity of financial resources.
  The need, therefore, for a commitment from the Government to finance for outdoor activity centres in Scotland, as in England and Wales, is urgent and their commitment to the inspection and accreditation schemes is important. The Government have been very good at providing citizens charters in the past. What I would like to see accompanying the Bill would be a safety charter for young people so that it is in writing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little from the money order that we are debating.
  Mr. McFall: I will return to the need for money. If the proper finance is not provided, it will be a hollow 13ill. Given the tragedies that have occurred in the past and the initiative from my hon. Friend, it would be a travesty. The need for the Government to be up front and say that finance will accompany the Bill is urgent and important, not just for right hon. and hon. Members but for the thousands of young people who will use the centres in the coming months and years.
  10.35 pm
  The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): I am happy to provide the assurances that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), the promoter of Bill, has requested.
  We know that the activity centres would have to pay a fee to a licensing authority to cover the cost of licensing and we assume, not unreasonably, that there would be a joining fee and an annual fee. Most of the centres may also have to incur costs by making improvements following the inspections that would be part of the regime in the hon. Gentleman's Bill.
  I accept that the Government would incur costs, perhaps at the margin—we do not yet know—in a pump-priming mode, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, in the first two or three years to get the scheme off the ground; after that, however, we hope that it would become self-financing.
  The level of fees and the way in which they would be payable would depend on the precise details to be specified in the regulations which would follow if the Bill receives parliamentary approval, following consultation, as we agreed on Second Reading. We would want to consult thoroughly on matters such as appropriate frequency of inspection, the number of inspectors, what

  905
  is to be inspected and how, the activities to be covered, the nature and details of the licensing authority and the mode of inspection.
  We envisage that the number of inspectors would be in the tens and not the hundreds, and that fees would be in the low hundreds of pounds, not thousands, to give it a framework or perspective.
  Subject to consultation on all those matters, we envisage that initial pump-priming moneys would be made available, subject to the details being worked out about the precise nature of the licensing, the fees payable and so on, but at this stage I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he requested in the spirit that he requested them and I hope that the House will be sufficiently assured.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: My hon. Friend is aware that in the debate concern was expressed by Conservative Members that the fees should not be too high so that some of the smaller excellent activity centres would not be pushed out of business. Could he say something about the Government's awareness of some of those smaller activity centres because considerable concern has been expressed that the bureaucracy and the rules and regulations which will flow from the Bill could result in some of the smaller centres, however good they are, being driven out of business?
  Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed; my hon. Friend accurately reflects the concerns expressed on Second Reading.
  We are conscious of the potential for adverse impact of the measure on some of the smaller centres and we want to strike a balance—I think that this was also the hon. Member for Devonport's view—between ensuring as far as possible a safe regime for the young people using the centres and trying to ensure the centres are not unnecessarily driven out of business. That was very much the spirit of the debate on Second Reading. The Committee will provide the opportunity for us to examine the background in proper detail to see whether we can strike the appropriate balance in Committee and beyond.
  We may want to consider the nature of the fees that are chargeable, although that matter cannot be finalised until we have completed the very thorough consultations that we envisage will take place following the Third Reading of the Bill. We are sensible of the points that my hon. Friend has raised today and on Second Reading and that sensibility will be carried through the Committee stage and beyond.
  Question put and agreed to.

  ACTIVITY CENTRES (YOUNG PERSONS' SAFETY) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Bill, it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the charging by the licensing authority of fees under regulations made under the Act; and

  (b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Bates.]

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  10.39 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: As chairman of the all-party parliamentary pro-life group and together with colleagues from both sides of the House, I raised during the debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 the need for the Secretary of State to ensure that the membership of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was both balanced and credible.
  Some of those who supported me in expressing those views are here tonight. I thank them for their support at this late hour. I welcome in particular the hon. Members for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant).
  I have sought the debate tonight because it is clear that those calls were not heeded, and that there are fundamental flaws in the structure, the membership, the partisanship and the funding of the authority. In recent months, it has displayed a breathtaking superficiality of understanding and paucity of logic in its work.
  Our criticisms of the authority were set out in some detail in a document entitled "A Response from the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-life Group to the Report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority on Donated Ovarian Tissue in Embryology Research and Assisted Conception", copies of which have been widely circulated and have also been deposited in the Library.
  That document followed the success of my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston in bringing forward an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill in the last Session to prevent the use in infertility treatment of eggs scavenged from the ovaries of aborted baby girls.
  The public rightly viewed such proposed practices with considerable repugnance and ethical outrage. The House and another place debated carefully the proposals of my hon. Friend and enacted them. Yet the then chairman of the HFEA, at a press conference to launch its own pronouncements on the matter, accused my hon. Friend of seeking to
  "rush a clause into a piece of legislation where it clearly does not belong".
  I believe that such a suggestion is an affront to the House, and I hope that the Secretary of State will remind the new chairman of the HFEA that she derives her authority from Parliament and is answerable to it—not the other way around.
  When the HFEA undertook what was immediately exposed as a charade of a consultation exercise on that matter and on the use of eggs from adult cadavers, it demonstrated not only its predisposition to allow such practices to go ahead, but a total lack of understanding of the moral views opposed to such techniques, which are held by the majority of people in this country and by the majority of hon. Members.

  907
  The report of the HFEA on the matters made it clear that it was merely the existence of an unfavourable "social attitude" that dissuaded it from approving such practices. That conclusion is reinforced by the authority's statement that it has "no objection in principle" to the use of eggs from cadavers, and that it "will reconsider" the licensing of such treatment at a later date.
  The objections to the practice overlap to a large extent with the objections to using eggs from foetuses. The authority has no real objection "in principle" to either practice, and there is no reason to doubt that the authority's apparently less equivocal rejection of the use of foetal eggs is only as a result of the practice already having been made illegal. I hazard the assumption that the authority is biding its time only until public opinion can be massaged and swayed in favour of those repugnant practices.
  The report of the HFEA demonstrates that the authority is fundamentally out of touch with the moral concerns of the people of this country, and that the dominant philosophy of those on the authority is that of the technocrat who sees scientific progress as the source of all human happiness, and is blind to any greater moral consideration. The authority was patronising in irs clear indication that moral objections cannot possibly constitute a genuine reason for not doing something, and that they are merely irrational superstitions which must be smiled at in the short term and defeated in the long term by extolling the benefits of technology.
  As we said in our report, that such a body should have been put in charge of regulating reproductive technology is a manifest case of the fox acting as gamekeeper, and confirms the view, set out in the previous Session, in early-day motion 1244, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Mossley Hill and myself, that the authority is
  "in need of urgent reform and that its membership is not the 'broad cross section of society' claimed by the Secretary of State for Health; notes that not one of its 21 members believes in the protection of the human embryo from destructive experiments and that among the inspectors it has appointed are employees of hospitals with a direct financial interest in fertility treatments involving the abuse of the human embryo; and believes that last year's staff cost of £¼ million, operating payments of £½ million, and rules which require 50 per cent. of funding to come from licensing, build an intolerable system of financial inducements into the sales of licences, rather than a sound system of ethics."
  Even if we were to accept as inevitable the bias in the membership and the views of the authority, and the fundamental financial pressures to permit ever more abuse of the human embryo, we would have hoped that we could at least look to it to monitor effectively the health effects on children conceived through the techniques that it licenses.
  When considering perinatal mortality, it has always been accepted that, for every baby who dies, others live on suffering from some abnormality. It is an alarming dereliction of its duties, therefore, that the HFEA has not initiated or encouraged any research revealing the rates of malformation or long-term medical problems of children conceived by in vitro fertilisation.
  Figures in the authority's third annual report, in 1994, show a perinatal death rate of 25.8 per 1,000 babies born from the most popular IVF technique. Although the authority, somewhat glibly, says that that is due to the high rate of multiple pregnancies, even singleton IVF pregnancies end in a perinatal death rate of 15.6 per 1,000, which is more than double the overall perinatal death rate
  908
  for England and Wales of just 7.6 deaths per 1,000. Furthermore, for as yet unexplained reasons, the latest perinatal death rate for IVF babies is admitted by the authority to show a marked increase on the 1991 figures.
  In January last year, Dr. Valerie Beral, director of the Imperial Cancer Research Fund's epidemiology unit at Oxford, described as "crazy and irrational" the fact that no system of monitoring IVF children had been established in this country.
  Mr. David Alton: I am sure that, like me, many hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the hon. Lady's initiative in bringing this subject to the House's attention. I agree with her that it is disgraceful that not a single member of the HFEA holds the sanctity of human life in any reverence: that helps us to understand the decisions that it has made.
  Did the hon. Lady see the results of research carried out in France, published in last week's New Scientist? It was discovered that, after being frozen, mouse embryos were more likely to develop a disability of some kind. Is the hon. Lady aware that no work has been done on those matters in this country, and does she agree that both the HFEA and the Department should examine the issue with a view to introducing new protocols to prevent the freezing of embryos and consequent unnecessary disabilities?
  Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman has made some valid points. More research is definitely needed, and the article in the New Scientist provides much food for thought.
  Although the Minister cited in a recent parliamentary answer—on 14 December, to be found in column 685 of Hansard—the work of Dr. Beral, published in 1990, he had clearly not kept abreast of developments. If he had, he would have noted that Dr. Beral had told The Observer on 9 November 1994 that, in 1991, she had been compelled to abandon her work by those with a vested interest, who saw it as an unwarranted intrusion into their patients' privacy.
  Although my hon. Friend sought to portray Dr. Beral as clearing IVF of posing dangers to children, she went on to say:
  "We simply have no idea if IVF techniques pose a real danger to the subsequent health of the child."
  I am sure that the House will agree that IVF is now a major industry, generating extremely large fees for many doctors and scientists, and providing comfortable sinecures for members and staff of the HFEA.
  As well as betraying the moral conscience of the nation, the authority 'has let down infertile couples, neglected the welfare of children conceived through IVF, exposed many living human beings at their earliest stages of development to use as human guinea pigs for research purposes and betrayed the trust that the House was persuaded—in many cases against its better judgment—to place in it.
  There can be no tenable defence of the authority's structure, its membership, its partisanship or the superficiality of its understanding of ethical issues. In short, the time is long overdue for a root-and-branch review and reform of a discredited body that has been responsible for a series of grave errors of judgment and demonstrated a total lack of effectiveness.
  10.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Let me say something about the origins of the HFEA. As the House knows, the techniques that we are discussing were introduced in the 1970s and 1980s. Some form of regulation was clearly needed: apart from the views of those who disapprove of the techniques and wish that they did not exist, there is a general feeling that they could be abused and put to uses other than those on which the House finally decided.
  Following the Warnock report, Parliament decided that an authority should be set up to ensure that the feelings expressed in the House were taken into account and the work that was done was carefully monitored. There were fears that it could result in cloning or the development of hybrids, and such activities were banned. One of the main provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 was that embryos should not be allowed to exist beyond 14 days, and other time limits were placed on the work.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) has made much of the membership of the authority. She knows that Mrs. Ruth Deech, a distinguished professor of law, has recently been appointed as the chairman of the authority, succeeding Sir Colin Campbell, under whose excellent leadership the authority successfully negotiated its first four years of existence.
  The chairman, deputy chairman and members are appointed by the Secretary of State for Health for a maximum term of three years. The authority has the benefit of a broad and balanced set of views.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Sackville: May I continue a little further?
  The authority's members do not represent specific interests. They are appointed as individuals.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: I served on the Committee that formed the legislation on animal experiments. A similar body was set up at that time. The then Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), gave an undertaking to the House that people who were sceptical about experiments on animals would be given a place on the licensing authority. Obviously, they would not, by any means, form the majority, but a voice could be expressed. Will my hon. Friend explain why the same facility should not have been afforded in relation to people who license experiments on the human embryo?
  Mr. Sackville: The people who serve on the committee are all respected in their sector. They are reasonable and, as I said, they do not represent specific interests. They have been appointed because of their individual qualities and experience. I am satisfied that they are well qualified and able to examine and advise on these sensitive issues.
  Candidates for membership, for example, are not asked about their religious beliefs. They are, however, expected to participate in all the functions of the authority. That includes visiting, inspecting and making decisions about licences for clinics that carry out fertility treatments and
  910
  research. It is important, therefore, that, before appointing individuals, it is ascertained whether they have personal convictions that may make it difficult for them to participate in the full range of the authority's responsibilities.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Is my hon. Friend aware of the number of authority members who believe in the sanctity of human life? If he is not, does he think that he should be aware of that?
  Mr. Sackville: I cannot give that information. All I can say is that those people are a very highly qualified group, and come from a wide range of sectors. I have met many of the members and attended meetings. I cannot agree with the rhetoric about sinecures and betrayed trust. Those people have done a good job in trying to regulate a sector that is fraught with difficulties and sensitivities. They have done that with great skill.
  Mr. Alton: Did the Minister read the comment of Lady Warnock, who, when asked about the composition of her committee, which, after all, was the precursor of the HFEA, said that she had excluded one person from it when she found out that he was a Catholic? Does my hon. Friend think that that is a reason for disqualifying someone from membership of the committee?
  Mr. Sackville: I am not aware of anyone having been excluded for such a reason. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about membership of the authority.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I understood what the Minister said, and appreciate his giving way on this point. People were asked their views on certain matters. Is that not a form of exclusion? Will he respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)? If some members are associated with hospitals that specialise in such treatments, could not a monetary advantage be involved?
  Mr. Sackville: That is something that I should like to examine further, because any accusations of a conflict of interest must clearly be considered. As I said, members will be people who have done a good job in a very difficult field.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton and others mentioned abnormalities and the effect of freezing on embryos. The HFEA keeps such matters under review, and also keeps a register of all children born as a result of these techniques. It is my understanding that there has been no incidence of abnormality.
  Dame Jill Knight: I have been very much involved in these matters for many years, and sat on the committee that set up the authority. No one is saying that the members of the authority are not well qualified; that is not the argument. When the authority was set up, we were assured that it would reflect a balance of views, and that some of its members would recognise the sanctity of human life as a genuine, moral reason for examining various practices. If it is possible to involve all shades of opinion when considering animal research, would it not be fair, moral and right to do the same when considering human beings?
  Mr. Sackville: I understand what my hon. Friend says but we are talking about a group of people who have to

  911
  regulate in a sphere where the underlying techniques may be entirely disapproved of by some people. However, Parliament has decided that such an authority should be set up to regulate these techniques. If Parliament wanted to ban them completely, it could have done so. It did not. It decided that these techniques should be legal under
  912
  certain conditions and should be regulated in a certain way. That is what the authority was set up to do, and what I believe it does, with great skill and distinction.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available on departmental pages established by his Department on the Government's world wide web server, "www.open.gov.uk"(a) the Audit Commission's reports entitled "Paying the Piper" and "Calling the Tune" and (b) other reports of the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  No. Distribution -of Audit Commission reports is a matter for the commission.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the(a) population, (b) number of employees, (c) number of employees per 1,000 population and (d) political party in control in each local authority; and if he will post the answer on his Department's pages on the Government's world wide web server, "www.open.gov.uk.".

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have today placed the information requested in the Library of the House. No firm decision has yet been taken by the Department on the use of the Internet.

  County Hall
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the current policy of the London residuary body towards the ownership and development of County hall; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Under the Local Government Act 1985, the London residuary body has a duty to dispose of surplus property for the best price reasonably obtainable; pursuant to this duty the LRB exchanged contracts on 14 October 1994 with Frogmore Estates plc in association with Galliard Homes for the sale of the remainder of the County hall site, and the sale is due to be completed by 29 March 1995.

  Construction Industry Board
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in the establishment of a construction industry board; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend, my noble Friend the Minister of State and I met with representatives of the construction industry and their clients on 7 February and agreed to set up a new construction industry board. The board will take forward the reform proposals in Sir Michael Latham's report "Constructing the Team". The board will be chaired by 550
  Sir Michael Latham and will include representatives from the construction industry and its clients.

  Dog Fouling
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright) of 14 December,Official Report, column 664, when he proposes to give powers to local authorities to tackle dog fouling; how the designated areas will be determined; and when he expects to bring forward the necessary legislative proposals to effect these changes.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and received its Second Reading on 10 February, would give local authorities the necessary powers. The Bill proposes that local authorities may designate land which is open to the air and to which the public have access.

  Ministerial Discussions
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with his counterpart in Norway, and what plans he has for discussions on the damage done to the environment by the lack of fully operated coal desulphurisation plant at power stations.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Secretary of State has had no recent bilateral discussions with his Norwegian counterpart on sulphur emissions from UK power stations. The UK is, however, on target to meet fully its commitments to reduce sulphur emissions under the EC large combustion plants directive. Both the United Kingdom and Norwegian Governments signed last year the UNECE protocol on further reductions in sulphur emissions.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the policy on allowing departmental civil servants to work for, or be seconded to, local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department strongly encourages interchange with local government. Since 1993, 12 DOE staff have been on secondment to local authorities, and 18 local government staff have had secondments to DOE.

  Westminster City Council
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines have been issued to local authorities since the district auditor's interim report on Westminster city council's designated sales policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Files of general correspondence are normally destroyed after a five-year period, and we have been unable to locate the response to which the hon. Member refers.

  Private Hostels
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what standards his Department requires of private hostels used by persons on social security benefits.
  551
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Private hostels will usually fall within the definition of a house in multiple occupation contained in part XI of the Housing Act 1985. Under these provisions, local authorities have extensive powers to ensure that houses in multiple occupation are fit for the number of occupants. The Department's circular 12/92 sets out guidance to local authorities on the standards of fitness they might wish to impose in such cases.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new initiatives he is taking to encourage the construction of affordable housing.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government continue to promote efficiency, value for money and use of private finance in the provision of affordable housing. In this way we aim to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived from the public resources available.

  Emissions
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what studies he has conducted into which substances are emitted when secondary liquid fuel is burned;

  (2) what monitoring has taken place of the emissions from the Rugby Cement works at Barrington.

  Mr. Atkins
  Studies have been made on the emissions to air for particulate matter, oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, oxygen, total organic carbon, dioxins, and heavy metals. The dioxins and heavy metal content of solid waste discharges and the chlorine, heavy metals, sulphur and PCB content of secondary liquid fuels has also been studied.

  Rugby cement works at Barrington has monitored all the above parameters.

  Housing Revenue Account
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines his Department gives to local authorities with regard to the use of moneys in the housing revenue account.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The items of expenditure and income falling within the Housing Revenue Account are defined in schedule 4 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for the Environment, also issues an annual determination setting out the sums to be debited and credited to the account under items 8 of parts I and II of schedule 4. The Department will shortly be issuing a circular providing further guidance on local authority expenditure and income which should be accounted for in the housing revenue account.

  Local Government Finance, Shropshire
  Mr. Biffen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the aggregate financial balances, excluding schools, held by Shropshire at the latest available date and for the corresponding date in 1994 and 1993.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer Monday 13 February 1994]: The latest available estimates of the level of reserves, excluding schools is as follows. These
  552
  estimates are subject to amendments as authorities finalise their accounts. Compatible data on the use of balances in 1994–95 which would be needed to derive an estimate of the level of reserves as a date later than 1 April 1994 are not yet available.

  Estimated Level of Reserves: Shropshire1

  Date

  £

  1st April 19932

  8,002,000

  1st April 19943

  -557,000

  Notes:

  1 These reserves include those which may not be available to the Council for general use.

  2 Source: Level of reserves (outturn) at 1st April 1993 (RS return for 1993–94).

  3 Source: Level of reserves (outturn) at 1st April 1993 appropriations to/withdrawals from reserves during 1993–94 (RS return for 1993–94). The estimated levels of schools reserves at 1st April 1994 is £7,789,000.

  Local Government, North Yorkshire
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the population of the proposed north riding of Yorkshire is from areas that, prior to local government reorganisation in 1974, were in the administrative areas of the(a) north riding, (b) west riding and (c) east riding of Yorkshire.

  Mr. Robert B Jones
  [holding answer Monday 13 February 1995]: We no longer propose to create a county of the north riding of Yorkshire.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those who made representations to him requesting that the name of North Yorkshire county council should be changed.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer Monday 13 February 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has concluded that the county's name should not be changed.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Companies House (Sickness)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to institute an occupational health assessment of the sickness at Companies House.

  Mr. Heseltine
  As this is an operational matter for Companies House executive agency, I have asked David Durham, the chief executive, to respond directly to the hon. Member.
  553
  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 14 February 1995:

  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question about assessment of sickness at Companies House. The President has informed you that I have been asked to reply as Chief Executive of the Agency as this is an operational matter for Companies House.

  Measurement of sickness absence poses a number of statistical problems, and comparisons between different kinds of organisation should be treated with caution, particularly if there are wide differences in, for example, the proportion of part time staff. The figures for the Department as a whole published in the recent Parliamentary Answer given to Mr. David Chidgey MP (Question 187) use a standard, civil service wide definition. We do not use this definition for management purposes at Companies House (CH) because we find it produces anomalous results when applied to part time staff.

  CH employs an unusually large number of part time staff (333, or 29 per cent. of our workforce). We count absence for management control purposes in line with normal practice in the private sector. This takes account of the very different working patterns that may occur in production environments such as that predominating at CH. Under this definition, CH has had a sickness absence rate for 1994–95 which for 9 month period to the end of December stood at 4.8 per cent. We understand that this is comparable to that achieved by other similar organisations.

  In the light of this, I do not believe that any special assessment of sickness absence is necessary.

  Nuclear Levy
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to(a) end, (b) raise and (c) extend the nuclear levy.

  Mr. Eggar
  The future of the fossil fuel levy is being considered as part of the review of nuclear power currently being undertaken by the Government and I cannot pre-judge the outcome.

  Offices

  Permanent staff

  1OGD loanees etc.

  Casual staff

  Total staff

  Midland Region

  Birmingham

  71.5

  5

  11.5

  88

  Norwich

  23

  4

  3

  30

  Ipswich

  16.5

  2

  3

  21.5

  Nottingham

  25

  2

  8

  35

  Leicester

  21.5

  1.5

  2

  25

  Northampton

  23

  0.5

  0.5

  24

  Cambridge

  15

  1

  4

  20

  Stoke

  18

  1

  3.5

  22.5

  Chester

  19

  1.5

  3.5

  24

  Regional Total

  232.5

  18.5

  39

  290

  South East Region

  Croydon

  71.5

  6

  17.5

  95

  Brighton

  37.5

  1

  13.5

  52

  Canterbury

  17.5

  3

  4

  24.5

  Rochester

  21.5

  2

  4

  27.5

  Reading

  35.5

  8

  16

  59.5

  St. Albans

  34.5

  3

  11.5

  49

  Southend

  33.5

  2

  8

  43.5

  Regional Total

  251.5

  25

  74.5

  351

  South West Region

  Bristol

  28

  3

  11

  42

  Gloucester

  20

  1

  5.5

  26.5

  Cardiff

  26.5

  3

  3

  32.5

  Opencast Mining Sites
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will seek to amend the Coal Industry Act 1994 to give local planning authorities the power to protect the local communities from the liability of restoration of opencast mining sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have no proposals to amend the existing provisions of the Act in respect of the responsibilities of planning authorities.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his changes in the INsolvency Service affect the powers(a) to prosecute for fraud, (b) to disqualify directors and (c) to prosecute in situations of bankruptcy; and if he will make a statement on the rights of private contractors to initiate prosecution and disqualifications

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No decision to contract out the functions of official receivers has been taken. When considering that decision, Ministers will take into account such factors as value for money and enabling official receivers to concentrate resources on their investigative role. The latter would improve the Insolvency Service's ability to take disqualification proceedings against directors.

  The power to prosecute in personal bankruptcies and in cases of fraud in company liquidations rests with the investigations division of the Department of Trade and Industry and this situation will not be affected by any decision to contract out official receivers' functions.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the present size of the Insolvency Service employment(a) in total and (b) in each region and nation; and if he will estimate the effects on such employment of his proposals to change the status of the service.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Figures for the Insolvency Service staff in post as at 1 January 1995, in total and broken down by offices, are as follows.
  555

  Offices

  Permanent staff

  1OGD loanees etc.

  Casual staff

  Total staff

  Plymouth

  33

  4

  9

  46

  Exeter

  21

  3

  10.5

  34.5

  Southampton

  25.5

  1

  10.5

  37

  Bournemouth

  19

  2

  10.5

  31.5

  Swansea

  22

  1

  4

  27

  Regional Total

  195

  18

  64

  277

  Northern Region

  Manchester

  59

  11

  69

  139

  Hull

  21.5

  2

  1

  24.5

  Leeds

  37

  5

  4.5

  46.5

  Liverpool

  23.5

  2

  1

  26.5

  Newcastle

  25

  2

  7

  34

  Stockton

  15

  3

  1

  19

  St. Annes

  30

  1

  1.5

  32.5

  Sheffield

  22

  2

  1

  25

  Regional Total

  233

  28

  86

  347

  Or London

  London

  147.5

  14

  34

  195.5

  PORLU

  35

  0

  1

  36

  LSU

  63

  0

  30

  93

  London Total

  245.5

  14

  65

  324.5

  Headquarters

  301

  17

  36

  354

  National Total

  1,458.5

  120.5

  364.5

  1,943.5

  1 OGD loanees includes short term appointees and staff on loan from other Government Departments and the private sector.

  Consultations have been engaged by the service to consider the implications of any decisions to contract out but at this stage it is too early to say what impact such a decision would have on levels of staffing.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many cases have been dealt with and how many staff employed by the Insolvency Service in each year since 1988; and if he will express these figures in index form with 1988 as the base.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The figures for the number of cases dealt with by the Insolvency Service each year since 1988, together with the number of staff employed in the same period, are as follows:

  New Cases

  Financial Year

  Bankruptcy

  Company

  Total

  Index

  1988–1989

  7,595

  3,550

  11,145

  100

  1989–1990

  8,679

  4,431

  13,110

  118

  1990–1991

  14,359

  6,777

  21,136

  190

  1991–1992

  26,186

  8,911

  35,097

  315

  1992–1993

  33,152

  9,540

  42,692

  383

  1993–1994

  28,996

  7,623

  36,619

  329

  1994–19951

  24,400

  6,100

  30,500

  274

  1 Based on actual figures for Quarters 1–3 and projected figure for Quarter 4.

  Cases Completed

  Financial Year

  Bankruptcy

  Company

  Total

  Index

  1988–1989

  7,928

  4,871

  12,799

  100

  1989–1990

  8,048

  3,875

  11,923

  93

  1990–1991

  10,881

  4,900

  15,781

  123

  1991–1992

  15,516

  5,900

  21,416

  167

  1992–1993

  16,169

  4,957

  21,126

  165

  556

  Cases Completed

  Financial Year

  Bankruptcy

  Company

  Total

  Index

  1993–1994

  26,243

  7,746

  33,989

  266

  1994–19951

  42,500

  10,500

  53,000

  414

  1 Based on projected figures for year

  Average staff in post

  Financial year

  Permanent

  Casual

  Total

  Index

  1988–89

  1,393

  16

  1,409

  100

  1989–90

  1,386

  20

  1,406

  100

  1990–91

  1,431

  24

  1,455

  103

  1991–92

  1,499

  85

  1,584

  112

  1992–93

  1,531

  158

  1,689

  120

  1993–94

  1,537

  281

  1,818

  129

  1994–951

  1,491

  399

  1,890

  134

  1 Based on average staff in post for 1 April 1994–31 December 1994.

  Companies House
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the full cost of the consultancy work carried out by SRU Ltd. on(a) the privatisation of Companies House and (b) the contracting out of work carried out in Companies House.

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The fee paid to SRU Ltd. in connection with the review of Companies House is £189,000.

  Euratom Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the facilities operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority have had sanctions
  557
  imposed for infringement of article 83 of the Euratom treaty since 1988; if he will specify the infringements that occurred; and what has been done in each case to rectify the situation.

  Mr. Eggar
  Sanctions have been imposed on the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority under article 83 of the Euratom Treaty on only one occasion. That was at the least severe level—a "warning"—on 4 March 1992 concerning a facility at Dounreay. I refer the hon. Member to the European Communities Commission decision C(92) 476 final—OJ L88 of 3 April 1992—a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. To rectify the situation, modifications were made to the plant and to management procedures, and improvements were made to the accounting and records systems.

  Uranium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, of 26 January,Official Report, column 335, on the imports and exports of uranium, what factors led to the figures for certain years being classed as commercial in confidence.

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy to the hon. Member for Newcastle Upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), on 7 February 1995,Official Report, column 142.

  Saddlery
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the prospects of the saddlery trade; and what measures he proposes to promote this industry in rural areas.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has initiated discussions with representatives of the industry about its prospects and the issues which influence its competitiveness both in the United Kingdom and overseas.

  If the right hon. Member has particular concerns in this context I would be pleased to consider them.

  Auction Houses
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what restrictions apply in France to British auction houses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  In France, all auctioneering or individual sales of works of art must be undertaken by "commissaries priseurs", who are personally appointed by the state and restricted in number. As a result, British auction houses are not able to operate in France as corporate entities or to levy commission at rates comparable to those levied in the United Kingdom. The Government will continue to press the European Commission and the French authorities to secure the removal of this barrier to trade.

  Lloyd's
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the extent to which the solvency rate for Lloyd's of London for each year since 1987 took account of statistics made available to his Department with particular reference to non-marine all other business.
  558
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Lloyd's statutory solvency requirements, which are aimed at ensuring that there are sufficient funds to pay policyholders' valid claims, do not include a solvency rate.

  Lloyd's is subject to two solvency requirements, the first determined in accordance with section 84 of the Insurance Companies Act 1982, requires the members of Lloyd's taken together to maintain a margin of solvency as prescribed by the Act and relevant regulations. Since 1987, the margin of solvency—the extent to which the value of the declared assets of the members taken together exceeds the required minimum—has varied between 11.5 and 2.25 the required minimum, and for the year ended December 1993 was three times the required minimum. For this test, the required minimum is calculated—in conformity with domestic and European law applying to all insurers—by reference to premium received or claims notified. The "settlement statistics" made available to the Department about particular classes of business—of which the non-marine all other is one—do not have a direct impact on this margin of solvency.

  The settlement statistics are however one of the elements used to determine the basis for calculating the liabilities considered in the second solvency requirement. In accordance with section 83 of the Act, the value of each underwriter's assets must meet his/her liabilities—the liabilities, for general business, within which the non-marine all other category falls being calculated on a basis approved by the Secretary of State. Where appropriate, an underwriter's assets may be supported by the central fund and other assets held centrally by the society. For these purposes a name's liability on each syndicate is his/her share of the syndicate's liabilities, which in turn is the greater of

  (i) the product of the syndicate's premium income and a percentage approved by the Secretary of State, and

  (ii) the reserves regarded as necessary by the underwriting agent, and confirmed by syndicates' auditors.

  In deciding which percentages to approve, the Secretary of State has regard to all available relevant information, of which the settlement statistics are an important part. Since the percentages determine the minimum reserves applicable to all syndicates, and are not averages to be applied to the totality of business, and the settlement statistics are in respect of the aggregate of business in a particular audit class, the percentages are not directly dependent upon the settlement statistics. It would be inappropriate to impose a level of percentages based upon the average of all syndicates, as that would cause some to be materially over-reserved. It is accordingly expected that a number of syndicates' liabilities will be determined on the basis (ii) above. Thus the achievement of this solvency requirement—which has been met every year since 1987, and every year prior to that—is not directly dependent on the settlement statistics.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the British companies which were given licences to attend the Eurohied and Intertech exhibitions held in Baghdad in November.

  Mr. Needham
  It has been the practice of successive administrations not to disclose such information unless the public interest outweighs the requirements of confidentiality.
  559
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 20 January,Official Report, column 760, on what occasions Ministers or officials in his Department have met any representatives of the Iraqi British interests group, and for what purposes, since sanctions began.

  Mr. Needham
  Although Ministers and officials may for a variety of reasons have met representatives of the companies involved in the Iraq British interests group, there have been no meetings with the Iraq British interests group's organisers since its formation.

TRANSPORT

  Crash Tests
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the potential annual casualty reduction in respect of deaths and injuries which would arise from the implementation of the proposed European Union crash test legislation in relation to(a) frontal impacts (i) stage I angled barrier and (ii) stage 2 offset deformable barrier and (b) side impacts (iii) with ground clearance of 260 mm and (iv) with ground clearance of 300 mm.

  Mr. Norris
  Estimates made by the Department and the Transport Research Laboratory are as follows:

  (i) There is insufficient research to make a precise estimate but the overall effect on the numbers of casualties is likely to be small.

  (ii) Up to 65,000 deaths and serious injuries per annum in the European Union—for which some 10 per cent. in the UK.

  (iii) This has not been estimated. Any reduction in the height of the lower edge of the barrier below 300 mm makes the test less effective at reducing casualties in side impact accidents.

  (iv) Up to 25,000 deaths and serious injuries per annum in the European Union—of which some 10 per cent. in the UK.

  public Transport
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new initiatives he has to promote the use of public transport.

  Mr. Norris
  We announced on 15 December the allocation of £79 million in 1995–96 for 37 local authority transport packages covering bus priority measures and park and ride schemes. In 1995–96 the package approach to local transport investment becomes the norm, particularly in urban areas. In addition, I have reconstituted the bus working group with representatives from the Confederation of Passenger Transport, local authority associations and the National Federation of Bus Users, to see what further measures can be taken to improve bus services within the deregulated framework.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment is made of the risk of sediment from soil disturbance entering water courses prior to commencing road construction.

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  560
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 14 February 1995:

  The Minister for Roads and Railways has passed to me your request on what assessments are made of the risk of sediment from soil disturbance entering watercourses, prior to commencing road construction. This is an operational matter for which the Highways Agency is responsible.

  All schemed in the National Road Programme are subject to Environmental Assessment at key stages in their development. The Assessment permits consideration of the likely environmental effects and allows Statutory Bodies like the National Rivers Authority (who are responsible for maintaining and conserving water quality) to comment on our proposals.

  There are a number of ways in which a road scheme may affect watercourses. The Environmental Assessment will record the existing quality of these watercourses and the areas which are vulnerable to change. The assessment and subsequent mitigation will be discussed with the National Rivers Authority throughout the development of a road scheme. Prior to any contract for road construction being awarded, the Highways Agency would include the National Rivers Authority specific requirements in the contract documents to safeguard any watercourses.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the tonnage of road stone which will be required in the next 10 years of projected road building.

  Mr. Watts
  I regret this information is not available because it depends on the statutory progress of individual schemes in the current programme and on the availability of funds to take them forward. Furthermore, as scheme design evolves so their detailed requirements are refined.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what priority is given to environmental impact studies within the decision-making process for the development of new roads.

  Mr. Watts
  Environmental assessment has formed part of the Department's procedures for road schemes for many years. Trunk road proposals are the Government's responsibility and we give full weight to environmental aspects alongside economic, engineering and safety considerations in the decision-making process. Assessment takes place throughout the development of a trunk road scheme and informs the decision-making process at all stages. The current requirements are laid down in volume 11 of the design manual for roads and bridges. The final stage of the assessment is in accordance with directive 85/337/EEC. A formal environmental statement is published, where the scheme is likely to have a significant environmental effect, with the draft orders. This statement, together with representations about it, must be formally considered by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport in reaching their decision on whether or not to go ahead with the scheme. Schemes promoted by local highway authorities require planning permission and are also, where they are likely to have a significant effect on the environment, subject to formal environmental assessment in accordance with the directive. The planning authority must have regard to all material considerations including, where required, the environmental information.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 6 February, if his inquiry into breaches of the Air Navigation Order of flights containing calves from Coventry airport in
  561
  November and December 1994 deals specifically with the airline involved.

  Mr. Norris
  The purpose of the current inquiry is to seek to determine whether there have been any breaches of the Air Navigation Order. The inquiry will consider all relevant matters including the actions of the airlines involved in the operation of the flights.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the road worthiness of lorries used to export animals through the port of Shoreham.

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

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Mr. Elliot Morley, dated 13 February 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the roadworthiness of lorries used to export animals through the port of Shoreham.

  Lorries used for all forms of transport have an annual statutory roadworthiness examination and are also subject to roadside checks conducted by the Vehicle Inspectorate regardless of the nature of the transport operation.

  In the financial year 1993/94 the Vehicle Inspectorate conducted a total of 672,780 annual checks on motor vehicles and trailers, and
  562
  120,335 roadworthiness spot check inspections (with a further 13,931 special checks on lorry lights and exhaust emissions). We do not have details on inspection of vehicles specifically used for the transportation of animals.

  If you have any further queries about the Inspectorate's enforcement activities, please contact me at the above address.

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what fee his Department paid for services relating to rail privatisation to(a) Hambros, (b) Price Waterhouse, (c) Ernst and Young, (d) KPMG, (e) SG Warburgs, (f) Samuel Montagu, (g) Shandwick, (h) Linklaters and Paines, (i) Freshfields and (j) Greshams.

  Mr. Watts
  Information about fees paid by the Department to individual contractors is commercially confidential. Total payments to date to these contractors amount to £17.1 million.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to travel to Hong Kong in 1995.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  None at present.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Parsonages
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners (1) if he will list, for each year of the last 10 years, and by location new parsonages that the Church Commissioners have(a) had built and (b) bought, and the relative costs involved;

  Parsonages built 1985–1994

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Diocese

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  Bath and Wells

  1

  98,970

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  139,000

  1

  154,211

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blackburn

  1

  65,000

  3

  86,792

  2

  80,830

  2

  29,677

  2

  169,677

  Bradford

  2

  90,577

  3

  86,192

  —

  —

  2

  119,092

  1

  153,141

  Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  95,000

  Canterbury

  3

  98,119

  —

  —

  1

  132,210

  1

  93,395

  1

  156,000

  Carlisle

  2

  95,849

  2

  95,192

  9

  111,915

  4

  107,283

  5

  118,896

  Chelmsford

  3

  97,670

  1

  94,311

  1

  135,000

  1

  135,000

  3

  163,373

  Chester

  3

  82,576

  1

  95,000

  1

  123,080

  3

  100,525

  4

  177,068

  Chichester

  —

  —

  1

  100,047

  3

  129,514

  4

  138,636

  2

  158,412

  Coventry

  1

  70,735

  —

  —

  3

  89,990

  —

  —

  1

  115,000

  Derby

  3

  99,233

  3

  94,702

  1

  108,000

  1

  109,292

  —

  —

  Durham

  3

  89,189

  2

  83,796

  6

  99,789

  1

  102,564

  6

  116,971

  Ely

  3

  78,039

  2

  84,005

  1

  87,301

  1

  108,640

  —

  —

  Exeter

  3

  85,848

  3

  97,001

  4

  97,874

  3

  105,633

  1

  121,301

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  1

  83,992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Guildford

  2

  107,357

  3

  108,636

  1

  108,762

  —

  —

  2

  136,796

  Hereford

  1

  86,165

  2

  82,974

  1

  107,350

  3

  102,001

  1

  166,018

  Leicester

  —

  —

  1

  81,744

  3

  93,055

  1

  89,622

  3

  109,675

  Lichfield

  3

  75,182

  5

  89,419

  2

  107,129

  3

  103,146

  2

  101,845

  Lincoln

  3

  84,179

  4

  84,619

  4

  78,728

  2

  80,738

  1

  114,245

  Liverpool

  3

  78,000

  1

  92,016

  3

  86,503

  2

  119,701

  5

  135,690

  London

  2

  116,504

  3

  117,672

  1

  172,989

  3

  143,521

  2

  159,444

  Manchester

  8

  82,901

  1

  81,231

  8

  93,299

  7

  109,469

  3

  137,021

  Newcastle

  3

  76,328

  1

  91,372

  2

  104,587

  4

  96,209

  —

  —

  Norwich

  6

  83,243

  1

  84,705

  3

  102,488

  —

  —

  1

  119,000

  Oxford

  2

  99,999

  5

  101,336

  4

  114,356

  3

  124,596

  2

  129,115

  Peterborough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  196,531

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  1

  135,211

  —

  —

  2

  140,099

  1

  153,640

  Ripon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  88,918

  1

  110,352

  1

  126,744

  Rochester

  2

  95,624

  1

  100,294

  —

  —

  2

  141,580

  5

  164,351

  St. Albans

  —

  —

  1

  101,115

  1

  120,000

  2

  114,906

  1

  153,424

  St. Edmunds and Ipswich

  —

  —

  1

  98,011

  —

  —

  1

  163,950

  2

  121,085

  Salisbury

  1

  61,460

  —

  —

  2

  125,058

  1

  111,977

  1

  179,870

  Sheffield

  3

  79,482

  2

  74,663

  2

  87,000

  —

  —

  2

  114,800

  Sodor and Man

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  120,750

  —

  —

  Southwark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  107,015

  1

  144,000

  —

  —

  Southwall

  1

  67,656

  —

  —

  3

  84,182

  3

  91,588

  1

  112,283

  Truro

  1

  78,230

  1

  85,214

  2

  85,408

  2

  95,845

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  5

  74,165

  5

  82,115

  6

  91,984

  4

  90,329

  7

  106,107

  Winchester

  1

  92,880

  —

  —

  1

  133,032

  —

  —

  3

  154,000

  Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  119,673

  —

  —

  —

  —

  York

  1

  86,445

  1

  98,060

  —

  —

  3

  106,122

  2

  93,000

  Total

  76

  85,832

  62

  92,571

  88

  101,391

  75

  112,524

  79

  135,610

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total Number

  Diocese

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  Bath and Wells

  2

  177,030

  2

  198,441

  1

  192,312

  1

  154,100

  —

  —

  9

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  1

  138,750

  —

  —

  1

  150,100

  —

  —

  2

  Blackburn

  2

  146,125

  2

  160,500

  —

  —

  1

  140,000

  2

  102,642

  19

  Bradford

  l

  140,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  192,477

  10

  Bristol

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  190,949

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  564
  (2) for each of the last 10 years, and by location, the parsonages that the Commissioners have sold; and what revenue has been raised from the sale of each.

  Mr. Alison
  The initiative for the sale, purchase and construction of parsonages rests with the diocesan parsonages boards although each transaction requires the consent of the Church Commissioners. Over the 10 year period 1985–1994, 563 parsonages have been built, 550 purchased and 1,486 sold. The following table gives details including location by diocese and sums raised or expended.
  565

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Diocese

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  Total Number

  Canterbury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Carlisle

  2

  171,845

  1

  163,763

  1

  131,100

  4

  126,229

  —

  —

  30

  Chelmsford

  1

  151,102

  1

  141,588

  1

  174,122

  —

  —

  2

  142,993

  14

  Chester

  7

  161,761

  1

  302,489

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Chichester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  130,000

  11

  Coventry

  1

  225,346

  1

  223,153

  1

  157,585

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Derby

  1

  145,214

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  172,316

  —

  —

  11

  Durham

  —

  —

  1

  180,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  Ely

  1

  148,000

  2

  149,000

  1

  159,430

  —

  —

  2

  181,500

  13

  Exeter

  3

  147,539

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  168,182

  —

  —

  18

  Gloucester

  1

  132,000

  2

  158,704

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Guildford

  —

  —

  1

  165,353

  1

  183,000

  1

  303,367

  2

  188,453

  13

  Hereford

  1

  157,050

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  133,915

  —

  —

  10

  Leicester

  1

  127,000

  —

  —

  2

  145,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Lichfield

  1

  185,300

  1

  149,419

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  190,000

  18

  Lincoln

  1

  103,501

  5

  136,509

  3

  160,988

  2

  144,880

  2

  148,952

  27

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  91,335

  —

  —

  —

  —

  15

  London

  1

  249,054

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  150,000

  —

  —

  13

  Manchester

  —

  —

  7

  175,254

  1

  192,577

  1

  195,000

  1

  169,000

  37

  Newcastle

  3

  152,256

  2

  127,446

  1

  185,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  16

  Norwich

  2

  163,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  140,000

  14

  Oxford

  —

  —

  1

  154,440

  1

  140,000

  4

  168,071

  —

  —

  22

  Peterborough

  2

  154,339

  2

  182,337

  —

  —

  1

  45,963

  —

  —

  6

  Portsmouth

  1

  140,930

  2

  163,938

  —

  —

  2

  134,736

  1

  232,000

  10

  Ripon

  —

  —

  1

  158,000

  1

  167,073

  1

  143,000

  1

  100,000

  10

  Rochester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  144,748

  —

  —

  11

  St. Albans

  2

  152,696

  2

  191,188

  1

  190,000

  —

  —

  2

  215,320

  12

  St. Edmunds and Ipswich

  1

  145,209

  1

  202,815

  3

  210,028

  —

  —

  1

  175,000

  10

  Salisbury

  1

  163,560

  2

  189,126

  3

  134,970

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Sheffield

  4

  102,785

  —

  —

  4

  116,250

  —

  —

  2

  123,250

  19

  Sodor and Man

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Southwark

  —

  —

  2

  219,200

  —

  —

  2

  222,372

  1

  178,000

  8

  Southwall

  1

  143,914

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  120,000

  —

  —

  10

  Truro

  1

  141,315

  3

  132,028

  1

  119,137

  1

  128,966

  —

  —

  12

  Wakefield

  3

  115,113

  2

  137,156

  —

  —

  1

  129,749

  —

  —

  33

  Winchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  197,000

  1

  151,306

  7

  Worcester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  139,428

  —

  —

  2

  York

  1

  135,000

  —

  —

  1

  140,600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Total

  49

  150,036

  48

  167,492

  30

  156,239

  32

  155,291

  24

  161,000

  563

  Note:

  It should be noted that the costs given are averages, so do not necessarily reflect the value of parsonages across each diocese.

  Parsonages purchased 1985–1994

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Diocese

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  Bath and Wells

  1

  80,000

  1

  105,672

  6

  121,864

  1

  130,000

  2

  192,000

  Birmingham

  3

  72,350

  1

  84,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Blackburn

  —

  —

  2

  63,903

  3

  80,871

  1

  138,000

  1

  120,000

  Bradford

  —

  —

  1

  83,274

  1

  112,500

  —

  —

  1

  125,000

  Bristol

  —

  —

  2

  112,577

  2

  108,430

  2

  162,125

  —

  —

  Canterbury

  2

  92,542

  2

  98,969

  2

  115,850

  1

  188,400

  —

  —

  Carlisle

  1

  47,950

  1

  61,775

  3

  92,119

  1

  98,000

  1

  56,100

  Chelmsford

  4

  97,007

  2

  130,000

  4

  142,094

  5

  193,250

  5

  210,000

  Chester

  3

  89,077

  3

  125,995

  1

  123,250

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chichester

  5

  96,325

  —

  —

  2

  166,081

  2

  172,000

  4

  223,500

  Coventry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  76,000

  —

  —

  1

  194,000

  Derby

  1

  72,377

  —

  —

  3

  72,600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  134,264

  1

  100,000

  —

  —

  Ely

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  84,956

  1

  132,000

  1

  202,000

  Exeter

  2

  67,114

  3

  104,876

  4

  113,537

  2

  131,426

  4

  219,371

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  155,000

  —

  —

  4

  277,375

  Guildford

  3

  162,701

  2

  141,344

  1

  195,055

  2

  340,500

  3

  309,394

  Hereford

  1

  61,335

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  140,000

  Leicester

  1

  93,000

  1

  89,267

  —

  —

  1

  160,000

  3

  166,152

  Lichfield

  1

  42,000

  2

  69,772

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  227,172

  Lincoln

  2

  60,490

  1

  76,000

  3

  67,983

  2

  109,750

  9

  117,136

  566 567

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Diocese

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  Liverpool

  —

  —

  3

  74,705

  1

  82,950

  2

  112,000

  3

  171,167

  London

  3

  106,300

  4

  213,950

  3

  434,487

  3

  299,000

  5

  316,177

  Manchester

  —

  —

  3

  77,300

  4

  83,975

  6

  91,219

  9

  130,142

  Newcastle

  1

  80,775

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  168,000

  Norwich

  2

  89,897

  2

  89,000

  1

  102,000

  1

  152,100

  —

  —

  Oxford

  2

  129,025

  2

  131,131

  2

  136,225

  3

  220,665

  4

  213,000

  Peterborough

  1

  93,130

  2

  113,465

  —

  —

  2

  132,750

  3

  162,233

  Portsmouth

  —

  —

  4

  111,988

  3

  158,494

  1

  165,000

  1

  131,300

  Ripon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  94,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rochester

  1

  123,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  265,000

  —

  —

  St. Albans

  —

  —

  2

  112,400

  1

  208,000

  1

  247,000

  2

  277,750

  St. Edmunds and Ipswich

  5

  75,749

  1

  78,540

  1

  101,997

  1

  137,500

  1

  187,000

  Salisbury

  1

  90,398

  1

  115,010

  2

  115,036

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sheffield

  3

  57,821

  2

  66,300

  4

  75,250

  2

  61,700

  3

  136,667

  Sodor and Man

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  4

  137,352

  2

  126,550

  3

  146,438

  2

  229,300

  1

  295,000

  Southwell

  3

  72,812

  1

  80,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  154,975

  Truro

  1

  69,500

  1

  65,850

  1

  74,750

  —

  —

  3

  132,217

  Wakefield

  3

  74,077

  4

  90,725

  4

  86,327

  2

  94,350

  3

  167,725

  Winchester

  2

  109,850

  1

  164,500

  1

  155,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Worcester

  1

  88,228

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  132,600

  2

  164,675

  York

  5

  69,542

  2

  94,930

  —

  —

  3

  103,333

  2

  140,625

  Total

  68

  89,573

  61

  106,892

  74

  123,396

  54

  162,684

  87

  186,203

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Diocese

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average£

  No.

  Average£

  No.

  Average£

  No.

  Average£

  Total Number

  Bath and Wells

  3

  247,667

  1

  212,000

  4

  147,506

  1

  159,000

  3

  174,167

  23

  Birmingham

  —

  —

  1

  170,000

  1

  155,000

  1

  99,000

  1

  175,000

  8

  Blackburn

  1

  183,225

  2

  190,700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  244,247

  11

  Bradford

  1

  139,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Bristol

  —

  —

  2

  168,625

  1

  200,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Canterbury

  2

  213,750

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Carlisle

  1

  191,773

  1

  194,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  67,000

  10

  Chelmsford

  1

  133,300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  172,644

  22

  Chester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  74,950

  1

  240,000

  1

  108,000

  10

  Chichester

  —

  —

  1

  160,000

  —

  —

  2

  145,544

  4

  125,502

  20

  Coventry

  2

  157,500

  —

  —

  2

  166,750

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Derby

  2

  112,765

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  134,000

  —

  —

  7

  Durham

  2

  61,250

  2

  122,750

  3

  128,826

  —

  —

  2

  128,374

  11

  Ely

  1

  127,500

  —

  —

  1

  205,000

  1

  87,500

  2

  184,250

  11

  Exeter

  9

  201,083

  2

  192,649

  1

  169,500

  3

  144,869

  —

  —

  30

  Gloucester

  3

  186,000

  1

  202,508

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Guildford

  1

  123,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  272,459

  —

  —

  13

  Hereford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  108,000

  1

  153,976

  5

  Leicester

  1

  152,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Lichfield

  2

  165,500

  2

  113,770

  1

  135,000

  —

  —

  1

  155,000

  10

  Lincoln

  3

  99,475

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20

  Liverpool

  1

  115,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  192,641

  12

  London

  2

  364,719

  1

  276,343

  —

  —

  2

  285,446

  —

  —

  23

  Manchester

  5

  127,200

  4

  127,488

  1

  67,000

  2

  157,902

  —

  —

  34

  Newcastle

  2

  124,760

  1

  129,200

  1

  165,000

  1

  122,900

  —

  —

  8

  Norwich

  —

  —

  1

  119,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Oxford

  3

  218,333

  5

  199,274

  2

  210,000

  1

  180,000

  1

  199,400

  25

  Peterborough

  1

  115,000

  —

  —

  1

  268,206

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Portsmouth

  1

  267,500

  1

  150,000

  1

  175,000

  1

  195,000

  —

  —

  13

  Ripon

  1

  160,217

  1

  125,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Rochester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  145,612

  4

  St. Albans

  1

  160,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  228,000

  8

  St. Eds and Ips

  —

  —

  8

  169,657

  2

  126,500

  1

  160,749

  2

  145,000

  22

  Salisbury

  2

  202,250

  —

  —

  1

  220,200

  —

  —

  1

  128,000

  8

  Sheffield

  3

  134,667

  2

  81,000

  1

  101,000

  —

  —

  2

  104,000

  22

  Sodor and Man

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Southwark

  —

  —

  2

  309,000

  —

  —

  2

  230,974

  —

  —

  16

  568 569

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Diocese

  No.

  Average£

  No.

  Average£

  No.

  Average£

  No.

  Average£

  No.

  Average£

  Total Number

  Southwell

  1

  168,500

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  101,000

  1

  146,000

  9

  Truro

  1

  178,450

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  118,167

  3

  107,983

  13

  Wakefield

  —

  —

  1

  112,642

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  91,917

  20

  Winchester

  5

  216,060

  3

  234,791

  —

  —

  1

  207,500

  —

  —

  13

  Worcester

  2

  174,653

  2

  195,866

  1

  217,680

  —

  —

  1

  112,938

  10

  York

  1

  180,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  126,500

  15

  Total

  67

  175,130

  47

  173,784

  26

  159,098

  28

  164,427

  38

  142,672

  550

  Note:

  It should be noted that the costs given are averages, so do not necessarily reflect the value of parsonages across each diocese.

  Parsonage Sale 1985–1994

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Diocese

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  Bath and Wells

  6

  86,916

  1

  132,000

  5

  126,650

  6

  176,754

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  2

  44,875

  2

  100,000

  2

  58,500

  —

  —

  1

  180,000

  Blackburn

  6

  64,333

  6

  57,492

  6

  85,033

  2

  78,750

  4

  45,738

  Bradford

  3

  65,500

  1

  50,000

  4

  59,250

  —

  —

  1

  165,000

  Bristol

  2

  83,059

  4

  89,625

  3

  109,167

  3

  114,585

  1

  250,710

  Canterbury

  9

  62,444

  8

  96,904

  2

  152,000

  2

  136,300

  2

  173,750

  Carlisle

  10

  61,350

  6

  47,917

  6

  65,500

  8

  80,525

  7

  154,479

  Chelmsford

  8

  87,381

  10

  195,247

  7

  203,193

  7

  210,997

  2

  123,000

  Chester

  1

  60,000

  6

  81,000

  2

  122,500

  2

  91,750

  —

  —

  Chichester

  8

  130,164

  5

  101,900

  3

  230,167

  5

  193,600

  3

  206,333

  Coventry

  1

  101,500

  2

  75,825

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  173,317

  Derby

  6

  68,333

  3

  70,000

  3

  94,385

  2

  91,000

  5

  152,132

  Durham

  10

  51,102

  4

  69,125

  3

  31,894

  6

  49,283

  2

  147,061

  Ely

  8

  70,705

  5

  154,430

  8

  97,260

  5

  172,400

  2

  215,055

  Exeter

  9

  67,722

  7

  87,000

  11

  121,318

  13

  169,154

  6

  208,367

  Gloucester

  4

  101,935

  —

  —

  2

  199,626

  —

  —

  4

  158,250

  Guildford

  3

  118,666

  5

  173,010

  6

  196,917

  4

  169,625

  1

  131,992

  Hereford

  1

  43,500

  4

  75,775

  2

  96,250

  2

  175,500

  2

  200,500

  Leicester

  9

  79,094

  3

  87,667

  2

  99,700

  1

  100,000

  2

  225,000

  Lichfield

  13

  54,923

  5

  74,000

  8

  59,800

  4

  88,500

  1

  65,000

  Lincoln

  1

  52,000

  8

  56,094

  9

  75,458

  9

  107,253

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  5

  41,700

  7

  41,107

  8

  52,167

  7

  39,640

  3

  92,050

  London

  3

  108,000

  8

  155,014

  7

  356,257

  3

  686,167

  2

  209,750

  Manchester

  5

  53,700

  2

  32,000

  4

  50,663

  6

  53,250

  13

  109,258

  Newcastle

  5

  57,770

  5

  59,210

  5

  47,800

  2

  86,125

  3

  110,091

  Norwich

  10

  72,219

  8

  86,500

  9

  95,500

  4

  111,125

  —

  —

  Oxford

  11

  128,923

  15

  153,090

  10

  164,272

  6

  225,167

  7

  227,429

  Peterborough

  4

  107,659

  4

  105,675

  2

  140,250

  3

  137,653

  1

  170,000

  Portsmouth

  1

  153,000

  —

  —

  4

  215,578

  2

  167,500

  2

  281,000

  Ripon

  4

  88,625

  1

  39,000

  2

  80,000

  1

  113,500

  —

  —

  Rochester

  2

  98,000

  —

  —

  2

  181,125

  2

  470,000

  2

  262,350

  St. Albans

  7

  97,651

  —

  —

  2

  107,475

  5

  274,200

  3

  471,032

  St. Edmunds and Ipswich

  12

  83,759

  7

  86,165

  3

  128,167

  5

  201,663

  —

  —

  Salisbury

  4

  77,750

  1

  99,000

  4

  163,088

  3

  136,383

  3

  222,000

  Sheffield

  4

  50,359

  5

  45,700

  3

  58,250

  6

  70,361

  2

  76,500

  Sodor and Man

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  6

  138,076

  6

  187,854

  4

  152,190

  3

  330,000

  —

  —

  Southwell

  7

  61,788

  5

  51,400

  5

  73,665

  1

  65,000

  1

  140,000

  Truro

  1

  75,000

  3

  49,683

  7

  78,568

  2

  473,000

  1

  180,000

  Wakefield

  10

  40,025

  6

  67,500

  12

  58,612

  10

  64,455

  4

  107,125

  Winchester

  8

  140,285

  2

  185,000

  —

  —

  3

  170,410

  1

  331,011

  Worcester

  2

  57,739

  2

  84,675

  1

  240,000

  2

  228,760

  1

  270,000

  York

  9

  58,889

  9

  53,144

  5

  123,996

  2

  54,950

  5

  190,490

  Total

  240

  78,624

  191

  97,329

  193

  115,950

  159

  153,382

  102

  175,061

  570 571

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Diocese

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  No.

  Average £

  Total Number

  Bath and Wells

  5

  249,700

  2

  155,500

  4

  194,519

  3

  150,000

  1

  130,000

  33

  Birmingham

  1

  80,500

  1

  272,000

  —

  —

  1

  80,000

  —

  —

  10

  Blackburn

  2

  150,000

  3

  72,000

  3

  90,158

  4

  109,500

  2

  176,750

  38

  Bradford

  1

  282,600

  1

  162,000

  1

  67,500

  2

  94,000

  2

  87,500

  16

  Bristol

  1

  266,000

  2

  124,000

  1

  217,000

  1

  235,000

  1

  100,000

  19

  Canterbury

  3

  164,750

  2

  184,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28

  Carlisle

  8

  179,296

  4

  90,250

  4

  117,750

  4

  141,500

  4

  119,375

  61

  Chelmsford

  5

  142,500

  5

  190,000

  5

  155,400

  6

  143,140

  3

  99,983

  58

  Chester

  4

  148,750

  5

  190,250

  3

  122,333

  4

  84,750

  6

  139,917

  33

  Chichester

  9

  186,619

  1

  210,000

  —

  —

  2

  176,750

  4

  142,476

  40

  Coventry

  3

  196,667

  —

  —

  1

  250,000

  3

  124,333

  2

  143,500

  14

  Derby

  1

  185,000

  —

  —

  1

  185,000

  1

  129,000

  3

  187,000

  25

  Durham

  1

  64,000

  4

  79,150

  3

  118,000

  3

  77,000

  2

  110,000

  38

  Ely

  1

  135,950

  2

  252,500

  1

  120,000

  9

  133,513

  1

  298,000

  42

  Exeter

  6

  208,167

  6

  159,417

  3

  127,500

  3

  107,000

  4

  95,000

  68

  Gloucester

  1

  175,000

  2

  208,250

  4

  182,000

  —

  —

  2

  127,250

  19

  Guildford

  3

  230,750

  4

  302,500

  1

  130,000

  2

  197,250

  1

  330,000

  30

  Hereford

  2

  154,500

  1

  103,000

  2

  167,500

  1

  128,000

  4

  146,128

  21

  Leicester

  3

  189,333

  4

  133,850

  1

  122,500

  1

  262,000

  —

  —

  26

  Lichfield

  5

  131,107

  1

  75,500

  3

  138,833

  3

  97,833

  1

  55,000

  44

  Lincoln

  7

  119,114

  8

  110,363

  5

  123,300

  9

  130,183

  12

  100,083

  68

  Liverpool

  5

  102,000

  5

  76,600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  191,125

  44

  London

  4

  334,000

  2

  310,000

  2

  370,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  Manchester

  10

  88,200

  11

  106,527

  10

  93,603

  6

  83,167

  7

  97,429

  74

  Newcastle

  4

  175,374

  5

  123,300

  4

  91,500

  3

  197,333

  1

  79,000

  37

  Norwich

  2

  128,250

  —

  —

  5

  93,100

  —

  —

  3

  174,583

  41

  Oxford

  6

  202,875

  4

  183,375

  9

  191,667

  7

  146,464

  5

  186,800

  80

  Peterborough

  2

  243,250

  3

  160,333

  3

  225,858

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  Portsmouth

  2

  193,750

  2

  182,500

  4

  339,680

  1

  85,000

  3

  215,000

  21

  Ripon

  1

  80,000

  2

  153,331

  1

  134,000

  1

  230,000

  —

  —

  13

  Rochester

  2

  158,750

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  110,000

  —

  —

  11

  St. Albans

  6

  181,875

  —

  —

  5

  185,290

  —

  —

  2

  249,750

  30

  St. Eds and lps

  3

  175,333

  5

  131,900

  2

  122,500

  9

  133,696

  7

  127,107

  53

  Salisbury

  2

  136,500

  2

  213,000

  3

  226,333

  2

  169,000

  3

  140,867

  27

  Sheffield

  4

  105.625

  7

  95,057

  3

  90,083

  6

  105,750

  1

  49,750

  41

  Sodor and Man

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Southwark

  —

  —

  1

  240,000

  3

  250,167

  7

  146,150

  3

  216,500

  33

  Southwell

  5

  115,800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  59,950

  —

  —

  25

  Truro

  4

  127,113

  2

  95,000

  1

  120,000

  4

  78,254

  4

  119,250

  29

  Wakefield

  13

  129,892

  2

  64,000

  1

  96,000

  2

  122,850

  3

  91,667

  63

  Winchester

  3

  202,851

  5

  168,200

  1

  115,000

  2

  183,750

  2

  163,625

  27

  Worcester

  1

  138,000

  —

  —

  3

  141,000

  1

  320,000

  1

  265,000

  14

  York

  3

  119,369

  2

  80,500

  1

  79,000

  —

  —

  3

  133,000

  39

  Total

  154

  161,812

  118

  144,395

  107

  156,058

  115

  130,955

  107

  140,177

  1,486

  Note:

  It should be noted that the costs given are averages, so do not necessarily reflect the value of parsonages across each diocese.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what action Her Majesty's Government have taken in relation to Lockerbie and Libyan sanctions since the Adjournment debate on 1 February.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has written to two hon. Members on matters which arose during the Adjournment debate on 1 February. Discussions about Lockerbie and UTA 772 with our closest partners have continued. The Government's policy towards Libya is kept under constant consideration, but it is only the Libyan Government who can bring about the lifting of sanctions by complying in full with the relevant Security Council resolutions.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14 February.

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

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the statutory instruments which each Government Department has sponsored in the last 12
  573
  months; and what statutory instruments each Department proposes to introduce during the current year.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Internet
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will make a statement on the current progress and the likely timetable to when hon. Members on the parliamentary data and video network will be able to have House of Commons e-mail addresses accessible to their constituents and the general public through the Internet.

  Mr. Waller
  The Information Committee has recommended, subject to endorsement by the Finance and Services Committee of the necessary expenditure, that connection to the Internet should be made available, as an experiment, to those Members who are users of the parliamentary data and video network and who request it. It is hoped that connection to the Internet will be possible by May of this year. The experiment will be assessed in due course.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Contagious Agalactia
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of contagious agalactia have occurred in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Ancram
  There have been no cases of contagious agalactia in Northern Ireland.

  Rape and Child Abuse
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the provision in the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1994, in respect of the removal of a defendant's right to anonymity prior to conviction and sentencing in cases of alleged rape and alleged child abuse.

  Sir John Wheeler
  Following publication of the proposal for a draft order in 1993, two representations were received expressing concern that the removal of a

  Year

  Total

  PAYE

  Capital gains tax

  Corporation tax

  Schedule D tax

  1978–79

  11,041

  4,473

  135

  560

  5,873

  1979–80

  10,648

  4,215

  148

  584

  5,701

  1980–81

  10,222

  3,953

  143

  597

  5,529

  1981–82

  10,124

  3,842

  126

  409

  5,747

  1982–83

  10,221

  4,042

  116

  390

  5,673

  1983–84

  10,171

  4,094

  113

  394

  5,570

  1984–85

  9,339

  4,016

  92

  557

  4,674

  1985–86

  8,443

  3,196

  92

  559

  4,596

  1986–87

  7,989

  2,902

  85

  530

  4,472

  1987–88

  7,795

  2,902

  105

  538

  4,250

  1988–89

  7,866

  2,931

  121

  571

  4,243

  1989–90

  7,879

  2,974

  92

  570

  4,243

  1990–91

  7,846

  2,808

  79

  549

  4,410

  1991–92

  8,187

  3,209

  70

  532

  4,376

  1992–93

  8,410

  3,119

  69

  492

  4,730

  1993–94

  8,173

  2,945

  68

  465

  4,695

  574
  defendant's right to anonymity in a rape case might lead to the identification of the complainant. One of them also expressed concern that a defendant in a rape case whose name had been published might be subject to harassment. The right to anonymity had not extended at any time to defendants in other types of cases, including child abuse.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what redress is open to defendants for detrimental publicity in cases of alleged rape and alleged child abuse where the defendant's right to anonymity is removed but where the defendant is not proved guilty of an offence.

  Sir John Wheeler
  The law does not make specific provisions in this matter. A defendant acquitted of a charge in proceedings which may be freely reported must decide for himself whether to seek redress under criminal or civil law if he believes publicity of the case was detrimental to him.

  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to protect teachers from false accusations of rape and child abuse.

  Sir John Wheeler
  None. It is impossible to protect any person from having a false accusation laid against them.

TREASURY

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of Inland Revenue collection staff employed in each year since 1979, broken down to show those employed in ensuring the collection of(a) PAYE, (b) capital gains tax, (c) corporation tax, (d) schedule D tax and (e) national insurance contributions.

  Sir George Young
  Excluding staff employed on central administration, the table sets out the total numbers of Inland Revenue staff engaged on the collection of tax within the Department's accounts offices, local office network, and the enforcement officers for each year since 1978–79 and how many were working in the areas of(a) PAYE, (b) capital gains tax, (c) corporation tax and (d) schedule D tax. Under (a) the figures include staff used in collecting PAYE from employers and a relatively small number of schedule E tax assessments. As resource usage on national insurance contribution work is incidental to mainstream tax collection, it is not separately recorded.
  575
  The number of staff employed on collection and enforcement work has decreased since 1979. The greater proportion of the reduction arose through automation but other decreases resulted from administrative and efficiency measures and the transfer of work to other parts of the Department. Conversely, extra work loads attracted staff increases but the net overall reduction in permanent staff is around 2,860.

  Monetary Union
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions United Kingdom Ministers or officials have had concerning technical aspects of introducing notes and coins for the single European currency, with(a) the expert group reporting to Commissioner Christopherson and (b) other bodies; what representation the United Kingdom has on this group; and when it is anticipated that technical aspects of monetary union will be settled to enable the change over to a single currency to take place.

  Mr. Nelson
  United Kingdom ministers and officials have had no discussions concerning technical aspects of introducing notes and coins for a single currency with the expert group on the changeover to the single currency. This is an independent group and neither the United Kingdom nor the other member states are formally represented. The group is likely to seek opinions from relevant United Kingdom bodies.

  Article 109f(3) of the EC treaty provides that the European Monetary Institute shall supervise the technical preparation of ecu bank notes. The EMI has set up a group of national central bank experts to undertake a detailed study, the EMI working group on printing and issuing a European banknote.

  A working group of mint directors from EU member states has been formed to address the technical implications of single European coinage, with the aim of providing advice to the European Commission on the options available.

  Technical preparations which would be necessary for monetary union are at a very early stage, and it is not yet possible to give a date for their completion.

  The UK opt-out under the Maastricht treaty means that no decision to proceed to monetary union would be made without the agreement of Parliament.

  Fraud
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many cases of fraud have been reported in(a) Government Departments and (b) non-departmental public bodies; and what has been their value in each of the last five years.

  Sir George Young
  The data are submitted by Departments in line with the requirements of 37.1.4 of Government accounting and cover frauds and suspected frauds committed by departmental and agency staff, including cases where staff have colluded with outsiders. The data include NDPB staff frauds where these have been reported by Departments. However, complete data on frauds in NDPBs are not held centrally.

  The values are not a completely accurate indicator of actual losses resulting from fraud since in some cases the amounts involved are estimates, and in others, some or all of the sums have been recovered.
  576
  The number and value of fraud cases within Departments, agencies and NDPBs reported to the Treasury in the last five years are:

  Year

  Number of cases

  Total value £

  1989–90

  221

  1,496,700

  1990–91

  196

  2,302,900

  1991–92

  287

  1,536,900

  1992–93

  302

  2,108,900

  1993–94

  352

  1,688,500

  Bank Notes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current value of(a) £5, (b) £10, (c) £20 and (d) £50 notes in circulation; and what is the estimated current face value of forged notes.

  Mr. Nelson
  The total value of Bank of England banknotes in circulation is published weekly in the bank return. The value of individual denominations was, at Wednesday 25 January 1995, £1,069 million for the £5; £5,362 million for the £10; £7,677 million for the £20; and £2,869 million for the £50.

  The Bank of England, in common with most note-issuing authorities, does not publish details. of the counterfeit notes it receives. However, despite an increase in counterfeiting over the last few years, counterfeit notes detected still represent only a small fraction of 1 per cent. of the total notes in circulation

  Bus Fuel Duty
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the difference between the bus fuel duty rebate which has been paid and what would have been paid had the rebate not been frozen for each year from November 30 1993 to date.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information for the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95 is as follows.

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Cost of rebate

  220

  1225

  Estimated cost without freeze in rebate announced 30 November 1993

  227

  257

  1 Indicates forecast outturn.

  Business Statistics Service
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what assessment he has made of the implications for confidentiality and impartiality in a contracted out statutory collection of business statistics service under the Contracting Out (Statistics of Trade) Order 1995.

  Mr. Nelson
  The order referred to exists in draft form only and has not been laid before Parliament. An independent assessment into the attitudes of business to the contracting out of statistical inquiry work was made in October 1993, and the results of the study were placed in the Library. Should an appropriate contracting out order laid under section 77 (2) of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 be approved by Parliament, any
  577
  subsequent market testing or contracting out of statistical inquiry work would take the results of this research into account.

  Reinvestment Relief
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if investment in those companies listed under stock exchange rule 4.2 are eligible for reinvestment relief.

  Mr. George Young
  Yes. Capital gains tax reinvestment relief is available for investment in shares in qualifying unquoted trading companies. Companies listed under stock exchange rule 4.2 are unquoted companies for this purpose.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to travel to Hong Kong in 1995.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have no plans to travel to Hong Kong in 1995.

  Public Works Loan Board
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes are proposed to the quotas for lending to local authorities by the Public Works Loan Board.

  Mr. Nelson
  The Public Works Loan Commissioners have issued a circular today notifying local authorities that there will be no change in the formula for calculating quotas for 1995–96.

  Copies of the circular have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Expenditure Review
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement about the likely effect on staff numbers in his Department of the fundamental review of expenditure;

  (2) what savings to his Department's budget in the next three financial years he expects as a result of the Treasury's fundamental expenditure review.

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: The FER report identified savings of 25 posts at grade 5 and above—round 25 per cent. of the total. The saving in direct staff costs attributable to this will amount to about £1.8 million in a full year. The implications of the FER for the number of staff employed by the Treasury in these and other grades and for other expenditure for next year and beyond is being considered in the work currently in hand and to set budgets for 1995–96.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Link Projects
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library a full list of all 500 LINK research and development projects supported by Government to date, indicating the annual Government contribution for each of the last five years.
  578
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  I have today placed in the Library a full list of the 571–343 active and 228 completed LINK projects supported by the Government since the start of the LINK initiative in 1986, together with details of Government expenditure on LINK for the last five years.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the total expenditure on all forms of advertising by his Office and its agencies for each year since its establishment, in 1994 prices.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  Expenditure on all forms of advertising by the Office of Public Service and Science, including its agencies, for each year since 1992–93, when the office was established, was as follows:

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  11994–95 £

  OPSS

  695,400

  1,259,200

  477,500

  1 To end—January.

  1992£

  1993£

  1994£

  HMSO

  537,100

  1,471,700

  1,745,800

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Library Service
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to respond to the report commissioned by his Department from the consultants ASLIB on the public library service.

  Mr. Sproat
  I expect to receive the final report from the review consultants within the next month. I intend then to make a statement on the report as soon as possible thereafter.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to announce the results of his Department's consultation on proposals to restructure the Sports Council.

  Mr. Sproat
  I am currently considering responses to the consultation on the Government's proposals set out in my 8 July statement. To assist me in this, I have asked the Great Britain Sports Council to provide me with its, own view of how its current functions and staffing might be realigned to take account of those proposals. I shall be taking final policy decisions in the light of my analysis and this further work, which will be completed shortly.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) when the decision was taken to remove the words "sport for all" from the Sports Council's letterhead;

  (2) what consultations he has had with the Sports Council about the removal of the words "sport for all" from the Sports Council's letterhead;
  579
  (3) how many sheets of letterheads were discarded by the Sports Council following the recent removal of the words "sport for all" from the design;

  (4) what costs have been incurred in the alteration of the Sports Council's letterhead by the removal of the words "sport for all".

  Mr. Sproat
  The Sports Council decided to remove "sport for all" in redesigning its letterhead on the appointment of its new chairman and vice-chairman. This was a matter for the Sports Council and therefore Ministers and officials were neither consulted nor informed. I am advised by the Sports Council that because of the level of stocks held at any one time, the costs were negligible.

  Children's Play (Funding)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment he has made on the present arrangements for funding children's play.

  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle under Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on 16 January,Official Report, columns 300–01.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Languages, EEC
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many working languages were used in the EEC(a) in 1970, (b) in 1980, (c) in 1990 and (d) at the latest date for which figures are available; what is the estimated cost of translation services in 1995; and what was the cost in each of the previous years.

  Mr. David Davis
  The European Community had four official and working languages in 1970, six in 1980, nine in 1990 and has had 11 since the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden in January this year. There is no separate line in the EC budget covering the cost of translation services. Estimates could therefore be calculated only at disproportionate cost.

  Copenhagen Summit
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what priority Her Majesty's Government attach to the United Nations social summit to be held in March in Copenhagen; and who will represent Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are committed to achieving a successful summit and have participated actively in the preparations. Our principle priority is to improve the focus of the international debate around the issues of development.

  A final decision on attendance at the summit will be taken near the date.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 19, which of the functions of the EU monitors in Bosnia duplicate
  580
  similar functions performed by UNPROFOR and UNHCR; and if he will make it his policy to avoid such duplication and to ensure that EU funds are used more efficiently in Bosnia.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are satisfied that there exists no duplication of effort between UNPROFOR's and UNHCR's roles and that of the EU monitoring mission.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those resolutions on nuclear arms control, nuclear disarmament, nuclear testing and nuclear materials production freeze voted upon at the most recent session of the United Nations General Assembly, indicating the vote taken on each resolution, how the United Kingdom voted, and the reasons in each case for the way the United Kingdom voted.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I shall write to the hon. Member with the information he has requested shortly.

  Piracy
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the numbers and locations of acts of piracy committed against British shipping worldwide since 1987; and what action his Department has taken in response to these(a) unilaterally, (b) bilaterally and (c) multilaterally.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  This information will take some time to compile. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the eligibility of United Kingdom citizens to apply for work permits into the United States of America.

  Mr. Baldry
  British citizens are eligible to apply to the United States immigration authorities for a United States work permit. Applications are generally based on a specific offer of employment from a United States employer.

  Colombia
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support the appointment of a special rapporteur in Colombia by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

  Mr. David Davis
  President Samper has pledged to give human rights the highest priority. He has discussed them constructively with UN human rights bodies, foreign Governments and NGOs. We do not believe the appointment of a special rapporteur is needed.

  Islamic Fundamentalism
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has raised the issue of Islamic fundamentalism at NATO meetings.
  581
  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: Potential threats to security and stability in the Mediterranean region are discussed from time to time in NATO meetings. These threats include acts of violence carried out by extremist groups, some but not all of which act under the guise of fundamentalist movements.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the possible threat from Islamic fundamentalism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: We do not consider Islam, or Islamic revival, to be a threat. However a number of countries in the middle east face problems of violent extremism under the guise of Islamic movements. These are clearly a threat to the stability of the region.

  Security Co-operation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy concerning the establishment of military links between NATO and(a) north African and (b) middle eastern countries; what consideration his Department has given to the establishment of wider security co-operation with these countries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: NATO has no plans to establish military links with either north African or middle eastern countries. The Mediterranean initiative announced by the NATO Secretary-General on 7 February is political in nature and reflects the alliance's wish to contribute to the strengthening of regional stability, to foster better understanding of mutual concerns, and to correct any misunderstandings of the NATO's purpose that could lead to perceptions of a threat. It also seeks to complement OSCE and WEU dialogues with certain countries in the region.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the oral answer by the Leader of the House of 2 February,Official Report, column 1231, and Madam Speaker's statement of 2 February, Official Report, column 1231, what considerations underlay his decision to hold a press conference on the issue of exported live animals for slaughter rather than make a statement to the House.

  Mr. Waldergrave
  I believed that it was extremely important to inject into the wider public debate a point which I hope is reasonably well understood in the House—since the Government have made it clear both to hon. Members and in another place namely that, legally, it is not open to the United Kingdom to introduce a unilateral ban on exports of live animals. My statement to the press on 1 February merely confirmed that position. A letter sent to all Members of the House earlier that day set out the legal position in detail, as did answers given on 2 February to parliamentary questions from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale),Official
  582
  Report, columns 846–47. I believe that misunderstanding on this point fuels some of the frustration of many of those demonstrating against the trade and diverts attention from the necessity of securing improvements in European law.

  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the legal arguments put forward by Compassion in World Farming rebutting his contention that it would be illegal for the United Kingdom to impose a ban on the export from the United Kingdom of live animals for slaughter.

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 2 February to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale),Official Report, columns 846–47, about the legality under Community law of measures banning or restricting calf exports. Similar considerations would apply to a ban on the export of live animals for slaughter.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 851, what information he now has on how many of the exporters of livestock currently using Brightlingsea have convictions and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  I have nothing to add to that reply.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle over six months of age were loaded on the MV Caroline at Brightlingsea on 1 February; where they came from; what was their destination; where they were lairaged prior to transportation; what were the nationalities of the haulage firms prior to lairage and after lairage; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: A total of 32 heifers and bullocks from premises in County Meath, Republic of Ireland were loaded on the MV Caroline on that day. According to the health documents and journey plan accompanying the animals their destination was premises in Vitre, France and they were to be rested, fed and watered at premises in Northampton and Nieuwpoort, Belgium. The animals were transported by a British haulage firm.

  Contagious Epididymitis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the cases of contagious epididymitis in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Browning
  No cases of contagious epididymitis have been recorded since it was made notifiable on 1 January 1993. Official records are not available before that date.

  Contagious Agalactia
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of contagious agalactia have occurred in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Browning
  No cases of contagious agalactia have been recorded in England since it was made notifiable on 1 January 1993. Official records are not available before January 1993.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list in each of the last five years, the amount of compensation paid out to farmers whose animals have been slaughtered as BSE carriers.

  Mrs. Browning
  Compensation is paid when animals suspected to be affected with BSE are compulsory slaughtered. Details of compensation paid in the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Compensation £

  1990

  9,030,752

  1991

  15,741,463

  1992

  28,205,613

  1993

  36,290,273

  1994

  22,546,902

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouses have closed and what killing capacity by species has been taken out of commission in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Browning
  Our records indicate the numbers of licensed red meat slaughterhouses in England in each year since 1984 were:

  1984: 861

  1985: 852

  1986: 815

  1987: 793

  1988: 782

  1989: 689

  1990: 643

  1991: 593

  1992: 455

  1993: 434

  1994: 424

  The Department does not hold figures on the total capacity of slaughterhouses.

  Sheep Pox
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of sheep pox have been reported in each year since 1985.

  Mrs. Browning
  No cases of sheep pox have been recorded in England since 1985.

  Agricultural Development Advisory Service
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made as to which Ministry work currently carried out under various memoranda of understanding will be transferred to a privatised ADAS.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No decisions have yet been taken on the extent of the work which might be transferred to the private sector.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest available figures for the number of sheep farmers authorised under the certification scheme to purchase organophosphorous dip products in Wales, Scotland and each of his Department's regions in England; and what, in each case, was the total estimated number of sheep farmers.

  Mrs. Browning
  The certification scheme is run by the National Proficiency Tests Council. There are 90,000 registered sheep farmers in the United Kingdom. The number of farmers who have applied for certification in each NPTC region by 10 February 1995 is set out in the following table. The information is not available by MAFF regions.

  By 10 February, 11,151 sheep farmers had enrolled for certification. A total of 4,746 certificates had also been issued by that date. None of this data are available on a corresponding regional basis.

  The decision on whether or not to apply for certification is a matter for the individual sheep farmer, bearing in mind their judgment on the possible need to purchase OP sheep dips for the treatment of sheep in the coming year.

  Applications for sheep dipping certificates received by 10 February 1995

  Counties

  Numbers registered

  Northumberland

  1,448

  Durham

  Tyne and Wear

  Cumbria

  Lancashire

  Cheshire

  Merseyside

  Great Manchester

  Yorkshire

  596

  Cleveland

  596

  Humberside

  190

  Lincolnshire

  190

  Derbyshire

  407

  Leicestershire

  Northamptonshire

  Nottinghamshire

  Shropshire

  268

  Staffordshire

  268

  Hereford and Worcester

  434

  Gloucester and North Avon

  Warwickshire

  West Midlands

  Cambridgeshire

  122

  Norfolk

  Suffolk

  Essex

  62

  Hertfordshire

  London (North of Thames)

  Bedfordshire

  155

  Berkshire

  Buckinghamshire

  Oxfordshire

  Kent

  218

  Sussex—East

  London (South of Thames)

  Surrey

  73

  Sussex—West

  73

  Hampshire

  100

  Isle of Wight

  100

  Dorset

  614

  Somerset

  South Avon

  Devon

  Cornwall

  Wiltshire

  Clwyd

  756

  Gwynedd

  756

  Powys

  551

  Dyfed

  602

  Glamorgan

  213

  Gwent

  213

  585

  Applications for sheep dipping certificates received by 10 February 1995

  Counties

  Numbers registered

  Scotland

  1,230

  Northern Ireland

  300

  ATB Landbase

  2,812

  Total as known

  11,151

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether payments under the 1995 hill livestock compensatory allowances scheme will all be made within the payments timetable set out in his Department's latest commitment to service document.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The 1995 HLCA scheme opened for applications on 15 November 1994. The Council regulation which extended the agri-monetary system on which HLCA rates are dependent was not published in the Official Journal until 31 December 1994. The statutory instrument allowing payments to be made was laid in the House on 19 January 1995. Most claimants should receive their payments within three months of receipt of their claim as provided for in the Ministry's regional service standard "Commitment to Service". However, some of the claims submitted early in the claim period are unlikely to be processed in time to meet the target. We will keep any delays to a minimum.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Grade

  Women

  Total staff

  Per cent.of total

  Women

  Total staff

  Per cent, of total

  Women

  Total staff

  Percent, of total

  Women

  Total staff

  Percent, of total

  3

  1

  25

  4.0

  1

  24

  4.2

  1

  25

  4.0

  0

  23

  0.0

  7

  130

  957

  13.6

  134

  924

  14.5

  150

  920

  16.3

  161

  919

  17.5

  EO

  773

  1,721

  44.9

  786

  1,731

  45.4

  965

  1,946

  49.6

  878

  1,910

  45.9

  AO

  1,365

  2,064

  66.1

  1,377

  2,057

  66.9

  1,541

  2,274

  67.8

  1,584

  2,335

  67.8

  AA

  1,499

  2,056

  72.9

  1,576

  2,086

  75.6

  1,541

  2,065

  74.6

  1,466

  1,993

  73.5

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Ernest Saunders
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for granting Ernest Saunders parole in 1994.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Mr. Saunders was released on licence in 1991, when he become eligible for parole, following a recommendation to that effect from the Parole Board, an independent body.

  Data Protection Directive
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give an undertaking that he or his representative will vote against the draft data protection directive in the relevant forthcoming Council of Ministers' meeting unless it has been amended to reflect the criticisms made of it by the Minister of State, the right

  Guide Dogs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to seek exemption for the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and guide dog owners from the Restrictions on the Administration of Veterinary Medicinal Products Regulations 1994, SI 2987, in order to allow veterinary surgeons to prescribe generic alternatives to specialist veterinary prescriptions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 10 February 1995]: None. It is in the interests of animals to treat them with medicines which have been fully assessed for safety, quality and efficacy in the species concerned. The regulations encourage good practice in both areas by reinforcing the code of practice introduced by the British Veterinary Association in 1991. The provisions have therefore established good veterinary practice in the United Kingdom, but which now have statutory backing. Where no authorised product exists for a particular condition in a particular species the veterinary surgeon is able to exercise his or her clinical judgment to consider alternatives in accordance with the regulations.

  Departmental Employees
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many employees for which his Department is responsible were women(a) in 1991, (b) in 1992, (c) in 1993 and (d) in 1994; and of these, how many were (i) at grade 7 level, (ii) at grade 3 level, (iii) at executive officer level, (iv) at administrative officer level and (v) at administrative assistant level.

  Mr. Jack
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 January 1995, c. 214–16]: The information given for 1994 was incorrect, the correct information is as follows:

  hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), in European Standing Committee B.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The draft directive in its original form was unacceptable to the United Kingdom. By the time of the Standing Committee debate on 7 December 1994, a number of improvements had been made, for example in relation to the use of data for research and statistical purposes and for health administration. However, a number of concerns remained. Intensive negotiations continued until political agreement was reached on the directive at the Foreign Affairs Council on 6 February. By then, significant progress had been made towards meeting UK concerns. In particular there is now more flexibility in applying the directive to existing records held in paper filing systems; a safeguard for the effective supervision of City financial institutions; and freedom to continue political canvassing. The UK indicated that it would be abstaining when the matter is put to a formal vote, probably later this month. The
  587
  decision to abstain was conditional upon the improvements which have been secured.

  Disclosure Requirements
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a duty on courts not to reveal the identity and addresses of people who allow the police to use their property for surveillance purposes.

  Mr. Maclean
  I am looking into this point as part of my consideration of the issues raised by the current disclosure requirements generally.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the application by Cleethorpes borough council for a closed circuit television installation under the CCTV challenge competition 1994–95.

  Mr. Maclean
  The bid from Cleethorpes borough council for funding for its proposed CCTV installation is at present under consideration, along with the other bids received. The winners will be announced in early March.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the amendments made to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Three amendments have been made:

  1. The definition of protected animal in section 1(1) has been extended to include any invertebrate of the species Octopus vulgaris from the stage of its development when it becomes capable of independent feeding. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (Amendment) Order 1993: SI 1993/2103.

  2. Any bird of the species Coturnix coturnix—quail—has been added to schedule 2—animals to be obtained only from designated breeding or supplying establishments. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (Amendment) Order 1993: SI 1993/2103.

  3. Section 10(3) has been extended to exclude the use—except in exceptional circumstances— of species of animals listed in appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (Amendment) Regulations 1993: SI 1993/2102

  Crime Statistics
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish details of recorded crimes for each year since 1992 in(a) supermarket car parks, (b) out of town shopping centres and (c) town centre shopping malls; and if he will indicate the percentage involving (i) assaults on women, (ii) assaults on men, (iii) car crime and (iv) other crimes.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the conversion of the national collection of criminal records into digital form for entry on the police national computer; and what steps he is taking to ensure that technical staff who have access to the computer do not have criminal connections.
  588
  Mr. Maclean
  The contract for the back record conversion of criminal records, for eventual entry on the police national computer, was awarded to PCL Group Ltd. on 5 July 1994. Work began in October and is expected to take 18 months. It is being carried out, under conditions of the strictest security, in three locations in the United Kingdom.

  PCL Group operators do not have direct access to the police national computer but key portions of records on to magnetic tape from electronic images supplied by the national identification service at New Scotland Yard. The procedures for conversion make it impossible for workers to associate a subject's name with details of his or her convictions, since the different sections of each criminal record are separately streamed and only reassembled at New Scotland Yard on return of the magnetic tapes. After quality control has taken place, the converted data will be passed, again on tape, to Home Office civil servants at the Hendon Data Centre for entry on the police national computer.

  All the workers keying in records have been subject to a criminal record check, as have all Home Office staff involved in this work.

  Police Forces (Budgets)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the budget adjustment made by his Department in respect of each police force for 1995–96.

  Mr. Maclean
  The setting of budgets is a matter for police authorities. Grant allocations to police authorities for 1995–96 were announced in the reply given on 30 January to a question from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence),Official Report, column 516.

  Methcathinone
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to add methcathinone to the prohibited substances list.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Methcathinone is a synthetic stimulant. The World Health Organisation has recently recommended that it should be brought under the controls of the United Nations convention on psychotropic substances, 1971. The UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs will shortly be considering the recommendation.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which has a duty to keep under review drug misuse in the United Kingdom, is to consider whether to recommend bringing methcathinone under the controls of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

  Mr. and Mrs. Walker, Toxteth
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Liverpool police force has agreed compensation to be paid out to Mr. and Mrs. Walker of Toxteth following a raid on their house by mistake; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter for the chief constable of Merseyside police. I am told, though, that a claim has been received and is being assessed.

  Special Constabulary
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what regulations govern members of the special constabulary; and who negotiates members of the special constabulary's conditions of service.

  Mr. Maclean
  The main regulations which apply to members of the special constabulary are as follows:

  The Special Constables Regulations 1965

  The Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 1968

  The Special Constables (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1992

  The Special Constables (Amendment) Regulations 1992

  The Special Constables (Pensions) Regulations 1971 (revoked by SI 1973/431, except in relation to pensions awarded before 1 April 1972)

  The Special Constables (Pensions) Regulations 1973 The Special Constables (Pensions) Regulations 1980

  The Special Constables (Injury Benefit) Regulations 1987

  By virtue of section 34(1) of the Police Act 1964, the Secretary of State may make regulations as to the government, administration and conditions of service of special constables. As a matter of practice, the Department consults representatives of the police staff associations, the special constabulary, and other interested parties before laying any such regulations.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of police officers per 100,000 population each year since 1979 for(a) the Metropolitan police, (b) Hampshire, (c) Manchester and (d) Essex.

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on ratios of police officers to population levels are contained in the appendices to the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary, copies of which are in the Library.

  Life Prisoners
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), on 16 January,Official Report, column 333, if he will list the nature of offence for which they were convicted and the date of their sentence in respect of each of the 15 individuals serving mandatory and discretionary life sentences who have been informed that previous Ministers set a whole life tariff in their case.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  All 15 prisoners were convicted of murder. The convictions were in May 1966, July 1976, November 1978, November 1983, September 1984, October 1986 (two), December 1986, July 1987, February 1988, November 1988, February 1990, July 1991, September 1991, and October 1991.

  Police Officers (Severance Arrangements)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce voluntary and compulsory severance arrangements for police officers.

  Mr. Howard
  The -Metropolitan police service is running a limited voluntary retirement scheme which will come to an end of 31 March 1995. This was introduced to assist the force to restructure its middle management.
  590
  All other Home Departments' forces expect to be able to carry out any such restructuring without voluntary or compulsory severance arrangements. The Government do not therefore intend to introduce legislative provision for such arrangements.

  Prison Escapes
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 810, for what reason information on escapes from Greater London prisons is not available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 14 February 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question, pursuant to his Answer of 2 February, Official Report, column 810, for what reason information on escapes from Greater London prisons is not available.

  Information about escapes has only been recorded centrally since 20 June 1988. Before this date, all relevant information was held at establishments, or regional offices, for inclusion in the Annual Report on the work of the Prison Department.

  The data for 1979 is contained in the Prison Department Annual Report for 1979. It details only escapes from specific establishments for male adult and young prisoners. It does not record the establishment from which borstal trainees or detention centre trainees escaped. The same Report details one escaper from Brixton prison and three escapers from Latchmere House remand centre within the Greater London area.

  The Prison Department Annual Report for 1984–85 records three escapers from Ashford remand centre and one escaper from Latchmere House remand centre. It does not record the establishment from which young offenders or females escaped.

  The Prison Department Annual Report for 1985–86 records four escapers from Ashford remand centre, five escapers from Brixton prison, four escapers from Pentonville prison and one escaper from Wormwood Scrubs prison. There are no details of the prisons from which the young offenders or females escaped.

  During the year ending 31 March 1994 there were eleven escapers from establishments within the Greater London area, namely:

  Six escapers from Downview prison

  Three escapers from Feltham young offenders institution

  One escaper from Highdown prison One escaper from Pentonville prison

  These figures do not include those prisoners who escaped from escort from Greater London prisons.

  Tiger Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what tiger products were seized by the Metropolitan police in their raids on Chinese medicine shops in London on 7 February.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner that several hundred items were seized in raids on four premises in central London on 7 February. These included articles believed to be tiger bones, and medicinal powder and pill products believed to contain ingredients derived from tigers and other endangered species.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what tiger products were seized in raids on Chinese medicine shops on 7 February outside the metropolitan area.
  591
  Mr. Maclean
  The Greater Manchester police and the West Midlands police seized hundreds of products in raids at eight premises on 7 February. These included articles believed to be tiger bone and products derived from tigers and other endangered species.

EDUCATION

  Spending
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will give the total amount spent or to be spent(a) in cash terms and (b) in 1995 prices on education in (i) 1978–79, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) 1995–96.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table includes expenditure by central Government and English local authorities in 1978–79 and 1994–95. The 1994–95 figures are based on estimated outturn. Figures for local authority budgeted expenditure on education in 1995–96 are not yet available. Central Government's own expenditure for 1995–96 will total some £10,949 million. Figures include expenditure on mandatory student awards in Wales and for 1978–79 expenditure on universities in Great Britain, but otherwise are for England only.

  £million

  1978–79

  1994–95

  Cash

  7,459

  28,262

  Real terms1

  21,801

  28,262

  1 Cash figures adjusted to 1994–95 levels using November 1994 GDP deflator.

  Budget Deficits
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what information she has as to budget deficits in Wycombe West school, Buckinghamshire; Langham secondary school, Haringey; King David's school, Manchester; Southridge first school, North Tyneside; and Bramingham JMI school, Bedfordshire; and under what provisions of their respective local authorities' schemes for local management of schools such deficits have been authorised.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  At 31 March 1994, the budget deficits at the schools as recorded on the outturn statements produced by the respective local education authorities were as follows:

  £

  Wycombe West school

  114,000

  Langham secondary school

  143,667

  Kind David high school

  344,344

  Southridge first school

  68,585

  Bramingham JMI school

  47,000

  I shall write to the hon. Member with the other information which has been requested; a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library.

  Education Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what formula is used to calculate education standard spending assessments per pupil.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is contained in the "Local Government Finance Report (England) 1995–96," a copy of which has been placed in the Library. The SSA system does not set out to provide the same sum of money per pupil, but to provide funding for a common standard of service across the country.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will amend the parents charter on maximum pupil numbers per class.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  No.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the research carried out by her Department into the effect of class sizes on pupil progress and attainment levels.

  Mr. Forth
  As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church) on 24 January,Official Report, column 166, the Department has not undertaken such research itself, but monitors work generally in this field.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will state by school the classroom sizes in schools designated as seriously below standard in the report from Her Majesty's inspector of schools for 1993–94 on standards in schools.

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

  Schools, Hampshire
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education by what sum the Government's contribution to the Hampshire local education authority has changed for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96; and what information he has concerning the cash balances held by schools in Hampshire.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Allowing for the reform of inter-authority recoupment, Hampshire's education standard spending assessment for 1995–96 will rise by £2.3 million over the comparable 1994–95 figure.

  For the financial year ending in March 1994, the outturn statement prepared by the county council for that year under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988 showed that total balances held by schools in Hampshire were £25.542 million.

  Aggregated Schools Budget
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) if she will list the proportion of the ASB retained by the local education authorities of the metropolitan cities for each of the last five years; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) how much each metropolitan city retained on the non-schools section of their aggregated schools budget for 1995–96; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The aggregated schools budget represents, by definition, that part of a local education
  593
  authority's general schools budget which is distributed to the schools themselves.

  Information on the percentage of the general schools budget, and the potential schools budget; retained centrally by each local education authority for 1994–95 and previous years is contained in the answer which I gave on 17 October 1994 to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) Official Report, columns 27–36. No corresponding information in relation to 1995–96 is yet available.

  Surplus Places
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the latest figure for surplus places for each local education authority of the metropolitan cities; and what representations she has received from Sheffield local education authority on its proposed reduction.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on Friday 9 December 1994,Official Report, columns 410–14. Sheffield is implementing approved reorganisation proposals which have reduced the primary figure and will reduce the secondary figure by July.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) primary and (b) secondary school places surplus to requirements currently exist in (i) Ealing, (ii) other London boroughs and (iii) the remaining local education authorities of the country; what costs are involved in each case; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on Friday 9 December 1994,Official Report, columns 410–14. The average premises-related cost of maintaining a surplus place is estimated to be £182 a year for a primary school and £303 a year for a secondary school at 1995–96 prices. The actual cost and scope for

  Proposals under consideration for:-

  LEA

  (a) Up to 3 months

  (b) 3–6 months

  (c) 6–9 months

  (d) 9–2 months

  (e) In excess of 12 months

  Avon

  —

  1

  3

  —

  1

  Barnet

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Bedfordshire

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Berkshire

  —

  3

  5

  —

  —

  Birmingham

  5

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Bradford

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  3

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  4

  6

  1

  —

  —

  Croydon

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cumbria

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Devon

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Doncaster

  —

  29

  8

  —

  —

  Durham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Ealing

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Essex

  —

  7

  4

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greenwich

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  4

  3

  1

  —

  —

  Haringey

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hillingdon

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  594
  realising savings from removal of surplus places in practice will depend on local circumstances.

  Local Education Authorities
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will arrange an early meeting with local education authorities.

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend meets local authority associations and officials from local education authorities in the normal course of business.

  Teachers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will estimate the total loss of jobs among teachers and school support staffs which is currently expected in 1995–96.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under the arrangements for local management, decisions about school staffing levels are made by school governors on the basis of a variety of local factors. No central estimate is made.

  School Closures
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many proposals for school closure and reorganisation and from which local education authority have been awaiting a decision from her for(a) up to three months, (b) three to six months, (c) six to nine months, (d) nine to 12 months and (e) more than 12 months.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table lists proposals under consideration by the Department as at 10 February 1995 for the closure, alteration or establishment of county and voluntary schools and the length of time the proposals have been under consideration. Following the publication of proposals, there is a statutory two-month period during which objections may be submitted. Where objections are submitted to the LEA there is a further one-month period within which the objections must be forwarded to the Secretary of State.
  595

  Proposals under consideration for:-

  LEA

  (a) Up to 3 months

  (b) 3–6 months

  (c) 6–9 months

  (d) 9–2 months

  (e) In excess of 12 months

  Humberside

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kent

  3

  6

  —

  4

  —

  Knowsley

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  1

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lewisham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  1

  11

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Manchester

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Norfolk

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  North Tyneside

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  North Yorkshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Northamptonshire

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  5

  2

  —

  —

  Oldham

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxfordshire

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Redbridge

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Richmond upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Sandwell

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Sefton

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Solihull

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset

  1

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Stockport

  2

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Suffolk

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sutton

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Tameside

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Trafford

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Wakefield

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Walsall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Warwickshire

  —

  33

  —

  —

  1

  West Sussex

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Wirral

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wolverhampton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  74

  144

  29

  7

  8

  St. Philip's College, Birmingham
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she will announce her response to the recommendations of the Further Education Funding Council for England concerning St. Philip's Roman Catholic sixth form college, Birmingham; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Following the publication of the FEFC's report on the college and its recommendations last November, I have received a number of representations from the trustees, from present and former governors and others connected with the college. After considering these most carefully, I am satisfied that there was mismanagement of the college.

  The recommendation from the Further Education Funding Council was that I should remove and replace all the members of the governing body in order, the Council advised, to provide a fresh start and a complete break from the past. However, the hon. Member will be aware that it is possible that the college will close at the end of
  596
  the 1995–96 academic year. This is a matter in which the relevant legislation gives me no say. In the current circumstances, I have decided that it would not be expedient for me to replace the remaining governors. A number of governors have already resigned. Those who remain have all been in post for a very short time and are now, I believe, doing their best to ensure good governance of the college and, in particular, to secure that the education of the students remains the first priority.

  The funding council also made recommendations concerning amending the instrument of government and the provision of a statutory procedure to govern the closure of designated colleges in the further education sector. We shall be considering these recommendations in consultation with those concerned with St. Philip's and other designated colleges.

  I am very grateful to the funding council for investigating the circumstances at the college and for the action it is taking to disseminate the lessons to be learnt. A copy of the official response to the funding council is

  597
  being placed in the Library. It is clear that these difficulties are not typical of the further education sector as a whole. It is using its new freedoms responsibly, and has already made impressive progress. I hope that I shall not be required to exercise my powers again, but I shall not hesitate to do so if I consider it warranted.

  Derby Tertiary College
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education when she will announce her response to the recommendations of the Further Education Funding Council for England concerning Derby tertiary college, Wilmorton; and if she will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Following the publication of the FEFC's report on the college and its recommendations last November, I have received a number of representations from present and former governors and others connected with the college. After considering these most carefully, I am satisfied that mismanagement took place for which the governing body bears a collective responsibility.

  I intend therefore to exercise my power under section 57 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 to remove the remaining members of the governing body. I am excluding two governors from this action, whom I judge were not responsible for the mismanagement that took place. I intend to appoint seven new governors both as replacements and in order to restore a quorum to the governing body. I hope that all those connected with the college can now put these events behind them and work together in the interests of its students.

  I am very grateful to the Further Education Funding Council for investigating the circumstances at the college and for the action it is taking to disseminate the lessons to be learnt from this episode. A copy of the official response to the funding council is being placed in the Library. It is clear that these difficulties are not typical of the further education sector as a whole. It is using its new freedoms responsibly and has already made impressive progress. I hope that I shall not be required to exercise my powers again, but I shall not hesitate to do so if it warranted.

  Office for Standards in Education
  Ms Estelle Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) full-time employees and (b) part-time employees were in Ofsted for each of the years since it commenced operation.

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many full-time medical advisers are employed by the Benefits Agency at Arden house, Newcastle;
  598
  (2) how many cases have been handled by Dr. Roger Bowmer and Dr. Sheila Hunter at Arden house, Newcastle medical centre for (a) all categories and (b) PD4 cases;

  (3) what is the civil service salary grade payable to full-time medical advisers employed by the Benefits Agency medical section.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical services is a matter for Michael Bichard the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 13 February 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the number of Medical Advisers employed by the Benefits Agency at Arden House, Newcastle; the Civil Service salary grade payable to full time Medical Advisers employed by the Benefits Agency Services (BAMS); the number of cases handled by Dr. Roger Bowmer and Dr. Sheila Hunter for all categories and for PD D4.

  In the BAMS at Arden House, Newcastle there are ten full-time Medical Advisers.

  The salary scale payable to full time Medical Advisers in BAMS in the North East is between £28,213 (minimum) and £41,039 (maximum).

  Information is not available relating specifically to the number of PD D4 cases handled by Dr. Bowmer and Dr. Hunter. However I have provided information relating to all categories at Annex A. Records relating to the number of cases handled are collated over differing periods.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A

  Dr. Hunter

  Dr. Bowmer

  1 March 1994–31 January 1995

  Medical advice on files relating to all prescribed diseases cases

  410

  250

  March 1994–31 January 1995

  Advice on files relating to all other benefits for which medical advice is requested (excluding invalidity benefit)

  3,914

  1,279

  1 January 1994–31 January 1995

  Examination sessions to give medical opinions on incapacity in claims for invalidity benefit (maximum—7 examinations per session)

  41

  74

  1 October 1994–31 January 1995

  Medical advice on files relating to claims for invalidity benefit

  5,377

  4,633

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many reduced earnings allowance awards for PD4 were made in each year since 1989(a) nationally, (b) at Dunn house, (c) at Phoenix house and (d) at South Shields;

  (2) what is the average time taken to process a PD4 claim (a) at the disability benefit centre, Arden house and (b) nationally;
  599
  (3) what was the total number of reduced earnings allowance awards in each year since 1989 (a) nationally, (b) at Dunn house, Sunderland, (c) at Phoenix house, Sunderland, (d) in South Shields and (e) in Houghton-le-Spring.

  Mr. Hague
  The administration of reduced earnings allowance is a matter for Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 13 February 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about awards of reduced earnings allowance since 1989 both nationally and at various Benefits Agency offices.

  Information is not available in respect of new awards of reduced earnings allowance from 1989; the collection of such data did not begin until October 1991. In addition, information is not available separately for Dunn House and Pheonix House in Sunderland and for South Shields and Houghton-le-Spring. Those offices comprise the Benefits Agency's Wearside District and data is collated at District level. The information that is available is attached at Annex A.

  Information in respect of the number of reduced earnings allowance awards for PD4 is also collated at District level and the collection of such data did not commence until June 1992. I have provided at Annex B the information that is available relating to Wearside District and national figures.

  Information is not available in respect of the average time taken to process a PD4 claim at the Newcastle Disability Benefits Centre (DBC). The Benefits Agency Medical Services do not hold information separately for PD D4 or other prescribed diseases. However statistics are held for clearance times of all Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit claims which includes prescribed diseases. The average national clearance time for the year ending 31 January 1995 was 32.6 days. The average clearance time in Newcastle DBC was 29.6 days.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A

  New awards of reduced earnings allowance

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Wearside

  235

  950

  482

  642

  National

  2,895

  6,077

  3,514

  3,593

  Awards of reduced earning allowance in respect of PD D4

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Wearside

  Nil

  6

  17

  National

  933

  701

  702

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many sufferers from asbestos-related diseases have had to pay back benefits to the compensation recovery unit during the current financial year; and what were the sums of money that were clawed back;
  600
  (2) what is the largest sum of money that has ever been clawed back by the compensation recovery unit; and what was the type of sickness, accident or illness involved in this case;

  (3) what is the distribution by size of the amounts of money clawed back by the compensation recovery unit.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Michael Bichard to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 13 February 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the number of sufferers from asbestos related diseases who have had to pay back benefits to the Compensation Recovery Unit (CRU); the largest sum of money recovered by the CRU and the distribution by size of the amounts recovered.

  The CRU's computer system records cases involving victims of asbestosis rather then asbestos related diseases. In the period 1 April 1994 to 31 January 1995 there were 121 recoveries made in relation to asbestosis totalling £893,937.82. The individual amounts are shown on the attached schedule at Annex A.

  The full range of information you requested in respect of a breakdown or recoveries by size is not available. This is because data prior to April 1994 is no longer held on the computer system and to obtain such information n would be at a disproportionate cost. However, the information that is available from 1 April 1994 to 31 December 1994, has been provided at Annex B.

  The largest amount recovered to date is £84,630.01. This was from an award for a back/spinal injury.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Annex A

  Schedule of 121 cases referred to in PQ 0873 showing amounts recovered

  £

  1.

  18.64

  2.

  18.64

  3.

  42.00

  4.

  55.92

  5.

  68.34

  6.

  89.90

  7.

  126.00

  8.

  173.70

  9.

  223.68

  10.

  337.95

  11.

  433.50

  12.

  484.64

  13.

  605.29

  14.

  621.20

  15.

  672.20

  16.

  706.28

  17.

  862.93

  18.

  1,032.31

  19.

  1,105.13

  20.

  1,176.00

  21.

  1,208.80

  22.

  1,219.80

  23.

  1,329.95

  24.

  1,582.87

  25.

  1,692.18

  26.

  1,693.30

  27.

  1,738.24

  28.

  1,747.37

  29.

  1,773.16

  30.

  1,798.56

  31.

  1,853.68

  32.

  1,927.64

  33.

  1,937.45

  601

  Annex A

  Schedule of 121 cases referred to in PQ 0873 showing amounts recovered

  £

  34.

  2,069.31

  35.

  2,135.36

  36.

  2,147.76

  37.

  2,270.16

  38.

  2,298.58

  39.

  2,375.28

  40.

  2,414.16

  41.

  2,454.00

  42.

  2,547.84

  43.

  2,572.01

  44.

  2,579.18

  45.

  2,629.67

  46.

  2,655.15

  47.

  2,676.40

  48.

  2,768.28

  49.

  2,815.44

  50.

  3,002.10

  51.

  3,061.41

  52.

  3,125.32

  53.

  3,270.80

  54.

  3,416.08

  55.

  3,422.72

  56.

  3,662.04

  57.

  4,038.28

  58.

  4,039.11

  59.

  4,119.04

  60.

  4,135.12

  61.

  4,165.87

  62.

  4,279.80

  63.

  4,297.84

  64.

  4,406.56

  65.

  4,582.56

  66.

  4,626.08

  67.

  4,763.04

  68.

  4,814.80

  69.

  4,873.36

  70.

  5,059.80

  71.

  5.263.56

  72.

  5,298.16

  73.

  5.442.85

  74.

  5,527.24

  75.

  5,527.34

  76.

  5,909.44

  77.

  6,000.72

  78.

  6,274.02

  79.

  6,304.15

  80.

  6,559.10

  81.

  6,582.70

  82.

  6,603.92

  83.

  6,668.43

  84.

  6,689.10

  85.

  6,691.50

  86.

  6,946.10

  87.

  6,973.50

  88.

  7,609.51

  89.

  7,758.84

  90.

  8,029.77

  91.

  8,082.43

  92.

  8,969.48

  93.

  9,076.00

  94.

  9,314.79

  95.

  9,533.69

  96.

  10,170.90

  97.

  10,367.62

  98.

  10,917.52

  99.

  10,947.30

  100.

  11,062.90

  101.

  11,725.80

  102.

  12,796.04

  103.

  14,946.17

  104.

  15,862.47

  602

  Annex A

  Schedule of 121 cases referred to in PQ 0873 showing amounts recovered

  £

  105.

  16,832.00

  106.

  17,136.67

  107.

  17,140.01

  108.

  19,027.45

  109.

  19,749.98

  110.

  23,719.15

  111.

  24,395.44

  112.

  25,294.82

  113.

  25,355.18

  114.

  27,518.62

  115.

  28,421.77

  116.

  28,855.99

  117.

  31,153.19

  118.

  32,203.62

  119.

  35,220.65

  120.

  36,558.38

  121.

  47,994.18

  Annex B

  £

  Percentage

  To 5,000.01

  31.5

  5,000.01 to 10,000.00

  17.8

  10,000.01 to 15,000.00

  15.4

  15,000.01 to 20,000.00

  12,0

  20,000.01 to 25,000.00

  8.4

  25,000.01

  14.9

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make an estimate of how many individuals(a) receive means-tested benefits, (b) receive means-tested benefits and pay income tax, (c) receive means-tested benefits and pay national insurance contributions; how many individuals would cease to be eligible for means-tested benefits if they no longer paid income tax or national insurance contributions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  It is estimated that 8.53 million people were in receipt of an income-related benefit at May 1993, the latest date for which figures are available for all benefits.

  An adjustment has been made to take account of the fact that individuals may be in receipt of more than one income-related benefit at the same time. Such adjustment does, however, not produce reliable estimates of the number who also pay tax and national insurance contributions or whose eligibility would cease if no tax or national insurance contributions were paid. The table therefore provides this information separately for each income-related benefit.
  603

  Income-related benefit recipients paying tax and National Insurance

  Recipients paying tax (000s)3

  Recipients paying National Insurance (000s)3

  Recipients who cease to be eligible if tax and NI not payable (000s)4

  Income support

  20

  10

  0

  Family credit

  340

  455

  80

  Housing benefit

  580

  355

  160

  Council tax benefit

  520

  225

  85

  Disability working allowance

  *

  5

  —

  Notes:

  1 All estimates are on a benefit unit basis.

  2 Estimates are rounded to the nearest 5,000 (* indicates a figure less than 2,500).

  3 Estimates for Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are based on data from the 1990, 1991 and 1992 Family Expenditure Surveys, uprated to 1994–95 benefit levels and prices. Estimates for Family Credit are based on the 1994 Family Credit Enquiry. Estimates for Disability Working Allowance are based on the 1994 Disability Working Allowance Enquiry.

  4 All estimates are based on data from the 1990, 1991 and 1992 Family Expenditure Surveys, uprated to 1994–95 benefit levels and prices. Insufficient information is available on Disability Working Allowance for an estimate to be made.

  5 Columns cannot be totalled because of the various overlaps between the benefits.

  Invalidity Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many male claimants of invalidity benefit have had working wives in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information is in the table.

  Percentage of all invalidity benefit recipients who are male with working wives

  Years

  Percentage

  1987–89

  19

  1990–92

  20

  Notes:

  1. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole percentage point.

  Source:

  Family Expenditure Survey.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women have opted for the reduced national insurance liability in each year since 1965.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Reliable figures prior to 1978 are not available. The married woman's option was abolished from April 1977 but women who had the right to pay reduced-rate contributions at this time were allowed to continue to do so provided that certain conditions were satisfied. The numbers of women who paid reduced national insurance contributions in each year since 1978 are as follows:

  Year

  Number (thousands)

  1978–79

  1,917

  1979–80

  1,875

  1980–81

  1,754

  1981–82

  1,544

  1982–83

  1,371

  1983–84

  1,237

  1984–85

  1,139

  1985–86

  1,075

  1986–87

  1,031

  604

  Year

  Number (thousands)

  1987–88

  1,013

  1988–89

  1,016

  1989–90

  1,016

  1990–91

  992

  1991–92

  915

  1992–93

  845

  1993–94

  *763

  * Figures for 1993–94 may not yet be complete.

  Fraud
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money his Department estimates was lost through social security fraud in each year from 1990 to the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The following table details the estimated value of fraud losses prevented by Benefits Agency investigators in the four financial years since 1990–91:

  Year

  Savings (£million)

  1990–91

  341

  1991–92

  427

  1992–93

  558

  1993–94

  654

  Although the full extent of social security fraud is not known, we are examining ways of producing a reliable estimate of the sum which might be involved.

  Benefits
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of benefits paid in each year since 1990–91 to the unemployed in(a) all benefits, (b) unemployment benefit (c) income support, (d) housing benefit and (e) council tax and other benefits; what are

  605
  the average costs of benefits for persons unemployed; and what is the corresponding information for people unemployed for more than (i) one year and (ii) two years.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the tables.

  Expenditure on the unemployed 1990–1994

  Years beginning April

  Benefit

  1990–1991 £millions

  1991–1992 £millions

  1992–1993 £millions

  1993–1994 £millions

  All benefits

  5,300

  7,560

  8,970

  9,720

  Unemployment benefit

  870

  1,600

  1,760

  1,740

  Income support

  2,950

  4,230

  5,380

  5,720

  Housing benefit

  1,120

  1,340

  1,420

  1,910

  Community charge benefit

  330

  350

  380

  310

  Social fund

  20

  30

  30

  30

  Notes:

  1 The figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million

  2 Totals may not sum due to rounding

  Sources: The 1994 departmental annual report

  Average weekly payments (£) of benefits for the unemployed 1990–94

  Years1

  1990–91

  1997–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Unemployment benefit—All

  40.20

  44.64

  46.19

  47.38

  Income support—All

  44.69

  49.69

  53.20

  55.01

  Income support—1–2 years

  48.36

  53.36

  58.24

  59.59

  Income support—2 years or over

  49.31

  53.62

  55.89

  59.51

  Housing benefit—All

  26.39

  30.42

  35.94

  39.74

  Community charge benefit—All

  6.76

  3.85

  4.70

  —

  Council tax benefit—All

  —

  —

  —

  7.33

  1 The figures are as at May each year.2 The figures for 1993–94 are estimated outturns.

  3 Amounts are rounded to the nearest penny.

  Sources:

  4 Unemployment benefit: the half-yearly analysis of unemployed claimants (5 per cent. sample). Income Support: the income support annual statistical enquiry (1 per cent. sample).

  Unemployment
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, how many people are claiming income support who are actively seeking work; and if such persons are included in the official unemployment figures.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  As at 11 August 1994, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 1.89 million people claiming income support who were both available for and actively seeking work. They were included in the claimant unemployment count.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole have appealed to a social security appeal tribunal concerning a decision that they are fit for work, or work within limits; what percentage of these people were successful; and if he will give the figures for those who were represented and those who were not with the corresponding success rates.
  606
  Information relating to the proportioning of housing benefit, council tax benefit and community charge benefit according to the length of time that people are unemployed is not kept.

  Mr. Hague
  Figures are available only on appeals against all decisions on invalidity benefit and for Scotland as a whole. Information on the last available full year is as follows.

  Appeals on Invalidity Benefit in the Scottish Region Year ending 1993

  Appeals

  Lodged

  4,101

  Heard and Decided

  1,595

  In Appellant's Favour

  50 per cent.

  Representative and/or Representative and Appellant Present

  758

  In Appellant's Favour

  65 per cent.

  No Representative Present

  837

  In Appellant's Favour

  37 per cent.

  Source:

  The annual social security appeal tribunal statistics 1993 produced by the Government Statistical Service.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what action he is taking in respect of the payment of housing benefit to prisoners; and if he will make a statement;
  607
  (2) if he will make a statement on the provision of housing benefit to the tenant of Mr. and Mrs. Shelston of 123 Southland Park road, in the light of previous representations from the hon. Member for South Hams.

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We are consulting the Social Security Advisory Committee and local authority associations about proposals for restricting the payment of housing benefit to prisoners to 13 weeks, and their reports are expected shortly. Subject to their views and the approval of Parliament, we intend to bring the amended regulations into effect from 1 April 1995.

  Housing benefit is available in the normal way to the tenant of Mr. and Mrs. Shelston although, for reasons of confidentiality, no details can be provided.

  Incapacity Allowance
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are expected to be in receipt of incapacity allowance for the years ending April 1996, 1997 and 1998; and how many of those will be(a) single, (b) claimants with partners and (c) claimants with dependant children.

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer Friday 27 January 1995]:The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is in the table.

  Estimated number of claimants in receipt of incapacity benefit

  thousand

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total

  1,800

  1,685

  1,635

  Total with adult dependency increase

  410

  345

  300

  Total with child dependency increase

  120

  115

  115

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are provisional and as such will be subject to revision at a later stage.

  2. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  3. Figures take account of the estimated effect of the new medical test.

  Pensions Bill
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, on the basis of information in Cm. 2714 on the Pensions Bill, he will estimate the percentage of women retiring in(a) 2000–01, (b) 2010–11, (c) 2020–21, (d) 2030–31 and (e) 2040–41 who will retire with entitlement to a full basic pension (i) under the existing scheme and (ii) after proposed changes in the Pensions Bill.

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Core costs

  143,657

  143,657

  158,023

  161,970

  164,400

  Equipment

  —

  4,032.50

  —

  —

  —

  Children Act training

  —

  5,700

  6,950

  —

  —

  Powys development officer

  —

  4,778

  3,756

  3,850

  2,260

  Review

  —

  —

  13,400

  —

  —

  Total

  143,657

  158,167.50

  182,129

  165,820

  166,660

  608
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Government Actuary advises that there is little difference between proportions of women who will receive a full basic pension under the current scheme and with the new state pension age. By 2025, almost all women, on reaching age 65, will retire with a basic pension in their own right: the average entitlement being over 90 per cent. Approximate, rounded, percentages of those who will retire with a full basic pension, based on estimates of the projected average level of pension, are contained in the table.

  Year

  Percentage of women retiring in year with full basic pension percentage

  2000–01

  25

  2010–11

  50

  2020–21

  65

  2030–31

  65

  2040–41

  65

WALES

  Dental Services, Gwynedd
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how may dental practices in Gwynedd were represented at the meetings between Welsh Office officials and dentists in Gwynedd; how many of these indicated that they would be prepared to recommence taking patients on the NHS if the Government were to make policy changes; and what were the policy changes requested.

  Mr. Richards
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Following the publication of the Green Paper "Improving NHS Dentistry", Welsh Office officials held a series of consultation meetings in each of the eight counties in Wales. Some 30 dentists attended the meeting in Gwynedd.

  The purpose of the meeting was to seek dentist views' on the contents of the Green Paper. The intention of individual dentists was not addressed.

  Pre-school Playgroup Association
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what amounts of cash he has given to the Pre-school Playgroup Association Wales for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Richards
  Wales PPA has received funding from the "Support for Child and Family Services" grant scheme and the details are as follows:
  609
  In addition to the above, a grant of £92,269 was awarded in respect of a joint Wales PPA/MYM venture, for the development of a special needs training pack.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he proposes further to help Pre-school Playgroup Association Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  Along with other voluntary organisation and bodies, Wales PPA has applied to the Welsh Office for funding in 1995–96 under the "Support for Child and Family Services" grant scheme. The applications are currently under consideration and an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Sheep Diseases
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of contagious agalactia have pccurred in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of contagious agalactia have occurred in Wales since 1 January 1993. This disease became notifiable only on that date and official records prior to that were not collected.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of sheep pox have been reported in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of sheep pox have occurred in Wales since 1985.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has attended the Council of Ministers meetings in Brussels since he took office; what were the dates of the visits; and what were the subjects discussed.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not yet attended a meeting of the Council of the European Community as Secretary of State for Wales. I was a regular attender as a UK Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Flooding
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have found themselves with no recourse to compensation following serious flooding incidents in Wales over the past 18 months; and what evaluation there has been of the permissive drainage powers of district and borough councils.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information on numbers of people who have found themselves with no recourse to compensation is not held by the Welsh Office. The permissive drainage powers of district councils were reviewed when the National Rivers Authority was created by the Water Act 1989 and no reason was found to change existing arrangements.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average wage of workers in Wales in each year since 1989.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in Wales from 1989 to 1994 is set out in table X5 of part A of the "New Earnings Survey", published annually by the Employment Department.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations his Department has made to the European Commission on the subject of the export of live animals from Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food conducts negotiations and discussions on behalf of the United Kingdom Agriculture Departments on the issue of live animals exports, and the Welsh Office is in regular contact with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about this subject. The United Kingdom continues to press the EC to resolve the issue quickly, and has asked the French presidency to place welfare discussions amongst its priorities. The question of welfare standards during transport was raised by the UK at the Agriculture Council on 23 January 1995 and the Commission and the presidency have agreed to search for an early solution to the matter.

  Fishermen
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many full-time fishermen there were in Wales in each year since 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Richards
  The latest available information is published in table 2.6 of "UK Sea Fisheries Statistics 1993", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. NO separate information is available on the number of full-time fishermen in Wales.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what accumulated balances are currently held by each of the grant-maintained schools in Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The accumulate balances, shown in the latest audited accounts for each grant maintained school, are as follows:

  £

  Bryn Elian, Clwyd

  77,480

  Derwen, Clwyd

  30.054

  Eirias, Clwyd

  214,357

  Emrys ap Iwan, Clwyd

  111,062

  Maelor, Clwyd

  34,670

  Pen-y-Bryn, Clwyd

  1,546

  Brynmawr, Gwent

  6,918

  Cwmcarn, Gwent

  18,510

  Our Lady and St. Michaels, Gwent

  272

  St. Albans, Gwent

  35,095

  Caergeiliog, Gwynedd

  36,729

  Llanerfyl, Powys

  30,213

  St. Cyres, South Glamorgan

  100,993

  Stanwell, South Glamorgan

  118,129

  Bishop Vaughan West Glamorgan

  69,542

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the termination payments made to chief executives and general and senior managers in each NHS trust since its inception, indicating the size and number of individual payments.

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: This information is not available for payments made before 1 April 1994. NHS trusts have notified the

  611
  Department of the following termination payments to chief executives and general and senior managers this financial year.

  Number of payments

  Amount £

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  2

  37,883

  Glan Clwyd NHS Trust

  1

  20,718

  Clwydian Community Care

  1

  45,000

  Education
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on matters relating to education in the last four months.

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: I have received many representations on a wide range of education matters over the last four months.

DEFENCE

  Defence Cost Study
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decisions he has taken regarding defence cost study number 10.

  Mr. Soames
  Proposals recommending the rationalisation of naval stores depots were announced on 14 July 1994 and set out in detail in a consultative document promulgated on 19 August 1994. Representations were made by trade unions, a number of local authorities and Members of Parliament. The most detailed and careful consideration was given to all of the representations received on these proposals. Having reviewed all of this work, I am satisfied that the basis for the rationalisation of naval stores depots in order to provide an improved and more cost-effective system of stock distribution to the Royal Navy is sound.

  I have therefore decided to proceed with the rationalisation under which depots at Eaglescliffe, Wrangaton and Exeter will close by April 1997, part of the latter site will be retained at least in the short term to support naval engineering tasks, pending further study. Naval stores depots at Devonport and Rosyth will be reduced, in the same time frame, although new waterfront storage facilities at the former will be provided to improve local support arrangements for the vessels base ported there. Naval stores facilities at Portsmouth will be enhanced by April 1997 to provide a central storage and distribution facility for a major part of the naval stores inventory. Facilities at Faslane will also be improved to meet the requirements of logistic support to the Fleet in Scotland.

  These measures will result in significant savings of some £174 million over 10 years and some £24 million a year thereafter. Regrettably, there will also be significant reductions in civilian posts at the depots affected; approximately 1,170 posts will no longer be required. It is anticipated that many of these will need to involve redundancy. However, my Department will make every effort to keep redundancies to a minimum and will ensure that anyone made redundant will be offered a
  612
  comprehensive resettlement package and assistance with training. We will of course continue to consult staff and the trades unions about the detailed implementation of this programme. In addition, by liaising with other Government Departments, local authorities and training and enterprise councils, my Department will do everything it can to assist in finding alternative employment.

  Colombian Military Students
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will stop the training of Colombian military students until political killings in Colombia have ceased; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  British military personnel have been providing training to the Colombian authorities to help counter the illicit production and trafficking of drugs since 1989. Although details of the assistance provided are confidential between the two Governments, I can assure the hon. Member that the training is dedicated to the fight against drugs.

  Submarines (Fishing Vessels)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what signals are communicated to a Royal Navy submarine or a submarine belonging to a NATO power when that vessel is perceived to be posing a danger to fishing vessels.

  Mr. Soames
  The conduct of dived Royal Navy submarines, and of dived foreign submarines in United Kingdom waters, is governed by the code of practice, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Compliance with the code, together with the "SUBFACTS" system of providing information about dived submarine movements, and a number of other safety measures agreed after extensive consultation with the fishing industry, ensures that dived submarines and fishing vessels are able to co-exist safely.

  In addition, we have recently agreed with the fishing industry that, when a submarine is exercising with a number of warships, one of the surface vessels participating in the exercise would, in addition to its exercise role, be designated the fishing vessel safety vessel. This vessel would have responsibility for confirming the position of any fishing vessel in the vicinity.

  Eurofighter 2000
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what topics were discussed at the meeting on 6 February in Munich of representatives of the nations participating in the Eurofighter 2000 project.

  Mr. Freeman
  As part of our regular programme of contacts with our Eurofighter 2000 partners, I met my counterparts from the other nations in Munich on 6 February to review progress in the reorientation of the project as agreed by the four Defence Ministers in December 1992, and to discuss a number of matters relating to planning for future phases.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the date for the commencement of the production phase of the Eurofighter 2000; and if he will make a statement on the future of the project.
  613
  Mr. Freeman
  On current plans, we expect to reach decisions on entering the production phase of the project by the end of this year.

  We remain committed to the development of the Eurofighter 2000 which will provide the cornerstone of the RAF's future air combat capability.

  Royal Fleet Auxiliary Refits
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is this policy concerning the placing of contracts for Royal Fleet Auxiliary refits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  RFA refits are part of the unallocated ship refit programme, contracts for which are placed following competition. I am pleased to confirm our intention that RFA ships remain in the unallocated programme.

  HMS Andromeda
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the value for money achieved by the sale of HMS Andromeda.

  Mr. Freeman
  HMS Andromeda has not yet been sold. Once the decision has been taken to dispose of a ship, the sale price we would aim to achieve would not be below the value of recoverable and re-usable on-board stores and equipment plus the scrap value of the remainder of the ship.

  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the efficiency with which HMS Andromeda was refitted.

  Mr. Freeman
  The refit was carried out under the normal price negotiation, contract oversight and post-costing mechanisms for commercial refitting. These were reviewed following completion of the refit and were found to be well within accepted limits for commercial refitting.

  Air House, Rheindahlen
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on maintenance, furniture, fittings and refurbishment at the official service residence, Air house, at Rheindahlen, Germany, for each year since 1985; which officers lived in the residence from 1985; who authorised the expenditure; and when the property was sold and for how much.

  Mr. Soames
  Air house, Rheindahlen was the property of the Federal German Government and was returned to them on 30 June 1993. The occupants since 1985 were as follows:

  Occupants

  Year

  Air Marshal Sir David Parry-Evans

  1985–87

  Air Marshal Sir Anthony Skingsley

  1987–89

  Air Marshal Roger Palin

  1989–91

  Air Marshal Sir Andrew Wilson

  1991–93

  614
  Details of expenditure on the residence from 1991 are contained in annex C to my Department's paper on official services residences which is in the Library of the House.

  Figures for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Since the reorganisation of the MOD budgetary system in 1991, ultimate responsibility for expenditure within each top level budget has rested with the relevant budget holder, who in this case was the Air Officer Commanding in Chief Germany. A significant portion of the expenditure shown reflected decisions on security made earlier.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures were used to effect the stopping up of a public footpath on each occasion in the last 10 years, to date, where the power under section 16 of the Defence Act 1842 was exercised to stop up a public footpath.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer Monday 6 February 1995]: During the last 10 years, the power conferred under section 16 of the Defence Act 1842 has been exercised to stop up a public footpath on two occasions. As far as can be ascertained from the available records, the procedures used were as follows:
  Footpath No. 43 (Darley) at Menwith Hill station, North Yorkshire. This footpath had apparently been out of general use from 1955 when the station was established; indeed, the station was unaware of its existence, and a building has been constructed across the route, which in any case ran through the secure area of the base. In the early 1980s the Ramblers Association became interested in re-establishing the right of way, and in view of the situation it was thought appropriate to re-provide the footpath across the north-west corner of the site, a short distance from the original route, but outside the secure fencing. The agreement of the local highway authority was obtained that the new route was reasonable.
  Footpath No. 31 at HMS Cambridge, Wembury, Devon. The stopping up of this footpath took place at a time when there was increased concern about the security risk to military establishments from the terrorist threat. The original line of the footpath ran through the establishment's administrative and accommodation area, around which a security fence had been established and the continuing threat to security from the footpath was deemed to be unacceptable. As at Menwith Hill, the new route was in fact slightly shorter than the original. Informal discussions were held with Devon county council footpath officers prior to the closure action being taken.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last 10 years, to date, the power conferred under section 16 of the Defence Act 1842 to stop up public or private footpaths or bridle roads has been exercised; on each such occasion if he expressly authorised the stopping order to be made; on each such occasion who signed the stopping up order; what was the exact geographical location of the footpath or bridle road in question; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer Monday 6 February 1995]: During the last 10 years, the power conferred under section 16 of the Defence Act 1842 to stop up public or private footpaths or bridle roads has been exercised on five occasions. Although, due to the passage of time, file records are now incomplete, ministerial approval is normally sought on each occasion and the orders are signed by the head of what is now the Defence

  615
  Lands Service. The information specific to each case is as follows:
  At RAF Molesworth, Cambridgeshire, on 5 February 1985. The route in question was part of bridleway number 28 in the parish of Brington and Molesworth, between GR50702 27665 and GR50680 27779.
  At Menwith Hill station, North Yorkshire, on 1 October 1985. The route in question was part of footpath number 43 in the parish of Darley, between GR42005 and 45776 and GR41996 45719.
  At RAF Molesworth, Cambridgeshire, on 18 November 1985. The route in question was part of bridleway number 27 in the parish of Brington and Molesworth, between GR50858 27694 and GR50868 27710.
  At RAF Upper Heyford, Oxfordshire, on 30 July 1990. The route in question was part of the Portway (bridleway number 1) in the parish of Upper Heyford, between GR45050 22647 and GR45051 22669.
  At HMS Cambridge, Wembury, Devon, on 3 December 1991. The route in question was part of footpath number 31 in the parish of Wembury, between GR24987 04873 and GR25022 04882.

  Consultants
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 December,Official Report, column 1166, where details of contracts awarded by his Department's central contracts branch are held; and what consideration he has given to collecting these details centrally.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer Tuesday 10 January 1995]: Financial and management responsibility for all goods and services purchased by my Department, including consultancy work, rests with individual budget holders. Large and valuable contracts are, however, placed by the appropriate central contracts branch in order to ensure an additional degree of oversight in entering into such important commitments. Although records are kept, for a time, of the value of, and parties to, such contracts, there is no requirement for the relevant contracts branch including the central contracts branch to maintain a full description of the purpose for which each contract was let; that remains the responsibility of the budgetary area concerned. There is no need for contracts branches to keep detailed information after the work is finished; and there are no Defence management reasons for collecting or maintaining details centrally. Finally, consultancy, in whatever form, routinely constitutes but one element in larger contracts and is often not separately identified or costed in such records as are held.

EMPLOYMENT

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of young people who complete a youth training course obtain NVQs at(a) level 2 and (b) level 3.

  Mr. Paice
  Of those who completed their youth training between April and August 1993, 31 per cent. gained an NVQ or equivalent at level 2 and 13 per cent. at level 3.

  Careers Provision
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the difference in bids to provide careers provision in Stockport between the consortium including Stockport metropolitan borough council and the bid by Nord Anglia plc; and what factors led to the awarding of the contract to Nord Anglia plc.

  Mr. Paice
  Bids were assessed against the criteria published in the careers service prospectus. These included: effective quality assurance arrangements; financial viability and value for money for the taxpayer. In each case the preferred bidder has more closely met the criteria than competing bids. As yet, contracts have not been signed in any area. Negotiations with preferred bidders continue.

  Training
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of those leaving adult training schemes who progress to(a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, (c) self-employment, (d) further education or training and (e) unemployment in each training and council area in England and Wales for the past four years and for (i) those unemployed for six to 12 months, (ii) those unemployed for 12 to 24 months, and (iii) those unemployed for more than 24 months.

  Mr. Paice
  As this information is contained in a large number of tables, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much the running of the training for work programme cost in the financial year 1993–94; and what is the projected cost for the scheme for 1994–95.

  Mr. Paice
  In 1993–94, £760.2 million was spent on training for work in England. The estimated expenditure for 1994–95 is £693.3 million. These figures exclude administration and running costs.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people who took part in schemes run under the auspices of employment training and employment action went on to further education as a result of their training scheme in the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Paice
  Of those leaving employment training in Great Britain in 1991–92, 3 per cent. went into full-time education/training courses. For 1992–93 leavers, the figure was 4 per cent.

  The only full year for which data are available for employment action is 1992–93. Of those leaving EA in Great Britain in that year, 2 per cent. went into full-time education/training courses.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have taken part in training for work programmes since the scheme started in April 1993.

  Mr. Paice
  In the period April 1993 to October 1994, there were 515,000 starts on training for work in Great Britain.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those people who have taken part in training for work programmes since April 1993 have proceeded on to further education as a result of their training.
  617
  Mr. Paice
  Of those leaving training for work in Great Britain in 1993–94, 4 per cent. went into full-time education/training courses.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people who took part in schemes run under the auspices of employment training and employment action(a) successfully completed their programme and (b) attained a recognised qualification in the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Paice
  Of those leaving employment training in Great Britain in 1991–92, 55 per cent. had completed their agreed course of training and 35 per cent. had gained a qualification or credit towards one. Of those leaving in 1992–93, 59 per cent. had completed their agreed course of training and 38 per cent. had gained a qualification or credit towards one.

  No figures are available on completion and qualification rates from employment action.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those people who have taken part in training for work programmes since April 1993 have successfully managed, on completion of their course, to get full or part-time employment as a result of their training.

  Mr. Paice
  Of those completing Training for Work in England and Wales in 1993–94, 38 per cent. went into full or part-time employment or self-employment.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much the running of the combined employment training and employment action cost his Department in the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Paice
  Total expenditure for employment training and employment action is given in the following table:

  ET

  EA

  Total £ million

  1991–92

  737.4

  16.3

  753.7

  1992–93

  629.5

  137.3

  766.8

  Notes:

  1. ET figures for 1991–92 are for England and Wales. EA figures for 1991–92 are for England, Scotland and Wales.

  2. ET figures for 1992–93 are for England only. EA figures for 1992–93 are for England and Scotland.

  3. Excludes administration and running costs.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those people who have taken part in training for work programmes since April 1993 have(a) completed their course and (b) successfully attained the goals set out in their individual participation plans.

  Mr. Paice
  Of those leaving training for work in England and Wales in 1993–94, 60 per cent. completed their agreed course of training. In the same year, 51 per cent. of leavers fulfilled their individual participation plans.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for Employment how many people took part in schemes run under the auspices of employment training and employment action during the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Paice
  In 1991–92, there were 293,000 starts on employment training in Great Britain. In 1992–93, the figure was 291,000. Employment action began in October 1991; in the remaining part of 1991–92, there were 22,000 618
  starts in Great Britain. In 1992–93, there were 67,000 starts on EA.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of those people who have taken part in training for work programmes since April 1993 have proceeded on to further training as a result of their course.

  Mr. Paice
  Of those leaving training for work in Great Britain in 1993–94, 3 per cent. went into another Government training programme.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of people who took part in schemes run under the auspices of employment training and employment action went on to part or full-time employment as a result of their training scheme in the years 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Mr. Paice
  Of those leaving employment training in Great Britain 1991–92, 31 per cent. went into full or part-time employment or self-employment. For 1992–93 leavers, the figure was 35 per cent.

  The only full year for which data are available for employment action is 1992–93. Of those leaving EA in Great Britain in that year 17 per cent. went into full or part-time employment or self-employment.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people are awaiting a YT place; and what is the figure as defined in the careers service management returns supplement.

  Mr. Paice
  On 31 January 1995, in England, 35 young people covered by the youth training guarantee had been waiting for the offer of a YT place for eight weeks or longer as provided in the monthly returns from careers services.

  Benefits Appeals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking in response to the chief adjudication officer's report on the number of(a) decisions in 1993–94 which were unsatisfactory and (b) decisions regarding appeals against benefit disqualification in the past year which did not follow the prescribed procedures.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to the Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 14 February 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the action being taken in response to the Chief Adjudication Officers's (CAO) Annual Report on Adjudication Standards for 1993–94.

  The fact that a monitoring comment has been raised by the CAO's adjudication monitors does not necessarily mean that the adjudication decision is incorrect, but rather that the adjudication process was not correctly followed in one or more respects. Similarly, where a comment is raised on a written appeal submission, it is an indication that some aspect of the information included in it was either deficient or incomplete. The type of shortcomings identified by the CAO are unlikely to affect the outcome of appeals.

  The CAO recognises that some of the deficiencies in the adjudication process identified by his monitoring are more significant than others. One of the principal concerns must he whether the claimant received the correct amount of benefit but, until the current operational year, the monitoring procedures did not

  619
  assess this factor. When the CAO's monitoring for the current year (1994–95) is completed this information will be available for the first time and will enable him to focus his findings more closely on our service to claimants in the quality of decision making, as well as on deficiencies in aspects of the adjudication process.

  I responded positively to the findings and recommendations made by the CAO in his 1992–93 report, which was published on 24 November 1993. My people introduced a package of measures aimed at improving the overall quality of our adjudication function.

  This package includes a statistically valid system of quality monitoring; a review of all forms and procedures; and the creation of a permanent Quality Working Group. In his 1993–94 report, the CAO confirms that he expects these measures to lead to improved standards, and that their effect will be reflected in future reports by the CAO.

  Two out of six recommendations in the CAO's 1993–94 report focused on the quality of adjudication within the Employment Service. They related to review and overpayment decisions and the standard of written appeal submissions respectively. These recommendations are currently being addressed by our Quality Working Group.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the annual expenditure per capita of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Great Britain in each of the last three years.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Equal Opportunities Commission's grant in aid for the last three years has been £5.949 million, 1994–95; £5.794 million, 1993–94; and £5.282 million, 1992–93. This works out at approximately lop per person in the population.

  Youth Training Guarantees
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people in the London boroughs of Lewisham, Lambeth, Greenwich and Southwark he expects to be in receipt of youth training guarantees on 1 April.

  Mr. Paice
  I am unable to estimate the number of young people who will be on youth training in these boroughs on 1 April. The current figure at accounting period 10–5 December 1994 to 1 January 1995—shows that 2,643 young people were on YT in the four South Thames training and enterprise council boroughs.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many youth training guarantees were made in 1994 to young people in the area covered by South Thames training and enterprise council; how many youth training guarantees had been met by South Thames TEC as at 21 December 1994; and how many youth training guarantees he expects will have been met by 31 March 1995 in the area covered by South Thames TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  Some 2,979 young people covered by the youth training guarantee started on a YT scheme in the South Thames training and enterprise council area between April 1994 and 1 January 1995. As at 31 December 1994, when the careers service returns were made for December, there were no young people for whom the YT guarantee had not been met. I am unable to estimate the position for 31 March 1995.

  Training and Enterprise Councils, London
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what contingency plans he is making to 620
  deliver training to the London boroughs of Lewisham, Lambeth, Southwark and Greenwich if SOLOTEC and CENTEC are unable to provide sufficient contracts to meet the needs of the unemployed.

  Mr. Paice
  In putting forward the proposals for the four boroughs in the South Thames training and enterprise council area, CENTEC and SOLOTEC will have to satisfy me that they can provide adequately for the demand and range of training provision required. If they are unable to do so, the Department will put in place other measures to ensure that adequate training provision is maintained in the area.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if information relating to contracts and performance by individual training providers contracted to South Thames TEC will be made available to SOLOTEC or CENTEC if the same training providers apply to either TEC for a contract from 1 April onwards.

  Mr. Paice
  Information will be made available provided all parties involved agree.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many contracts for training for work and youth training he expects to be issued by SOLOTEC and CENTEC at 1 April to training providers formerly contracted to South Thames TEC.

  Mr. Paice
  I am unable to estimate the number of contracts likely to be issued. This is a matter for SOLOTEC and CENTEC which are best placed to decide who they should contract with.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many contracts were issued by South Thames TEC in the financial year 1994–95 to provide training for people with special needs.

  Mr. Paice
  A total of 81 contracts under youth training and training for work were issued by South Thames training and enterprise council in 1994–95. Nine of the YT contracts and three of the TfW contracts are exclusively for people with special training needs. However, all the 81 contracts encourage training providers to recruit trainees with special needs by paying them premium rates to do so.

SCOTLAND

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many cases of medical negligence were settled, and what was the total cost of damages awarded together with legal costs, in each year since 1990–91, by district;

  (2) how many cases of medical negligence were settled, and what was the total cost of damages awarded together with legal costs, in each year since 1990–91, by region.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland the regional and district functions of the NHS are administered by health boards. Given the small number of cases in certain health boards, it is not appropriate on the ground of confidentiality to publish the information in the form requested. The total amount of damages awarded, including legal costs, for all health boards and NHS trusts in Scotland for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94 is given.
  621

  Total amount of compensation (including legal costs)

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  949,603

  1991–92

  998,367

  1992–93

  1,091,489

  1993–94

  946,038

  Agricultural Arbitration
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 18 January,Official Report, column 575, what plans he has to reassess the costs associated with agricultural arbitration cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  The rate of remuneration for agricultural arbiters appointed by the Secretary of State is normally reviewed annually. The current hourly rate was set in August 1989 and stands at £42. There are no plans at present to adjust the rate.

  Other costs are a matter for the arbiter and the parties concerned in the arbitration.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, (1) if he will give the number of persons convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the last year for which figures are available and the number of those who were unmarried or single as defined in Department of Social Security regulations;

  (2) how many single or unmarried prisoners served sentences between 26 weeks and two years as a result of the non-payment of fines, in the last year for which figures are available.

  (3) if he will give the number of single or unmarried prisoners who were sentenced to 26 weeks but not more

  Local authority

  Population (thousands)

  Number of employees

  Number of employees per thousand population

  Political party in control

  Borders

  105.3

  3,979

  37.8

  1NOC

  Berwickshire

  19.4

  127

  6.6

  Con.

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  35

  269

  7.7

  Ind.

  Roxburgh

  35.4

  320

  9.1

  1NOC

  Tweeddale

  15.6

  128

  8.2

  Ind.

  Central

  272.9

  13,270

  48.6

  Lab.

  Clackmannan

  48.7

  810

  16.6

  Lab.

  Falkirk

  142.6

  1,700

  11.9

  1NOC

  Stirling

  81.6

  1,319

  16.2

  Con.

  Dumfries and Galloway

  147.9

  7,521

  50.9

  1NOC

  Annandale and Eskdale

  37.1

  329

  8.9

  Lib. Dem.

  Nithsdale

  57.2

  512

  8.9

  1NOC

  Stewartry

  23.7

  197

  8.3

  Ind.

  Wigtown

  29.9

  336

  11.3

  Ind.

  Fife

  351.2

  16,760

  47.7

  Lab.

  Dunfermline

  130.2

  1,614

  12.4

  Lab.

  Kirkcaldy

  148.6

  1,756

  11.8

  Lab.

  North East Fife

  72.4

  791

  10.9

  Lib. Dem.

  622
  than two years in prison in Scotland, broken down by gender, in the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  I have asked the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to reply.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Donald Dewar, dated 14 February 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your 3 Questions relating to the number of unmarried or single prisoners sentenced to a term of imprisonment in Scotland.

  At present information on the marital status or household composition of prisoners is not collected centrally.

  Contagious Epididymitis
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cases of contagious epididymitis in each year since 1985.

  Sir Hector Monro
  No ases of contagious epididymitis have been recorded since the disease was made notifiable on 1 January 1993. Official records are not available for the period before that date.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) population, (b) number of employees, (c) number of employees per 1,000 population and (d) political party in control of each local authority; and if he will post the answer on his Department's pages on the Government's world wide web server, "www.open.gov.uk".

  Mr. Kynoch
  The following table list for each Scottish local authority(a) its population as at June 1993, (b) its total number of employees-full time plus part time-and (c) the number of employees per thousand population as at September 1994. These are the most up-to-date figures available. The information relating to the political party in control of each local authority is as at May 1994. I have today placed the information requested in the Library of the House. No firm decision has yet been taken by the Scottish Office on the use of the Internet.
  623

  Local authority

  Population (thousands)

  Number of employees

  Number of employees per thousand population

  Political party in control

  Grampian

  528.1

  23,516

  44.5

  1NOC

  City of Aberdeen

  218.1

  3,212

  14.7

  Lab.

  Banff and Buchan

  88.0

  1,077

  12.2

  Ind.

  Gordon

  79.7

  511

  6.4

  Ind.

  Kincardine and Deeside

  56.0

  376

  6.7

  1NOC

  Moray

  86.3

  911

  10.6

  1NOC

  Highland

  206.9

  10,938

  52.9

  Ind.

  Badenoch and Stathspey

  11.1

  86

  7.7

  Ind.

  Caithness

  26.4

  234

  8.9

  Ind.

  Inverness

  63.9

  608

  9.5

  1NOC

  Lochaber

  19.4

  201

  10.4

  Ind.

  Nairn

  10.9

  104

  9.6

  Ind.

  Ross and Cromarty

  50.3

  565

  11.2

  Ind.

  Skye and Lochalsh

  11.9

  114

  9.6

  Ind.

  Sutherland

  13.2

  136

  10.3

  Ind.

  Lothian

  753.9

  33,136

  44.0

  Lab.

  East Lothian

  85.6

  1,054

  12,3

  Lab.

  City of Edinburgh

  441.6

  5,566

  12.6

  1NOC

  Midlothian

  79.9

  840

  10.5

  Lab.

  West Lothian

  146.7

  1,456

  9.9

  1NOC

  Strathclyde

  2,286.8

  104,208

  45.6

  Lab.

  Argyll and Bute

  63.3

  840

  13.3

  Ind.

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  41.1

  363

  8.8

  1NOC

  Clydebank

  46.6

  592

  12.7

  Lab.

  Clydesdale

  58.3

  711

  12.2

  1NOC

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  63.9

  652

  10.2

  Lab.

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  42.8

  640

  14.9

  Lab.

  Cunninghame

  139.0

  1,721

  12.4

  Lab.

  Dumbarton

  78.5

  1,110

  14.1

  Lab.

  East Kilbride

  85.4

  777

  9.1

  Lab.

  Eastwood

  60.9

  323

  5.3

  Con.

  City of Glasgow

  681.5

  12,945

  19.0

  Lab.

  Hamilton

  107.5

  1,276

  11.9

  Lab.

  Inverclyde

  90.0

  1,390

  15.4

  Lab.

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  81.0

  1,032

  12.7

  1NOC

  Kyle and Carrick

  114.0

  1,504

  13.2

  Con.

  Monksland

  102.6

  1,518

  14.8

  Lab.

  Motherwell

  143.7

  2,062

  14.3

  Lab.

  Renfrew

  201.2

  2,686

  13.4

  Lab.

  Strathkelvin

  85.7

  928

  10.8

  Lab.

  Tayside

  395.2

  18,763

  47.5

  1NOC

  Angus

  97.4

  965

  9.9

  SNP

  City of Dundee

  170.1

  3,160

  18.6

  Lab.

  Perth and Kinross

  127.7

  1,170

  9.2

  Con.

  Orkney Islands

  19.8

  1,816

  91.9

  Ind.

  Shetland Islands

  22.8

  2,745

  120.2

  Ind.

  Western Isles

  29.4

  2,256

  76.7

  Ind.

  1 No party in overall control.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the political balance among justices of the peace in Dumbarton district; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table shows the political affiliations declared at the time of their appointment by the 57 justices of the peace for the Dumbarton commission area:624

  Number

  Conservative

  20

  Labour

  21

  Liberal Democrat

  2

  Independent

  1

  SNP

  1

  No particular views/none declared

  12

  JPs are appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the basis of nominations by local authorities for

  625
  ex-efficio appointment of elected members or on the recommendation of local advisory committees. JPs are not paid and are not compelled to declare their political views. The primary consideration in the appointment of a JP is the individual's personal suitability for the office.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the external financing limit for each of the NHS trusts in Strathclyde.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  NHS Trust

  1994–95 (£000s)

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare

  2,113

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University

  (2,459)

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services

  (3,470)

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals

  (759)

  Inverclyde Royal

  (1,089)

  Law Hospital

  1,317

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals

  1,276

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  (364)

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  (1,658)

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  (1,818)

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  850

  Southern General Hospital

  2,749

  Stobhill

  (1,520)

  Victoria Infirmary

  116

  West Glasgow Hospitals University

  3,052

  Yorkhill

  1,379

  Note:

  Those figures in brackets mean a negative limit. In essence, this means the trust's agreed capital expediture is less that its surplus.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the termination payments made to chief executives and general and senior managers in each NHS trust since its inception, indicating the size and number of individual payments.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: This information is not held centrally. Consideration is being given to the collection of data on termination payments in Scotland.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those NHS trusts which have received either(a) a loan from his Department or (b) an overdraft guarantee in each year since their creation, indicating (i) the amount involved and (ii) the reason for its allocation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is detailed in the tables:

  Loans issued to NHS Trusts in Scotland

  Trust name

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  500,00

  3,530,000

  2,466,000

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  1,533,000

  —

  Caithness and Sunderland NHS Trust

  —

  736,000

  250,000

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  8,381,000

  —

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  —

  9,705,000

  7,993,000

  626

  Loans issued to NHS Trusts in Scotland

  Trust name

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  —

  2,946,000

  —

  Royal Scottish National Hospital and Community NHS Trust

  —

  251,000

  —

  Southern General Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  870,000

  —

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  —

  199,000

  1,620,000

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  —

  1,120,000

  1,700,000

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  400,000

  —

  —

  Total

  900,000

  29,271,000

  14,029,000

  Overdraft guarantees issued to NHS Trusts in Scotland

  Trust name

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Monklands and Bellshill NHS Trust

  —

  —

  500,000

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  —

  250,000

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  —

  —

  500,000

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  —

  750,000

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  —

  300,000

  300,000

  Dundee Healthcare

  —

  —

  750,000

  Royal Scottish National Hospital NHS Trust1

  —

  —

  250,000

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1,000,000

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  —

  200,000

  200,000

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  —

  500,000

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  200,000

  —

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  —

  1,000,000

  Total

  0

  700,000

  6,000,000

  Note:

  1 This trust has now merged with Forth Valley Healthcare.

  Trusts borrow principally to support their capital investment activities, but may also borrow to cover working capital requirements. All the borrowing detailed was within agreed limits. Trusts use overdrafts to cover very short-term working capital requirements. The purpose of overdraft guarantees is to reduce the cost of this borrowing from the trusts' bankers.

  Remedial Care
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of children and young persons who are currently providing a substantial amount of remedial care to sick, elderly and disabled relatives in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The only information available comes from the 1991 census of population and relates to "dependants". A dependant is defined as a person aged zero to 15, or a person aged 16 to 18 who
  627
  has never married, is in full-time education and economically inactive, or a person with a limiting long-term illness whose economic activity is "permanently sick" or "retired". The table shows the number of households where all residents were dependants and the youngest was aged five to 18 and the oldest 19 or over. However, the figures give no indication as to whether the child(ren) in such households actually provide a substantial amount of care for the adult dependant(s). Households which contain a 16 to 18-year-old non-dependant and one or more older dependants are not included.

  Number of households

  Area

  Inverclyde

  78

  Strathclyde

  2,241

  Scotland

  3,369

  Dentists and dental list numbers in Scotland

  Financial year

  1992–1993

  1993–1994

  Health board

  Dentists1 on HB lists

  Dental2 list number commencements

  Dental2 list number withdrawals

  Dentists1 on HB lists

  Dental2 list number commencements

  Dental2 list number withdrawals

  Argyll and Clyde

  211

  41

  16

  205

  28

  30

  Ayrshire and Arran

  134

  13

  4

  139

  21

  17

  Greater Glasgow

  417

  63

  19

  428

  79

  70

  Lanarkshire

  189

  18

  14

  193

  22

  16

  Scotland—Total

  1,745

  310

  132

  1,792

  339

  306

  1 Total number of individual dentists who practised during the financial year in each of the health boards. Dentists contracted to more than one health board are counted more than once. The total number of dentists shown in Scotland is the number of individual dentists with no double-counting.

  2 A dentist may hold one or more list number. The table shows a count of the list numbers that commenced or were surrendered in the given period, not dentists. Dentists may surrender health board list number for a variety of reasons—including moving to another health board area, practice reorganisation, or retirement.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dentists in(a) Inverclyde and (b) Strathclyde have closed NHS registers to new patients in each year since 1992.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available. General dental practitioners on health board NHS dental lists are free to decide in each case whether to provide NHS treatment to an individual patient.

  Earnings
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the average earnings per capita for(a) men aged 16 to 65 years and (b) women aged 16 to 60 years in full-time work for (i) 1990 and (ii) the latest available date.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information in the table gives average gross weekly earnings of full-time employees in Scotland.

  Dentists
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many dentists in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole have ceased to treat NHS patients in each year since 1992.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In order to provide NHS dental services a dentist must join a health board dental list. The table shows the number of individual principal dentists on health board lists in each of the four health board areas within Strathclyde region and Scotland as a whole; the number of new list numbers allocated; and list numbers cancelled. Information for individual local government districts and regional areas is not available. It is not possible to identify from these figures the number of individual dentists who may have withdrawn from providing NHS treatment as dentists who surrender one number may hold other numbers.

  Average gross weekly earnings

  1990 £

  1994 £

  Full-time male employees aged 16 to under 65

  271.4

  331.5

  Full-time female employees aged 16 to under 60

  184.4

  242.0

  Source:

  Employment Department New Earnings Survey.

  Prison Damage
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost of repairing and renovating prisons as a result of damage caused by prisoners acting unlawfully in each year since 1976.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Scottish Prison Service under the chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  629
  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman dated 14 February 1995:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost of repairing and renovating prisons as a result of damage caused by prisoners' unlawful activity.

  Such activity ranges from minor incidents such as breaking light bulbs to serious riot damage. Damage of a minor nature caused by vandalism would normally be repaired as part of the ongoing maintenance programme and the cost would not therefore be separately identified.

  Information on the cost of prisoner damage from major incidents is not available prior to 1986 but the annual cost each year since then is set out in the table below.

  Year

  Cost (£)

  1986–87

  1,099,437

  1987–88

  258,926

  1988–89

  379,790

  1989–90

  12,805

  1990–91

  56,595

  1991–92

  71,556

  1992–93

  4,865

  1993–94

  210,413

  1994–95

  122,204

  1 Provisional

  Emergency and Accident Facilities
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospitals in(a) Strathclyde arid (b) Scotland have had emergency and accident facilities in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Number of accident and emergency departments1 in Scotland and Strathclyde; years ending 31 March

  Year

  Scotland

  2Strathclyde

  1985

  102

  31

  1986

  104

  32

  1987

  106

  32

  1988

  103

  29

  1989

  101

  29

  1990

  100

  29

  1991

  100

  29

  1992

  101

  31

  1993

  101

  29

  1994

  101

  29

  1 Hospitals with at least 100 accident and emergency attendances in each year.

  2 Comprises Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Greater Glasgow and Lanarkshire Health Board areas.

  Prison Escapes
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of escapes from prison in each year since 1983 stating(a) the prison concerned, (b) what offence the prisoner had been convicted for and (c) how long each prisoner remained at large.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.
  630
  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 14 February 1995:

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about escapes from Scottish prisons.

  Information on the number of escapes from 1983 from Scottish Prisons is included in Reports "Prisons in Scotland" and from 1991–92 "Scottish Prison Service".

  The remaining information you requested relating to escapes is not held centrally. Details of the relevant Annual Reports are as follows:

  Year

  Command number

  Number of escapes

  11987

  551

  Appendix 4

  Page 22

  1988–89

  998

  Appendix 4

  Page 21

  1989–90

  1,499

  Appendix 4

  Page 17

  1990–91

  1,663

  Appendix 4

  Page 10

  1991–92

  2,143

  Appendix 9

  —

  1992–93

  2,323

  Appendix 9

  Page 61

  1993–94

  515

  Appendix 8

  Page 59

  1 This report contains the number of escapes from 1983–87.

  Gynaecology Units
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many gynaecology units have been provided in hospitals in(a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland as a whole in each of the past 10 years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHSIS—numbers of hospitals with gynaecology units1; Scotland and Strathclyde; years ending 31 March

  Year

  Scotland

  2Strathclyde

  1985

  46

  19

  1986

  44

  19

  1987

  45

  20

  1988

  41

  17

  1989

  41

  16

  1990

  40

  16

  1991

  37

  16

  1992

  34

  16

  1993

  32

  13

  1994

  32

  13

  1 Hospitals with two or more staffed gynaecology beds on average in the year.

  2 Comprises Argyll and Clyde, Ayrshire and Arran, Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire health board areas.

  Schools (First Aid)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines are issued to regional and island authorities concerning the subject of first aid cover in schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No guidelines are issued to regional and islands authorities specifically on first aid cover in schools. It is for authorities to make appropriate arrangements for first-aid cover, having regard to their responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and to the guidance in the revised! approved code of practice published in February 1990 by the Health and Safety Commission in respect of the Health and Safety (First-Aid) Regulations 1981.

  Fort William Rail Services
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Highlands and Islands Enterprise in respect of the future of Fort William sleeper services and the Fort William and Inverness motorail service; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Highlands and Islands Enterprise wrote to my officials about future rail service levels, and in particular sleeper services, in October 1994. My right hon. Friend and I will continue to take a close interest in this matter.

  Objective 1 Funding
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications his Department received, and how many had been agreed, for objective 1 FEOGA funding by 30 September 1994.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: Three applications for the first tranche of awards under the FEOGA processing and marketing grant scheme were received by my Department from applicants in the objective 1 region of the highlands and islands. All were received by 30 September 1994.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what considerations were taken into account by

  Persons called to Sheriff Courts and those with a charge proved where the main charge was sexual abuse of children' in each Sheriffdom in Scotland, 1990–93

  Persons with charge proved by main penalty

  Sheriffdom

  Persons called to court

  Persons with charge proved

  Custody

  Community service order

  Probation

  Fine

  Caution admonition

  Other

  1990

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  63

  54

  10

  5

  10

  22

  4

  3

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  88

  74

  17

  6

  18

  26

  6

  1

  Lothian and Borders

  41

  34

  9

  6

  5

  9

  4

  1

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  35

  26

  5

  3

  10

  2

  6

  —

  North Strathclyde

  38

  30

  6

  3

  4

  9

  7

  1

  South Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway

  42

  35

  6

  7

  6

  9

  7

  —

  Total

  307

  253

  53

  30

  53

  77

  34

  6

  1991

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  57

  51

  8

  3

  12

  20

  6

  2

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  78

  65

  11

  8

  17

  18

  9

  2

  Lothian and Borders

  53

  46

  10

  5

  10

  18

  3

  —

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  27

  20

  7

  —

  5

  5

  3

  —

  North Strathclyde

  26

  23

  6

  —

  10

  5

  1

  1

  South Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway

  38

  33

  8

  1

  7

  7

  10

  —

  Total

  279

  238

  50

  17

  61

  73

  32

  5

  1992

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  45

  42

  10

  4

  9

  11

  6

  2

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  60

  51

  8

  5

  21

  7

  10

  —

  Lothian and Borders

  32

  28

  8

  2

  11

  4

  3

  —

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  23

  17

  4

  —

  8

  2

  2

  1

  North Strathclyde

  22

  16

  4

  2

  2

  2

  5

  1

  South Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway

  36

  29

  8

  3

  11

  6

  1

  Total

  218

  183

  42

  16

  62

  26

  32

  5

  632
  his Department when it was decided to extend the time limit for submission of applications for the first tranche of objective 1 FEOGA funding in 1994; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: The time limit of 30 September 1994 for submission of applications for the first tranche of FEOGA processing and marketing scheme awards was not extended.

  Sexual Abuse
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each sheriffdom the number of cases of sexual abuse of children which have been reported to procurators fiscal since January 1990; how many of those were(a) referred to court under summary procedure, (b) referred to court under indictment and (c) cases in which the accused was found guilty; and what were the sentences given in cases when the accused was found guilty.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: It is not possible to identify all cases of child abuse proceeded against in Scottish courts because the Scottish Office Home and Health Department's classification of crimes and offences does not contain information on the victims of crime. The table sets out the available information for those sexual offences within the classification which, by definition, involve abuse of children.
  633

  Persons called to Sheriff Courts and those with a charge proved where the main charge was sexual abuse of children' in each Sheriffdom in Scotland, 1990–93

  Persons with charge proved by main penalty

  Sheriffdom

  Persons called to court

  Persons with charge proved

  Custody

  Community service order

  Probation

  Fine

  Caution admonition

  Other

  1993

  Grampian, Highland and Islands

  30

  27

  5

  5

  9

  7

  1

  —

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  72

  56

  10

  11

  15

  10

  9

  1

  Lothian and Borders

  34

  28

  6

  2

  12

  7

  1

  —

  Glasgow and Strathkelvin

  29

  26

  7

  —

  10

  6

  3

  —

  North Strathclyde

  18

  15

  5

  1

  7

  —

  1

  1

  South Strathclyde and Dumfries and Galloway

  33

  27

  2

  1

  13

  4

  5

  2

  Total

  216

  179

  35

  20

  66

  34

  20

  4

  1.Covers lewd and libidinous practices, defilement of girls under 16 causing the seduction, prostitution etc of a girl under 16.

  Oncologists
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland how many(a) clinical oncology consultants and (b) medical oncology consultants there are currently in Scotland; and how many of each are funded by charities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]: There were 31 consultants in clinical oncology—radiotherapy—and 12 consultants in medical oncology in Scotland at 30 September 1994 the latest date for which information is available centrally.

  The Pringle report "Management of Non-Surgical Cancer Services in Scotland", 1992, found that five posts in medical oncology were funded by the major cancer charities.

  Fish Conservation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any proposals to amend section 4 of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 as recommended by "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas", Cm 2560, HMSO May 1994, paragraph 17.31, page 265; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 13 February 1995]:The Government expect to issue shortly a consultation paper on the standards of fish factory ships.

  Rate Appeals
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many rate revaluation appeals are currently outstanding for previous rate revaluations from the borders region.

  Mr. Kynoch.
  [holding answer 10 February 1995]: None.

  Newton Street Rail Tunnel, Greenock
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects repair work on the Newton street rail tunnel, Greenock, to be completed; if he will estimate when the passenger train service to Gourock will be resumed; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 February 1995]: Responsibility for repairs to the Newton street rail tunnel rests with Railtrack and Strathclyde regional council through the Strathclyde passenger transport executive. I understand, however, that the tunnel
  634
  is expected to re-open for passenger traffic on 27 March 1995.

  Scottish Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what proportion of SVQs achieved on Government training schemes was externally moderated by Scotvec;

  (2) to what extent the attainment of SVQs on Government training schemes is dependent on internal assessment by the training provider.

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]: Questions about Scottish vocational qualifications achieved on Government training schemes are an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise. I have asked the chairmen of these bodies to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about how and to what extent the income of training providers on Government training schemes is dependent on the achievement of vocational qualifications.

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]: For youth and adult training programmes, between 25 and 40 per cent of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise funding to local enterprise companies is payable on the achievement of positive outcomes, including vocational qualifications. The funding of training providers is, however, a commercial contractual matter between them and the local enterprise companies.

  Trust Hospitals (Press Officers)
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) health authorities and (b) trust hospitals in Scotland have press officers; what is the cost incurred for their services; and if he will list these authorities and trust hospitals.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 7 February 1995]:The information requested is not held centrally.

  Water Schemes
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those private companies which have
  635
  expressed an interest in creating build own and operate water schemes in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 8 February 1995]:Awarding of contracts for build own and operate water and sewerage schemes is a matter for regional and islands councils. My officials are, however, aware of considerable interest by many Scottish, United Kingdom and international companies in the construction, finance and other sectors.

  Ian Greer Associates
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many items he has received from Ian Greer in each week of the last month.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 8 February 1995]:None.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions departmental officials met representatives of Ian Greer Associates(a) formally and (b) informally on 26 January to discuss matters relating to their clients' interests.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 31 January 1995]:There were no such occasions on 26 January when officials from my Department met representatives of Ian Greer Associates.

  Hunterston Terminal
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last received a report, as required under sub-paragraph (2) of the Clyde Port Authority (Hunterston Terminal) Order Confirmation Act 1973; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1995]:The last report under the requirements of the Clyde Port Authority (Hunterston Terminal) Order Confirmation Act 1973 was received in 1976. However, throughout the subsequent period there has been monthly environmental monitoring at Hunterston by Clydeport plc, overseen by Cunninghame district council and, until imports of ore and coking coal ceased, Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the duty to make annual reports under sub-paragraph 10(2) of the Clyde Port Authority (Hunterston Terminal) Order Confirmation Act 1973 now applies to Clydeport Ltd. as owners of the terminal.

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 18 January 1995]:This duty has passed to Clydeport plc as successors to the Clyde port authority.

  Local Government and Housing Act 1989
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what sections of the local Government and Housing Act 1989 have not been brought into force; for what reasons they have not been brought into force; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 25 January 1995]:The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 relates to England, Wales and Scotland but only the following sections, together with associated schedules, extend to Scotland:
  636

  Sections 1–32

  Section 36(9)

  Sections 140–145

  Sections 150–153

  Section 155

  Section 157

  Section 159

  Section 161

  Section 168

  Sections 170–171

  Sections 176–182

  Section 185 Section 190 Section 192

  Section 194(1) and (4)

  Section 195

  A number of these sections were commenced at royal assent and further commencements were made by commencement order under section 195(2). The following Scottish provisions have not been fully commenced:

  Section 9 (Assistants for political groups)

  Section 14 (Voting rights of members of certain committees)

  Section 15 (Duty to allocate seats to political groups)

  Section 16 (Duty to give effect to allocations)

  Section 17 (Exceptions to and extensions of political balance requirements)

  These sections are commenced only for the limited purpose of giving the Secretary of State regulation-making powers and substantive commencement. The making of regulations on these sections is still under consideration.

  Section 140-commenced for the year 1990/91

  Section 141-not commenced

  Both these sections have been repealed and are replaced by section 10 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which introduced new sections 7A and 7B to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 making provision as to the setting of non-domestic rates.

  Section 142

  Section 145

  These sections were commenced for the years 1990–91 onwards and are now obsolete following the abolition of the community charge.

  Local Authority Members (Payments)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is reviewing the levels of payment which can be made by local authorities to the authorities' senior elected members.

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 26 January 1995]:I refer the hon. member to the answer given by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) to myself on 19 January, which covered allowances for all councillors.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of operations for breast cancer in 1993–94 was performed in hospitals where more than 150 such operations took place.

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  The information requested is set out in the table:
  637

  Estimated number of discharges from Scottish NHS hospitals following an operation for breast cancer (year ending March 1994)

  Frequency

  Per cent. of total cases

  Female breast cancer

  Hospitals with frequency over 150 cases

  3,743

  71

  male breast cancer

  Hospitals with frequency over 150 cases

  0

  0

  1 Data for 1994 are provisional

HEALTH

  Clinical Services (Market Testing)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all clinical services that have been market tested since April 1991; and if she will list all those that will be market tested in 1994–95.

  Mr. Sackville
  Since April 1991, some 22 clinical and clinical support services have been market tested by one or more national health service units.

  For 1994–95, we have been advised of local plans to market test some 20 clinical and clinical support services.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to alter the cost of prescriptions.

  Mr. Malone
  Judgments have to be made each year about how finite health resources can best be targeted for maximum health gain so that year on year the national health service can continue to treat more patients than ever before. Prescription charges are but one aspect of these considerations. Any announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been waiting for more than 12 months for hospital treatment in Tameside and Glossop; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  At 30 September 1994, of a total waiting list of 1,800 at the Tameside and Glossop acute services national health service trust, only 11 people—0.6 per cent—had been waiting for more than a year as opposed to a national average of 5.8 per cent. None had been waiting for more than two years.

  Smoking and Diet Targets
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the achievements of the targets on(a) smoking and (b) diet set out in the White Paper, "The Health of the Nation".

  Mr. Sackville
  Adult smoking prevalence, smoking in pregnancy and total cigarette consumption are continuing to fall. However smoking amongst 11 to 15-year-olds remains broadly unchanged.
  638
  Trends over time indicate that the proportion of energy intake derived from total fats has remained comparatively steady while that from saturated fatty acids has been declining.

  In 1994 the Government published "Smoke Free for Health" and "Eat Well!" setting out action plans for achieving the smoking and diet targets respectively. Each document sets out the range of measures being taken.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been in the number of general practitioners in the past decade; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Malone
  The number of general medical practitioners in England rose from 23,640 at 1 October 1984 to 26,387 at 1 April 1994, an increase of 12 per cent.

  Community Care
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next expects to meet disability organisations to discuss the implications for disabled persons of the Government's community care policy.

  Mr. Bowis
  I meet disability organisations on a regular basis and discuss a range of issues including community care. I also meet the national user and carer group every six months. The group is made up of users from a wide range of community care client groups and carers and provides information on the progress being made with the community care reforms by local and health authorities from a user's and carer's perspective.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local authorities have not submitted audited returns detailing community care spending in 1993–94.

  Mr. Bowis
  Audited returns detailing community care spending in 1993–94 for 29 local authorities have not yet been received by the Department. The outstanding returns are being followed up through the Audit Commission. A list of the relevant authorities is as shown.

  List of local authorities whose audited returns have not yet been received by the Department of Health.
  Metropolitan Authorities

  Birmingham

  Bolton

  Bury

  Coventry Manchester

  Rochdale Sheffield Wirral

  County Councils

  Berkshire Cheshire Gloucestershire

  Hampshire

  Hereford and Worcester

  Hertfordshire

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  639

  Northumberland

  Nottinghamshire

  London Boroughs

  Bexley

  Brent

  Ealing

  Greenwich

  Hackney

  Haringey

  Hillingdon

  Islington

  Kensington

  Richmond Upon Thames

  Sutton

  Winter Illnesses
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the adequacy of NHS resources to cope with flu and flu-type illnesses this winter.

  Mr. Sackville
  Every year the Department runs an immunisation campaign aimed at people who are at particular risk of serious illness or death.

  At the first sign of an impending epidemic, the Department alerts health authorities and trusts so that local contingency plans can be made.

  The national health service reimburses general practitioners for the purchase of influenza vaccine. The cost of vaccine purchased during 1993–94 was about £27 to £28 million. Year-on-year increases in uptake are expected.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the population is currently served by a GP fundholder; and what proportion she expects this to be from April.

  Mr. Malone
  Some 35 per cent. of the population in England is currently served by a fundholding general practitioner. Final figures for 1995–96 are not yet available.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the amount of general practitioner fundholders' budgets which is being spent on medical services outside the NHS in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave the hon. member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 9 December 1994 Official Report, column 401.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has given the health commissions in respect of those general practitioner fundholders who have overspent their budget.

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance on financial matters relevant to the general practice funding scheme was issued to health authorities in EL(91)36 and covered by the general practitioner fundholders' manual of accounts, 1993, copies of which are in the Library.

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what savings she expects to result from the abolition of the West Midlands regional health authority.
  640
  Mr. Malone
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) earlier today.

  Community Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she next expects to meet the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss resources available for the implementation of community care.

  Mr. Bowis
  We have regular contacts with the association and discuss a wide range of issues, including community care.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital accident and emergency departments have closed since 1979, and since April 1991.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the number of(a) beds and (b) accident and emergency departments needed in London.

  Mr. Sackville
  District health authorities are responsible for purchasing hospital and other services for their resident populations, with general practitioner fundholders also purchasing some care for patients on their lists. In addition, districts are responsible for purchasing accident and emergency services for all-comers in their area, and for ensuring that, where major changes to the pattern of local services are proposed, full public consultation takes place.

  Consultant Episodes (Private Patients)
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage increase in finished consultant episodes on private patients on NHS premises between 1990–91 and the latest available date.

  Mr. Sackville
  Between 1990–91 and 1992–93 there was an increase in private patient finished consultant episodes in the national health service in England of 21.8 per cent. Private patient episodes in the NHS are about one per cent. of total episodes.

  Waiting Times, Essex
  Dr.Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the impact of Essex county council's budgetary overspend on social services on waiting times in Essex hospitals.

  Mr. Malone
  We have made no comprehensive assessment of this impact but recent visits to two otherwise well-run national health service trusts in Essex have made it clear to me that the county council's failure to make arrangements for discharge of patients is having a direct impact on hospitals' ability to admit new patients for elective surgery.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on progress in meeting
  641
  "The Health of the Nation" targets for teenage pregnancies.

  Mr. Sackville
  The year 1991 saw the first fall in 10 years in the under–16 conception rate. Provisional figures for 1992 are broadly in line with 1991. Concerted effort is necessary if a downward trend is to be maintained.

  Minimal Access Surgery
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received regarding the dangers of minimal access surgery; and how many hospital re-admissions occurred in the last year as a result of the failure of that type of surgery.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have received a number of letters about the risks and benefits of minimal access surgery. Information on readmissions following minimal access surgery, or for any other reason, is not available centrally.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those public bodies for which she retains departmental responsibility; which of these bodies have been identified as suitable for placing in the private sector; and by when it is expected each of these bodies will enter the private sector.

  Mr. Sackville
  The public bodies for which the Department has responsibility are listed in "Public Bodies 1994". None have been identified as suitable for privatisation. As part of the usual quinquennial review process, the Department critically examines both the need for its public bodies and whether control of their business should reside in the private sector.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to order NHS trusts to stop the practice of NHS trusts soliciting voluntary contributions from persons treated for road accident injuries.

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no evidence of national health service trusts seeking voluntary contributions. All health service hospitals, including those managed by NHS trusts, are empowered to collect the emergency treatment fee under section 158 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The fee, which must be covered by motor vehicle insurance policies, is payable by vehicle users in respect of each person given immediate treatment or examination arising from a road traffic accident.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will advise all NHS trusts to finance a patients' friend and arrange that the postholder is accountable only to the appropriate community health council.

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for individual trusts.

  Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the Government's intentions in regard to the future of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960.

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government accept the case for examining how far this legislation provides an adequate framework for professional self-regulation. We intend to commission an independent review of the current operations of the statutory bodies concerned. We shall 642
  bring forward for consultation specific proposals for change in the light of the outcome of that review.

  Convictions (Disclosure)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to require all organisations tendering for NHS authority or trust business to declare convictions for fraud or professional misconduct.

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Care Fees
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate she has made of the number of people who have had to sell their homes to pay for fees in a residential or nursing home since 1990.

  Mr. Bowis
  The value of a resident's interest in a property can be taken into account only if he or she has moved permanently to residential accommodation. It must be ignored in certain circumstances, for example if the resident's spouse still lives in it. If it does have to be taken into account, the local authority may put a charge on the property which is not recovered until the property is eventually sold.

  Information about the number of properties actually sold in order to meet charges for residential accommodation is not available centrally.

  Directors
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if chairmen and non-executive directors of health authorities and trusts are informed on appointment of the number of hours per week or month that they would normally be expected to devote to their duties.

  Mr. Malone
  The matter of the number of hours per week or month which chairmen and non-executive directors of health authorities and national health service trusts will be expected to devote to their duties forms part of a comprehensive discussion between the appropriate regional health authority and prospective nominees before their names are submitted to Ministers, or, in the case of appointments made by regional health authorities, before formal appointment is made.

  Club 18–30
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the effect of the current poster advertising campaign of Club 18–30 on "The Health of the Nation" targets for teenage pregnancies and sexual health; and what plans she has to make representations to those responsible for these posters.

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Club 18–30 is a commercial enterprise. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in the company's choice of advertising material. Complaints about the nature or content are a matter for the Advertising Standards Authority.

  Consultants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued since the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 on the limitation of NHS consultants' private work sessions, or private
  643
  work income; and on what occasions such guidance has later been withdrawn or amended.

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has issued to NHS consultants on doing private work at the same time as their NHS(a) out-patients work, (a) surgeries, (c) ward rounds and (d) other clinical sessions.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) on 2 February, columns 837–38.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance her Department has issued on the maximum time NHS consultants with maximum part-time contracts can spend working in the private sector during their normal working week.

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance is contained in the national terms and conditions of service for national health service consultants.

  Specialties
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she is taking to increase the numbers of doctors specialising in neurology and anaesthesiology.

  Mr. Malone
  Considerable attention is given to medical work force planning. The aim is to provide an adequate supply of appropriately-trained doctors in each specialty. The agreed policy of achieving a balance, introduced in 1987, is overseen by the Advisory Group on Medical Education, Training and Staffing. This policy encourages consultant expansion of at least 2 per cent. per year. Consultant posts are also funded under the new deal and the part-time consultant scheme.

  However, the establishment of new consultant posts is a matter for local employing authorities and they should have regard to competing priorities and available resources.

  For doctors in higher specialist training, senior registrar and career registrar quotas set by the Joint Planning Advisory Committee are still in operation. It is necessary to ensure an appropriate supply of doctors, and numbers of higher specialist trainees in any specialty must therefore depend on the best available predictions of future consultant opportunities in that specialty.

  Liquid Fuels
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what health risks have been identified from the emissions from burning secondary liquid fuel.

  Mr. Sackville
  The likely health effects of emissions from the burning of fuel cannot be determined unless the specific components of the fuel, and the method and temperature of its combustion, are known.

  Doncaster Royal Infirmary Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the names, occupations and qualifications of all persons nominated for appointment as chairman to the Doncaster Royal Infirmary trust; what were the names of those shortlisted; who shortlisted them; and who made the final selection.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 November 1994,Official Report, column
  644
  789. Mr. Raymond Tonkinson, chairman of the Doncaster Royal Infirmary and Montagu Hospital national health service trust, is a company chief executive.

  Operation Statistics
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to collect statistics on the number of operations purchased by the private sector, together with their cost.

  Mr. Sackville
  No.

  Dermatology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on her policy in relation to dermatology; and what response she has made to the submissions by Professor Rona Mackie of Glasgow university, on behalf of the all-party group on the skin.

  Mr. Sackville
  The provision of dermatology services and the manner in which they are delivered is a matter for health authorities and hospital and community trusts in the light of available resources and local needs and priorities.

  I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on skin on 20 October 1994 when the hon. Member for Linlithgow mentioned Professor Mackie's work. I am not aware of any submissions from Professor Mackie on behalf of the all-party group on skin. We will, of course, consider carefully any such representation.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what safeguards exist to ensure proper standards of domiciliary care; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The social services inspectorate published guidelines "Developing Quality Standards for Home Support Services" in October 1993, copies of which are available in the Library. A code of practice is produced by the United Kingdom Home Care Association, by which all its members are expected to abide, and the Joint Advisory Group of Domiciliary Care Associations produced a document "A Framework for the Development of Standards for the Delivery of Domiciliary Care" last July. Local authorities who purchase domiciliary care from independent providers are able to include specific standards in their contract specifications, and should monitor compliance with them.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received domiciliary care in 1993–94; and how many are estimated to need domiciliary care in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98.

  Mr. Bowis
  In a sample week in September 1993, there were an estimated total of 512,600 households in England receiving home help or home care.

  Estimates are not made for future years.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to monitor the number of independent sector agencies providing domiciliary care.

  Mr. Bowis
  None.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are undertaken to monitor the suitability of domiciliary care provided to individuals who purchase such care directly from private agencies or individuals.
  645
  Mr. Bowis
  Domiciliary care agencies are subject to the provisions of the Employment Agencies Act 1973.

  Hormone Replacement Therapy
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the use of synthetic alternatives to premarin and prempak-C in hormone replacement therapy.

  Mr. Sackville
  There are many other forms of hormone replacement therapy available, all of which are synthetic and all of which can be prescribed under the national health service. It is for the woman and her doctor to decide which preparation is most suitable for her needs.

  London Chest Hospital
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to close the London chest hospital;

  (2) what plans she has for the future of the London chest hospital under "Making London Better".

  Mr. Malone
  "Making London Better" reported that North East Thames regional health authority would initiate public consultation on proposals to merge the management of the London chest hospital with that of the Royal London hospital. Following public consultation, the Royal Hospitals trust was established incorporating the London chest hospital, the Royal London hospital and St. Bartholomew's hospital.

  East London and the City health authority is currently consulting on proposals to consolidate the trust's services at the Royal London hospital, Whitechapel. No decisions will be taken until all the responses to public consultation have been fully considered.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the research rating of the London chest hospital in relation to other hospitals.

  Mr. Malone
  The London chest hospital was included in the 1993 review of the research and development taking place in the London postgraduate special health authorities, as part of the Royal Brompton National Heart and Lung hospitals SHA. The Review Advisory Committee's report did not give a separate rating for the London chest hospital.

  Closures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she has given in relation to district health authorities taking account of local opinion when deciding to close services.

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 8 February,Official Report, column 277.

  Glaucoma and Diabetic Eye Disease
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of treating glaucoma and diabetic eye disease in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.
  646

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time(a) to see a consultant privately and (b) to see a consultant in the NHS in each of the last five years (i) generally and (ii) by specialty where such figures are available.

  Mr. Malone
  We do not collect information on waiting times for patients who see consultants in the private sector. Provisional information on outpatient waiting times for patients seen in the national health service is only available for the quarter ending 30 September 1994 and is contained in statistical bulletin 95/3, copies of which are available in the Library. This shows how long patients seen over the quarter had to wait following written referral by a general practitioner within specified time bands but does not give average waiting times.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the current average waiting times for operations(a) in the NHS and (b) privately.

  Mr. Malone
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which information on national health service operations is available, the average waiting times for patients admitted from waiting lists or who had booked admissions was just over three months. We do not collect information on waiting times in the private sector.

  Opthamology
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the cost to the NHS in treating eye diseases and (b) the total budget for ophthalmology in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  District health authorities are funded through their general allocations for purchasing ophthalmology services.

  Expenditure by health authorities and national health service trusts on opthamology is shown in the table.

  Year

  Expenditure £000 (cash)

  1989–90

  159,804

  1990–91

  177,976

  1991–92

  293,825

  1992–93

  308,715

  1993–94

  328,953

  Note:

  Figures after 1991–92 are not directly comparable with earlier years due to a change in accounting policy and practice with the introduction of the internal market.

  Source:

  Annual financial returns of district, regional and special health authorities—1989–90 to 1993–94—and NHS trusts—1991–92 to 1993–94.

  Consultants
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional payments are made to NHS consultants to perform operations on NHS patients privately(a) in NHS hospitals and (b) in private hospitals.

  Mr. Malone
  Such payments are a matter for the individuals concerned.

  Cataract Operations
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cataract operations were performed in each of the last five years; and what was the average cost of a cataract operation in England.

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of cataract operations performed in the last five years up to and including 1992–93 are shown in the table.

  Year

  Thousands

  1988–89

  82.3

  1989–90

  92.2

  1990–91

  97.9

  1991–92

  111.7

  1992–93

  118.6

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Note:

  Information on the average cost of cataract operations is not available centrally.

  Closures, Hertfordshire
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what weight will be given to the views of Hertfordshire general practitioners on the closure of two Hertfordshire accident and emergency departments; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what is her policy in respect of closures of accident and emergency units in Hertfordshire for the next five years; and if she will make a statement;

  (3) if she will make a statement on the proposed closure of two accident and emergency units in Hertfordshire, and the plans she has for hospital services in Hertfordshire.

  Mr. Sackville
  Hertfordshire health agency recently initiated a period of public debate on possible future patterns of health services, including accident and emergency services, in the county. The right hon. Member may wish to contact Ms Jenny Griffiths, chief executive of Hertfordshire health agency, for information on the conclusions that have been reached following this period of public discussion.

  Supplementary Medicine Review
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will be the chairman of the review body for the review of the professions supplementary to the Medicine Act 1960; and when she expects to introduce measures for the protection of fully qualified physiotherapists.

  Mr. Sackville
  We intend to commission an independent review to examine the current operations of the statutory bodies concerned. The study team has yet to be decided. The report, to be produced within a year, should provide an authoritative and objective base from which to carry out a more comprehensive consultation on future arrangements.
  648

  St. Christopher Nursing Home
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will request a report from the chair of the Hertfordshire health authority on its investigation into the number of deaths at Takare plc St Christopher nursing home; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  Investigations into deaths in any nursing home are a matter for the relevant health authority.

  Hertfordshire Health Agency
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the members of the Hertfordshire health agency, the chief executive, their qualifications and a list of their outside interests.

  Mr. Malone
  The Hertfordshire health agency is an agency of the three Hertfordshire district health authorities—East and North Herts, South West Herts and North West Herts—and Hertfordshire family health services authority. Control of the agency rests with the four boards of the authorities. The chief executive is Ms Jenny Griffiths. The right hon. Member may wish to contact Ms Griffiths for any additional information.

  Out-of-hours Service
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost of the general practitioner out-of-hours service per general practitioner in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Malone
  The cost of general practitioners' out-of-hours services is not separately identifiable within total GP remuneration.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the model of general practitioner out-of-hours services to be promoted by her Department.

  Mr. Malone
  The Department promotes general practitioner out of hours services which provide high-quality care for patients and manage effectively GP work load. It is for individual GPs to decide the exact model which best suits local needs.

  Authority Funding
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list(a) real funding and (b) the preferred funding per head of population for each (i) district health authority and (ii) family health services authority in (1) 1992–93, (2) 1993–94, (3) 1994–95, (4) 1995–96 and (5) 1996–97.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Population Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will give the average population by family health services authority from(a) census data and (b) general practitioner list size data.

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 10 January, columns 129–31.

  Takare plc Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will investigate the arrangements made by district health authorities in respect of the registration of Takare plc Nursing Homes; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Bowis
  The registration and inspection of nursing homes is wholly delegated to health authorities.

  Junior Doctors
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of operations was performed by junior doctors and what percentage by consultants in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Consultation
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her policy on the extent to which health authorities and health commissioning agencies should take account of the views of the local population and general practitioners.

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities are expected to consult widely with their local populations, general practitioners and other interested agencies in establishing local priorities, developing annual purchasing plans and longer term strategies. Recent guidance—EL(94)79—sets out an enhanced role for GPs working in partnership with health authorities in developing local health strategies. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  General Practitioners (Night Visits)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many night visits were carried out by general practitioners in each of the last five years; and how many night visit claims were submitted by general practitioners in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Malone
  The table shows the number of night visits in each of the last five years, calculated from information held by the Department of Health on the number of night visit fee claims by general practitioners.650

  Financial year

  Number of visits

  1993–94

  1,832,456

  1992–93

  1,585,999

  1991–92

  1,712,245

  1990–91

  1,586,960

  1989–90

  936,148

  Note:

  In 1989–90, night visit fees were payable for the period from 11 pm to 7 am. From 1990–91, this period was extended to cover 10 pm to 8 am.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she proposes to issue on the maximum target time before a patient needing emergency care from a general practitioner, should be initially assessed by that general practitioner.

  Mr. Malone
  None. All general practitioners are bound by their terms of service. It is for GPs to exercise their professional judgment, within these terms of service, as to when a patient needs to be seen.

  Deprivation
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the average deprivation score for each district health authority.

  Mr. Malone
  Information will be placed in the Library showing figures for district health authorities calculated using the same method as the Department of the Environment's ward index of local conditions.

  Bed Closures, London
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the number of(a) acute bed closures and (b) long-stay bed closures in London since the publication of the Tomlinson report.

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 30 January 1995]:This information is not available centrally. However, analysis of published data on available beds suggests that the bed reductions in inner London as defined by Tomlinson, including special health authorities, between 1990–91 and 1993–94 were:

  1,399 for acute beds and

  900 for long-stay beds.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Baroness Hogg
Mrs. Sarah Elizabeth Mary Hogg, commonly called the Honourable Mrs. Douglas Hogg, having been created Baroness Hogg, of Kettlethorpe in the County of Lincolnshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone and the Lord Boyd-Carpenter.

Nutrition Task Force
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Rating Lord Jenkin of Rating asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their intentions for the future of the national nutrition task force.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (,Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the nutrition task force was initially set up for a period of two years and was subsequently given until the end of 1995 to oversee implementation of its programme. There are currently no plans for the task force to continue beyond 1995.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that that is quite a disappointing reply? Is she aware that the general picture now is in marked contrast to what it used to be when all the various interests—farmers, food manufacturers, retailers and consumer groups—were always at loggerheads over what should be food policy? Does she agree that in respect of the targets that are now accepted in the immensely valuable document The Health of the Nation, the work of the national nutrition task force has united all those varied interests in support of a common programme? Given that this is one of the ways in which the Government's health targets will be reached, is now really the moment to wind up a body which seems to be doing such valuable work?
Baroness Cumberlege:: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind comments. I agree that the nutrition task force has achieved a very great deal. But it was set up for a specific purpose. That purpose has been achieved, and we believe that the progress made will continue with the individual bodies concerned.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I echo the response of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that the Minister's Answer is disappointing. Does she agree, in the light of what we now know, particularly from the Rowntree Report on social inequality and health, that this is precisely the moment when the nutrition task force should not be wound up? Is she aware of the very valuable
568
work of its working party on low income and nutrition, which precisely reflects the concerns of the Rowntree Report and others?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the project team will continue. It will arrive at recommendations which it will report to the Government. It is not necessarily true that a healthy diet is an expensive diet. In fact, sometimes junk food is very expensive and of poor value in terms of feeding a family.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I declare an interest as a governor of the British Nutrition Foundation. Does my noble friend agree that an organisation such as that foundation can well carry forward the work of the national committee on a national and perhaps even on a European level?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there are many bodies that can take on the work. As the task force was set up to achieve specific purposes and those purposes have now been achieved, it is time that it went. We do not wish to proliferate the number of committees in this field.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, i n view of the answer that my noble friend gave to a previous question, what is the difference between "not true" and "not necessarily true"?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, perhaps that is an unnecessary question.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: You cannot follow that!

Schools: Performance Standards
2.53 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, with the national curriculum now established in its revised form, they are confident of a rapidly improving performance in schools.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools has confirmed that the national curriculum and its assessment are already helping to improve standards in schools. The revised national curriculum will give added impetus to that improvement, notably by putting more emphasis on the basics of English and maths.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the degree of cautious encouragement that he has felt able to offer. But, in view of the serious concerns recently expressed by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector, Mr. Woodhead, does he not agree that efforts must be made to offset the influence of a minority of teachers on the work of the vast majority, who are striving to enhance their pupils' career prospects? Furthermore, given the stimulus to professional competition through testing and performance tables, and given too that the 14 year-olds in this country are believed to be worse at reading, writing and sums than the 14 year-olds in several neighbouring countries, would he not also

569
agree that our teachers might usefully be encouraged to emulate best practice abroad, through the regular scrutiny of soundly based international comparisons?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I can answer both those questions. With regard to the noble Lord's first question, that is one of the principal reasons why we set up the Teacher Training Agency, which is to give a great deal of added emphasis to the initial training of teachers and their continuing education. That, if not the most important factor, is certainly one of the most important factors in improving our children's education. With regard to international comparisons, yes, we take them seriously. They are difficult to make and there are always many extraneous factors to be considered, but they provide a very valuable benchmark. I can give some comfort to the noble Lord. The best surveys indicate that we are not in a disastrous position. We are somewhere in the middle of the league and we should like to do a great deal better. We shall continue to participate in the surveys and to learn from them.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the revised and streamlined national curriculum has been widely and warmly welcomed? Does he also agree that research has shown that there is a great need to look at teaching methods as such, particularly in primary schools and particularly with regard to literacy, where a growing number of seven year-olds are unable to read? Will he accept that that must surely be a priority area, if the objectives of the national curriculum are to be achieved?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I agree entirely with what my noble friend said.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, how can the Government hope to get a rapidly improving performance in schools, when they have reduced morale in the whole education service to the lowest level ever known by their ill-considered reforms over the past few years?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to discover that there is still someone on the opposite Benches who has not accepted all our education reforms. From what I read in the paper, I understand that most noble Lords opposite—certainly Members in another place—had decided that what we had done over the past 16 years was a good thing. At least the noble Lord's view is consistent with those that he held when he was in office.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether sport, and particularly team sport, is now built into the curriculum? We have heard a good deal of talk about it; but can he confirm that that has in fact taken place?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, sport certainly plays an important part in the work of schools. We put a lot of emphasis on encouraging schools to improve their team sports. The noble Lord will realise that,
570
particularly for some inner city schools, there are considerable difficulties in expanding the provision that they have at the moment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that it is almost impossible to find a parent who believes that standards will be raised in primary schools if class sizes rise? Will he also confirm that the reduction in the number of teachers will damage the morale of the teaching force as a result of the Government's policy?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Baroness realises, the whole question of class sizes is very interesting. All the research that is available to us indicates that changes in class size, either up or down around the levels that they are at the moment, make very little difference to the quality of education. The principal determinants of the quality of education are the quality of teaching, the teaching methods and the spirit of the school.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, if things are every bit as good as the noble Lord would have us believe, why, all over the country, are school governors threatening to resign in such significant numbers?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord raised that question. As a result of all our reforms, school governors are taking a very active and personal interest in the health of their schools. We are delighted that that is the case. It is a development which the party opposite would never have allowed had they been in power.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. Perhaps I may now ask him to answer the question that I put. Why are school governors threatening to resign in such significant numbers?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that they are threatening to resign in significant numbers. Certainly, some are threatening to resign. They are concerned about the level of the funding settlement, as expressed to them by their local authorities. It has been a tough spending round, but local authorities have a great deal of flexibility to ameliorate the general level of funding. One tough year after 15 good years is not so hard to take.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, is the Minister familiar with the latest figures which indicate that a higher number of children left school last year without any qualifications? If so, is he satisfied that the Government's policy will now help children across the board? I refer to those who are not gaining qualifications as well as the more gifted children.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am familiar with that report. Of course, the Government are not satisfied that that should be the situation. As the noble Baroness will be aware, when the results for the first tests for 14 year-olds were published recently, they showed that around 20 to 25 per cent. of the school population were producing results that were worse

571
than we hoped. That is the part of the school population on which we shall be exerting our greatest efforts.
Lord Peston: My Lords, did I misunderstand the Minister? Did he say that variations in class sizes did not affect educational performance? Is that his department's view? Before he answers, I should perhaps point out that I have only just looked at the latest research which appears to show precisely the opposite—that is, that lowering class sizes is highly advantageous. That is evidenced also by the fact that those parents whose children go to fee-paying schools are extremely keen on small class sizes. If it makes no difference, why are they wasting their money?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, research shows that when class sizes are reduced to around 15, the effect begins to be noticed. Class reductions to that level, involving double the expenditure compared with present levels, would produce benefits. But that additional expenditure can be much better spent in producing advantages in other ways.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister said that local authorities have a great deal of flexibility. He admitted that the Government were engaged in a strong spending round. However, does he agree that many local authorities and local communities want to spend more money on education? In those circumstances, and bearing in mind that the Government believe that people should have as much freedom as possible, will he remove the capping levels from local authorities?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would not dream of trespassing on the territory of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that to urge funding as the basic cause of our educational ills is in fact to delay addressing their real underlying cause?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords.

Mr. Keith Abel: Death in Hospital
3.3 p.m.
Lord Smith Lord Smith asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the circumstances of the death of the distinguished surgeon Mr. Keith Abel, they consider that there are enough emergency beds in National Health Service hospitals.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I deeply regret the death of Mr Abel and extend my deepest sympathy to his family. It is for health authorities to identify local needs, including provision for emergency admissions, intensive care and neurosurgery. It is they and not central government who are in the best position to do that.
Lord Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply and for sending me the clinical story from High Wycombe hospital—a tragic and
572
horrifying tale. Does the noble Baroness realise that the doctors at High Wycombe hospital rapidly made the correct diagnosis? They said that Keith was suffering from a recent cerebral haemorrhage—recent because he became unconscious in the the car driving him to hospital. They said also that he needed an urgent neurosurgical operation to save his life, speed being the secret of success. However, they could not transfer him to any neurosurgical centre because all beds were full. That was at a time when his wife, Sue Abel, was in the hospital watching her husband die through lack of treatment. Does the Minister have any constructive ideas in relation to improving inter-hospital transfer of emergency patients to specialised centres? Treatment or lack of it should not prove fatal as happened in that tragic case.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, some patients with severe brain haemorrhaging may not be able to withstand major brain surgery and we know that doctors have to make agonising decisions whether or not to operate. I am not saying that Mr Abel was such a patient. He was 68 years old—I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is not so old these days—and was receiving treatment with anti-coagulant drugs. I fear that that told against him.
The scan results available within 30 minutes of admission showed that he had suffered a large haemorrhage; he was deeply unconscious and needed medical assistance to breathe. It would be wrong to judge the whole of the National Health Service from one single case. Inevitably clinical judgments are made and many neurosurgeons are reluctant to intervene unless they believe that there will be a positive result.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that over 3,500 patients recently had operations cancelled, with all the anxiety that causes, due to a shortage of beds in London and the South East? Is she further aware that a three year-old girl, suffering an asthma attack, had to be driven 60 miles to Cambridge because there was no hospital bed available in London, although doctors had telephoned 14 hospitals? Are the Government prepared to take some responsibility for that?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we recently had a full report on a survey undertaken on intensive care beds. The report showed that although there were sufficient beds, they were not necessarily in the right place and were not being used in the correct way. One in six cases in those intensive care beds were inappropriately placed. We have drawn the attention of all health authorities to the report. We circulated it and asked them to consider it carefully when purchasing services for their populations.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in circumstances such as those we have just heard about, when no emergency beds are available, NHS hospitals should be entitled to contact the nearest private hospital with beds available rather than leaving it to a relative of the person suffering from the haemorrhage to arrange for his

573
admittance to the private hospital? Does she further agree that on those occasions, because we are short of emergency beds, the NHS should carry the cost?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, in the case cited it was not an emergency bed that was needed; it was a bed in a neurosurgical unit. We have since contacted all the hospitals approached. We found that in two hospitals there was a place and that in one case the senior registrar felt that it was inappropriate that a patient who was so ill should be transferred.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the noble Baroness cannot have it both ways. In her first Answer she suggested that the prognosis was that the patient would not respond to treatment because of his age and his specific situation. That may well have been the case. If so, why did the same people go to all the trouble of trying to find a hospital in which a neurosurgeon could be found? The two answers do not tie up.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is a difference between referring a patient and accepting a patient. In this case the doctors felt that it was appropriate to refer the patient. However, those in the neurosurgical units in some cases—not in all cases—felt that it was inappropriate for that patient to travel that far for that operation.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that whatever the specific clinical circumstances of that tragic case, it is not an isolated instance? Is she aware of the reply given to my right honourable friend Mrs. Beckett by the Minister for Health on 3rd February in another place in which she was told that the attendance at casualty and emergency departments throughout Greater London had risen by 2 per cent. in the recent past? If that is the case and those figures are available, why do not the Government take direct action?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness will have heard my answer yesterday when I told the House the position existing in London and the investment that we are putting into accident and emergency departments. In inner London alone £14 million will be invested this year. I could go through the list but it would be tedious to repeat what I said yesterday.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, notwithstanding Mr. Abel's age, and given everything the noble Baroness has said, is it not the case that if Mr. Abel had been transferred to a neurological centre for an appropriate operation he could have been alive today?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, there is a higher authority who could decide on that, not me.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, will the Minister take into consideration the real agony of the wife or the nearest relative when such cases cannot
574
be transferred? Is it not an insurance policy for everyone to have enough intensive care beds in this country?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we are not talking about intensive care. We are talking about a neurosurgical unit. With regard to intensive care, the recent report—a very authoritative report—did not conclude that there were not enough beds but that they were not necessarily distributed in the right places and that they were not being used in the right way.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that for any patient, whatever his age, on anti-coagulant drugs who has a spontaneous brain haemorrhage which is so severe as to stop him breathing, the outlook is very bad indeed? That certainly was a factor in this case. Is my noble friend aware that when I was a house surgeon in 1957 and we had double the number of beds in the National Health Service throughout the country my major problem was a shortage of beds?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I bow to the wisdom and practical experience of my noble friend.

Married Quarters: Disposal of Surplus
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made towards the disposal of the many homes used previously by members of the Armed Forces that are now standing empty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, surplus properties are sold at the earliest opportunity, but not all empty properties are surplus to requirement. The majority are needed to accommodate service families in the near future.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, what caused the collapse of the housing trust which was appointed by the Government to manage the disposal of this type of housing? I also understand that at present 12,000 houses are standing empty. I understand that the Government appointed a chief executive and staff and provided the office equipment to put the housing trust into operation. But the trust has now folded up and a waste of government money has ensued.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that the collapse of the housing trust concept has nothing to do with the number of empty married quarters, which, as the noble Baroness said, is around 12,000. In the light of the difficulties experienced in the housing trust proposals—the trust collapsed for various technical reasons—we are looking at alternatives for achieving the underlying objective of transferring the married quarters estate to the private sector. I can assure the noble Baroness that we have had some encouraging ideas which we are certainly

575
evaluating at present. It is premature to speculate on what proposals may eventually emerge, but I can say that we are firmly committed to trying to find a private sector solution to this problem. We are also firmly committed to improving the quality and management of service housing.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is it not the case that this trust collapsed not for technical reasons but because no one would put up the money? Is it not also the case that the chief executive was hired on a three-year rolling contract at a salary of £80,000 a year, when a housing officer in a local authority would get less than £50,000 a year? What has happened to all these people on three-year rolling contracts? Is it not time that Ministers took a grip of the Ministry of Defence and achieved proper financial discipline inside that department?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is totally and utterly wrong on his first point. The trust collapsed, as we made clear at the time, for technical reasons. It was nothing to do with the fact that no one was prepared to put up the money. We had not actually gone out to the market at that stage, so it was rather difficult for anyone to put up the money. We are confident that the Defence Housing Executive, which does exist—we have continued some of the proposals that we developed in the housing trust into the Defence Housing Executive—will make a significant contribution to improved management of service housing, both for the benefit of service personnel themselves and the taxpayer.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, what about all these people who were recruited at great expense? Will they be made redundant for technical reasons?
Lord Henley: My Lords, some of them are still working on the Defence Housing Executive. We will continue to take those ideas forward and to develop the other plans to which I referred in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when a large aerodrome with many married quarters in good condition becomes available for general housing, are the local authorities encouraged to modify their own new building of houses so that these married quarters, which are public property, can be fully used?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we pursue various avenues in the disposal of all defence property, particularly defence housing. We would first look at trying to dispose of individual housing to ex-servicemen and provide them with the appropriate discount. We would then look to housing associations. We would, in the kind of case to which my noble friend refers, have detailed discussions with the local authority, not purely relating to housing matters but also to the general development of, as my noble friend puts it, a large aerodrome that is no longer being
576
used. In the light of those discussions and the planning requirements of the local authority, we would then put the property out to tender.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when responding to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, why did not the Minister correct his assertion that local authorities have new build housing programmes? Does he not agree that this Government have abolished the new house building programmes of local authorities?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that question is totally and utterly unrelated to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his replies the Minister has twice mentioned seeking a solution in the private sector. In another reply he referred to housing associations. Why are the Government so bitter and vicious towards local authorities that they are not trying to involve them in the operation? They may be able to provide the answer.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we look to local authorities on occasions. We are quite prepared to consider the leasing of temporarily surplus properties to local authorities. However, when they are temporarily surplus they are very often not the kind of property which local authorities want and are often in the wrong place. The local authority would have them for only a relatively short time and they might create even greater problems for the authority when we needed them back for our service requirements.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the money raised from the sale of surplus married quarters is paid into defence funds or reverts to the Treasury?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it reverts to the Treasury.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say how many of the very large houses which were occupied by senior officers and which were scheduled to be sold have in fact been marketed and what the losses to the taxpayer have been on their disposal?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I think the noble Lord will know, we commissioned a review of entertainment. That obviously affects the houses to which the noble Lord refers. The review, which is being conducted by Sir Peter Cazalet, is expected to report to Ministers in my department later this month. It is looking at whether there are alternative and more cost-effective means of carrying out the obligation to entertain other than through the use of official service residences. When we have that report I shall be able to answer the noble Lord's question.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, how much has the housing trust cost to date, and are there further costs to follow? If so, what are they likely to be?
Lord Henley: My Lords, to date the housing trust proposals and related matters have cost of the order of £5 million. Much of that investment is being realised in the creation of the Defence Housing

577
Executive and much is also still relevant to any form of transfer of the married quarters estate to the private sector.

Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to reform the law of Scotland with regard to the requirement of writing for certain matters and the formal validity of contractual and other documents and presumptions relating thereto; to abolish any rule of law restricting the proof of any matter to writ or oath and to abolish the procedure of reference to oath; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Balfour.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Sheffield Assay Office Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 20 [Evidence of criminal record and character of accused]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry)The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry) moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 20 and insert the following new clause:
Evidence of criminal record and character of accused
(".—(1) In section 141 of the 1975 Act (accused competent witness for defence in solemn proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (1), in paragraph (f) (ii) of the proviso—

(i) after the word "character" where it first occurs there shall be inserted "or impugning the character of the complainer"; and

(ii) after the word "prosecution" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or of the complainer"; and

(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(1A) In a case to which sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (f) of the proviso to subsection (1) above applies, the prosecutor shall be entitled to ask the accused a question of a kind specified in that paragraph only if the court, on the application of the prosecutor, permits him to do so.

(1B) An application under subsection (1A) above shall be made in the course of the trial but in the absence of the jury.

(1C) In subsection (1) above, references to the complainer include references to a victim who is deceased.".

(2) After section 141 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Evidence of criminal record and character of accused.
141ZA.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) evidence is led by the defence, or the defence asks questions of a witness for the prosecution, with a view to establishing the accused's good character or impugning the character of the prosecutor, of any witness for the prosecution or of the complainer; or

(b) the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to tend to establish the accused's good character or to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor, of any witness for the prosecution or of the complainer.

(2) Where this section applies the court may, without prejudice to section 149 of this Act, on the application of the prosecutor, permit the prosecutor to lead evidence that the accused has committed, or has been convicted of, or has been charged with, offences other than that for which he is being tried, or is of bad character, notwithstanding that a witness or production concerned is not included in any list lodged by the prosecutor and that the notice required by sections 81 and 82(2) of this Act has not been given.
(3) An application under subsection (2) above shall be made in the course of the trial but in the absence of the jury.
(4) In subsection (1) above, references to the complainer include references to a victim who is deceased.".
(3) In section 160 of that Act (laying of previous convictions before jury), for subsection (2) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
"(2) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prevent the prosecutor—

(a) asking the accused questions tending to show that he has been convicted of an offence other than that with which he is charged, where he is entitled to do so under section 141 of this Act; or

(b) leading evidence of previous convictions where it is competent to do so—

(i) as evidence in support of a substantive charge; or

(ii) under section 141ZA of this Act.".

(4) In section 346 of that Act (accused competent witness for defence in summary proceedings)—

(a) in subsection (1), in paragraph (f) (ii) of the proviso—

(i) after the word "character" where it first occurs there shall be inserted "or impugning the character of the complainer"; and

(ii) after the word "prosecution" in the second place where it occurs there shall be inserted "or of the complainer"; and

(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(1A) In a case to which sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (f) of the proviso to subsection (1) above applies, the prosecutor shall be entitled to ask the accused a question of a kind specified in that paragraph only if the court, on the application of the prosecutor, permits him to do so.

(1B) In subsection (1) above, references to the complainer include references to a victim who is deceased.".

(5) After section 346 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Evidence of criminal record and character of accused.
346ZA.—(1) This section applies where—

(a) evidence is led by the defence, or the defence asks questions of a witness for the prosecution, with a view to establishing the accused's good character or impugning the character of the prosecutor, of any witness for the prosecution or of the complainer; or

579

(b) the nature or conduct of the defence is such as to tend to establish the accused's good character or to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor, of any witness for the prosecution or of the complainer.

(2) Where this section applies the court may, without prejudice to section 350 of this Act, on the application of the prosecutor, permit the prosecutor to lead evidence that the accused has committed, or has been convicted of, or has been charged with, offences other than that for which he is being tried, or is of bad character.
(3) In subsection (1) above, references to the complainer include references to a victim who is deceased.".
(6) In section 357 of that Act (laying of previous convictions before court), in subsection (5), for the words from "evidence" where it first occurs to the end there shall be substituted "the prosecutor—

(a) asking the accused questions tending to show that the accused has been convicted of an offence other than that with which he is charged, where he is entitled to do so under section 346 of this Act; or

(b) leading evidence of previous convictions where it is competent to dc so—

(i) as evidence in support of a substantive charge; or

(ii) under section 346ZA of this Act.".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at Report stage I undertook to bring forward amendments to what is now Clause 20. Amendment No. 1 is the fulfilment of that undertaking. Its main effects can be summarised briefly.
First, it extends the effect of Section 141 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 which permits questioning of an accused person as to his record and character to cover the situation where the defence attacks the character of a person who has been killed in the incident covered by the charge. That fills an obvious loophole.
Secondly, subsections (1A) and (1C) put on to the face of the statute the need for the prosecutor to obtain the leave of the court before asking such questions. This reflects existing practice in the light of the case of Leggate.
Thirdly, for the reasons explained in Committee and at Report, subsection (2) builds on an existing aspect of our law which is referred to in Section 160(2) of the 1975 Act. That allows the prosecutor to lead evidence about an accused's bad character or previous convictions if the defence leads evidence suggesting he is of good character. By virtue of subsections (1) (a) and (b) of the new clause, the prosecutor will be able, again with leave of the court, to lead such evidence either where the defence leads evidence of good character or where the good character of, say, a Crown witness or a deceased person is attacked. So if, for instance, the defence leads evidence to indicate that someone who was killed in o an incident had previous convictions for violence and so might be expected to have been the aggressor, the prosecutor may apply to lead evidence to show that the accused also had previous convictions for violence. This would allow the jury to have a rounded picture when judging who was the aggressor. Again, the need for the prosecutor to obtain the leave of the court before leading the evidence provides the necessary safeguard against abuse.
Similar provisions are made for both solemn and summary cases. I do not believe that questioning or the leading of evidence under these provisions will necessarily occur frequently in our courts. But the provisions are significant in that they rationalise this area of our law. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, it is unfortunate that very substantial amendments have been made to the Bill at this late stage of the proceedings. However, I recognise that the formulation which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has outlined arises from discussions which we had at Committee stage. A great many people who saw the multiplicity of government amendments made complaints to me that it was too late to consider them properly. But, having read the amendments, I believe that they have been properly balanced.
The question of leading evidence about the previous character of an accused person in court is, as the noble and learned Lord has said, properly balanced now in that the court will decide whether the question can be put. I just wish that the Government will look again at the right of the prosecutor to comment on the absence of the accused from the witness box in the same way that they have applied their minds to this section of the Bill. As noble Lords will be well aware, this Bill will be subjected to severe scrutiny in another place. I do not voice any objection to the phraseology at the moment, but obviously there is time for the matters to be considered and for representations to be received.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, during the earlier stages of our debates I expressed my disquiet at the inclusion of a similar clause in the Bill. My reservations were about the risks of an unsafe conviction occurring after the indiscriminate use of the accused's previous convictions. I felt then that the information would be far from helpful to the jury in coming to a decision. I am beginning to be satisfied that this opportunity for the prosecutor to establish the accused's previous bad character will be used only when the defence has either led evidence which tries to establish the accused's good character or indeed impugns the integrity of personalities within the prosecution. Provided that the process of applying for permission to retaliate in this way is completely out of the jury's awareness and that the Bench has a discretion in granting that permission, my reservations are probably satisfied. I shall be interested to see how this new clause works out in reality, if and when it reaches the statute book.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, commented on the fact that a number of people asked him whether he was satisfied that it is right for the Government to put down a number of long and quite complicated amendments at this stage. I was glad to hear him say that, having examined the amendments, for the time being he is satisfied. I am not in a position to judge the amendments on their merits. It is very satisfying that my noble and learned friends on the Front Bench have found it possible to bring the amendments before this

581
House rather than wait for all that to be done in another place. There it will possibly be more difficult for some of the detail to be dealt with in view of the fact that so much of the discussion took place in this House. I am very glad that the amendments have come here, remembering that they can be altered to a small degree, if necessary, in another place.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, the observations that I made were not in acquiescence or satisfaction.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Leave to appeal]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 28, line 12, leave out ("summing up by") and insert ("charge to the jury of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 20. I gave notice on Report that we intended to bring forward these two minor amendments to adjust the terminology of Clause 37 and of the corresponding provision i9 the 1975 Act to refer to the "judge's charge to the jury", which is the phrase normally used in Scottish law, rather than the "summing up of the judge", which is more often used in England and Wales. I believe that that is a satisfactory change to the terminology. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, on a point of information from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, how did this alien phrase "summing up" creep into Scottish legislation? It tends to suggest that we are doing a mirror image exercise between English and Scottish legislation. We are all familiar with the phrase "the judge's charge to the jury" in Scotland, but I have never heard it described as a "summing up" at any time.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, I have not got chapter and verse on it, but, as the noble Lord will be aware, the problem occurred in Section 274(5) of the 1975 Act. How and why it slipped in there I am not sure.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Exercise of powers by court or administrator]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 65, line 10, leave out ("and 88") and insert (", (Inhibition of property affected by restraint order or by interdict) and (Arrestment of property affected by restraint order)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 to 19 and 21 to 25. I apologise to your Lordships' House for the fact that a number of the very technical amendments to correct cross-referencing of clause numbers in the Bill appear on the Marshalled List as starred amendments. I beg the indulgence of the House in considering what are minor technical amendments which it was not possible to table earlier.
When we dealt with the matter on Report, I said that those issues would be dealt with on Third Reading. Although the amendments may appear substantial, they are in fact a necessarily lengthy expression of a
582
straightforward principle. They introduce new clauses to replace Clauses 88 and 92 and make consequential amendments to other clauses and schedules.
In its report on confiscation and forfeiture, the Scottish Law Commission recommended that procedures generally available for inhibition and arrestment of property in connection with drug trafficking and terrorist offences should be extended to other serious crimes where confiscation and forfeiture were appropriate.
Existing procedures were available in Section 11 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 for drug trafficking offences and in Schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 for terrorist offences. The commission, however, considered that in relation to inhibition the existing provisions were cumbersome and inconvenient. It recommended a simple procedure available not only in the Court of Session, but also in the sheriff court. That procedure would be available on the application of the prosecutor. This recommended simple procedure for both inhibition and arrestment is set out in the Bill as drafted before your Lordships today.
We reflected further on that, however. As I indicated to your Lordships at an earlier stage, I have concluded that it would be inappropriate to bring forward a simplified inhibition procedure in respect of criminal proceedings only and available to the prosecution only. I am therefore asking the Scottish Law Commission to examine the whole question of inhibition procedure. Until we have its report and recommendations, I believe that the best course of action is to retain the existing procedures for inhibition in respect of drug trafficking and terrorist offences and to apply those existing procedures to other serious crimes through the medium of the Bill. The procedures have not caused difficulties in practice.
That is why I have brought forward these amendments. Although they appear extensive, what they do in essence is to reinstate the existing inhibition procedures in the 1987 and 1989 Acts and to insert them in the Bill so far as other serious crimes are concerned. At the same time, however, the amendments provide for the retention in the Bill of the simplified and extended procedure for arrestment of moveable property recommended by the commission.
As I have said, I apologise for the number of these technical amendments, but I hope that I have given a satisfactory explanation of a technical and complex matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
3.30 p.m.
Clause 76 [Compensation]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 66, line 11, leave out ("88") and insert ("(Inhibition of property affected by restraint order or by interdict), (Arrestment of property affected by restraint order)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Restraint orders]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 75, line 6, at end insert
("(8) The court may, where it has granted a restraint order, interdict a person not subject to that order from dealing with property affected by it while it is in force.
(9) Subsections (2) (a) and (3) (a) above shall apply in relation to subsection (8) above as they apply in relation to subsection (1) above; and subsections (1), (2), 14) and (5) of section 87 of this Act shall apply in relation to an interdict under subsection (8) above as they apply in relation to a restraint order.
(10) Without prejudice to the time when it becomes effective, an interdict under subsection (8) above shall be intimated to each person affected by it.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Variation and recall of restraint orders]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 77, line 36, leave out ('88(8)") and insert ("84(8)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earisferry Lord Rodger of Earisferry moved Amendments Nos. 7 and 8:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause:
Inhibition of property affected by restraint order or by interdict
(".—(1) On the application of the Lord Advocate, the Court of Session may in respect of heritable realisable property in Scotland affected by a restraint order (whether such property generally or particular such property) grant warrant for inhibition against any person interdicted by the order or, in relation to that property, under section 84(8) of this Act; and subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, the warrant—

(a) shall have effect as if granted on the dependence of an action for debt at the instance of the Lord Advocate against the person and may be executed, recalled, loosed or restricted accordingly; and

(b) shall have the effect of letters of inhibition and shall forthwith be registered by the Lord Advocate in the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications.

(2) Section 155 of the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 (effective date of inhibition) shall apply in relation to an inhibition for which warrant has been granted under subsection (1) above as that section applies to an inhibition by separate letters or contained in a summons.
(3) In the application of section 158 of that Act of 1868 (recall of inhibition) to such an inhibition as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, references in that section to a particular Lord Ordinary shall be construed as references to any Lord Ordinary.
(4) The fact that an inhibition has been executed under subsection (1) above in respect of property shall not prejudice the exercise of an administrator's powers under or for the purposes of this Part of this Act in respect of that property.
(5) No inhibition executed under subsection (1) above shall have effect once, or in so far as, the restraint order affecting the property in respect of which the warrant for the inhibition has been granted has ceased to have effect in respect of that property; and the Lord Advocate shall—

(a) apply for the recall, or as the case may be restriction, of the inhibition; and

(b) ensure that the recall, or restriction, of an inhibition on such application is reflected in the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications.").

After Clause 87, insert the following new clause:
Arrestment of property affected by restraint order
(".—(1) On the application of the prosecutor, the court may, in respect of moveable property affected by a restraint order (whether such property generally or particular such property), grant warrant for arrestment if the property would be arrestable if the person entitled to it were a debtor.
(2) A warrant under subsection (1) above shall have effect as if granted on the dependence of an action for debt at the instance of the prosecutor against the person and may be executed, recalled, loosed or restricted accordingly.
(3) The fact that an arrestment has been executed under subsection (2) above in respect of property shall not prejudice the exercise of an administrator's powers under or for the purposes of this Part of this Act in respect of that property.
(4) No arrestment executed under subsection (2) above shall have effect once, or in so far as, the restraint order affecting the property in respect of which the warrant for such arrestment has been granted has ceased to have effect in respect of that property; and the prosecutor shall apply to the court for an order recalling, or as the case may be, restricting the arrestment accordingly.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 88 [Inhibition and arrestment of property affected by restraint order or by interdict]:
Lord Rodger of Earisferry Lord Rodger of Earisferry moved Amendment No. 9:
Leave out Clause 88.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rodger of Earisferry Lord Rodger of Earisferry moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
After Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
Inhibition of Scottish property affected by order registered under section 90
(".—(1) On the application of the Lord Advocate, the Court of Session may in respect of heritable realisable property in Scotland affected by a restraint order registered under section 90 of this Act (whether such property generally or particular such property) grant warrant for inhibition against any person with an interest in that property; and the warrant—

(a) shall have effect as if granted on the dependence of an action for debt at the instance of the Lord Advocate against the person and may be executed, recalled, loosed or restricted accordingly;

(b) shall have the effect of letters of inhibition and shall forthwith be registered by the Lord Advocate in the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications.

(2) Section 155 of the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 (effective date of inhibition) shall apply in relation to an inhibition for which warrant has been granted under subsection (1) above as that section applies to an inhibition by separate letters or contained in a summons.
(3) In the application of section 158 of that Act of 1868 (recall of inhibition) to such an inhibition as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, references in that section to a particular Lord Ordinary shall be construed as references to any Lord Ordinary.
(4) The fact that an inhibition has been executed under subsection (1) above, in respect of property shall not prejudice the exercise of a receiver's powers under or for the purposes of section 77, 80 or 81 of the 1988 Act in respect of that property.
(5) No inhibition executed under subsection (1) above shall have effect once, or in so far as, the restraint order affecting the property in respect of which the warrant for the inhibition has been granted has ceased to have effect in respect of that property; and the Lord Advocate shall—

(a) apply for the recall, or as the case may be restriction, of the inhibition; and

(b) ensure that the recall, or restriction, of an inhibition on such application is reflected in the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications.

(6) Any power of the Court of Session to recall, loose or restrict inhibitions shall, in relation to an order containing an inhibition under subsection (1) above and without prejudice to any other consideration lawfully applying to the exercise of the power, be exercised with a view to achieving the purposes specified in section 80 of the 1988 Act.").
After Clause 91, insert the following new clause:
Arrestment of Scottish property affected by order registered under section 90
(".—(1) On the application of the prosecutor, the court may, in respect of moveable property affected by a restraint order registered under section 90 of this Act (whether such property generally or particular such property), grant warrant for arrestment if the property would be arrestable if the person entitled to it were a debtor.
(2) A warrant under subsection (1) above shall have effect as if granted on the dependence of an action for debt at the instance of the prosecutor against the person and may be executed, recalled, loosed or restricted accordingly.
(3) The fact that an arrestment has been executed under subsection (2) above in respect of property shall not prejudice the exercise of a receiver's powers under or for the purposes of section 77, 80 or 81 of the 1988 Act in respect of that property.
(4) No arrestment executed under subsection (2) above shall have effect once, or in so far as, the restraint order affecting the property in respect of which the warrant for such arrestment has been granted has ceased to have effect in respect of that property; and the prosecutor shall apply to the court for an order recalling, or as the case may be, restricting the arrestment accordingly.
(5) Any power of the Court of Session to recall, loose or restrict arrestments shall, in relation to an arrestment proceeding upon a warrant under subsection (1) above and without prejudice to any other consideration lawfully applying to the exercise of the power, be exercised with a view to achieving the purposes specified in section 80 of the 1988 Act.
(6) For the purposes of this section, "prosecutor" includes, where an order has been made by virtue of subsection (2) of section 76 of the 1988 Act and the information mentioned in that subsection has not yet been laid, the person as regards whom the court which made the order was satisfied as is mentioned in subsection (3) (b) of the said section 76.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 92 [Inhibition and arrestment of Scottish property affected by order registered under section 90]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 92.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Forfeiture of property where accused has died]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 87, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert:
("( ) Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) and subsections (2) to (5) of section (Inhibition of property affected by restraint order or by interdict) of this Act shall, subject to any necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of subsection (10) (a) above as they apply for the purposes of that section.
( ) Subsections (2) to (7) of section (Arrestment of property affected by restraint order) of this Act shall, subject to any necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of subsection (10) (b) above as they apply for the purposes of that section.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Administrators]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 98, line 18, leave out ("section 88") and insert ("sections (Inhibition of property affected by restraint order or by interdict) and (Arrestment of property affected by restraint order)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Sequestration etc. of Persons Holding Realisable or Forfeiture Property]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 15 to 17:
Page 100, line 18, leave out ("92") and insert ("(Arrestment of Scottish property affected by order registered under section 90)").
Page 101, line 17, leave out ("92") and insert ("(Arrestment of Scottish property affected by order registered under section 90)").
Page 102, line 21, leave out ("92") and insert ("(Arrestment of Scottish property affected by order registered under section 90)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 Relating to Part II]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
Page 115, leave out from beginning of line 40 to end of line 36 on page 116 and insert:

("(a) in subsection (1), paragraph (b) and in paragraph (ii), the words "where granted under subsection (1) (a) above,", shall cease to have effect;

(b) in subsections (4) and (5), the words "or arrestment", in each place where they occur, shall cease to have effect; and

(c) subsection (6) shall cease to have effect.

. After section 11 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Arrestment of property affected by restraint order.
11A.—(1) On the application of the prosecutor, the court may, in respect of moveable property affected by a restraint order (whether such property generally or particular such property), grant warrant for arrestment if the property would be arrestable if the person entitled to it were a debtor.
(2) A warrant under subsection (1) above shall have effect as if granted on the dependence of an action for debt at the instance of the prosecutor against the person and may be executed, recalled, loosed or restricted accordingly.
(3) The fact that an arrestment has been executed under subsection (2) above in respect of property shall not prejudice the exercise of an administrator's powers under or for the purposes of this Part of this Act in respect of that property.
(4) No arrestment executed under subsection (2) above shall have effect once, or in so far as, the restraint order affecting the property in respect of which the warrant for such arrestment has been granted has ceased to have effect in respect of that property; and the prosecutor shall apply to the court for an order recalling, or as the case may be, restricting the arrestment accordingly.".").
Page 119, line 35, leave out from ("following") to end of line 49 on page 120 and insert ("sections—
Inhibition of Scottish property affected by order registered under section 27.
28A.—(1) On the application of the Lord Advocate, the Court of Session may in respect of heritable realisable property in Scotland affected by a restraint order registered under section 27 of this Act (whether such property generally or particular such property) grant warrant for inhibition against any person with an interest in that property; and the warrant—

(a) shall have effect as if granted on the dependence of an action for debt at the instance of the Lord Advocate against the person and may be executed, recalled, loosed or restricted accordingly;

(b) shall have the effect of letters of inhibition and shall forthwith be registered by the Lord Advocate in the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications.

(2) Section 155 of the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 (effective date of inhibition) shall apply in relation to an inhibition for which warrant has been granted under subsection (1) above as that section applies to an inhibition by separate letters or contained in a summons.
(3) In the application of section 158 of that Act of 1868 (recall of inhibition) to such an inhibition as is mentioned in subsection (2) above, references in that section to a particular Lord Ordinary shall be construed as references to any Lord Ordinary.
(4) The fact that an inhibition has been executed under subsection (1) above, in respect of property shall not prejudice the exercise of a receiver s powers under or for the purposes of section 8, 11 or 12 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 in respect of that property.
(5) No inhibition executed under subsection (1) above shall have effect once, or in so far as, the restraint order affecting the property in respect of which the warrant for the inhibition has been granted has ceased to have effect in respect of that property; and the Lord Advocate shall—

(a) apply for the recall, or as the case may be restriction, of the inhibition; and

(b) ensure that the recall, or restriction, of an inhibition on such application is reflected in the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications.

(6) Any power of the Court of Session to recall, loose or restrict inhibitions shall, in relation to an order containing an inhibition under subsection (1) above and without prejudice to any other consideration lawfully applying to the exercise of the power, be exercised with a view to achieving the purposes specified in section 13 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
Arrestment of Scottish property affected by order registered under section 27.
28B.—(1) On the application of the prosecutor, the court may, in respect of moveable property affected by a restraint order registered under section 27 of this Act (whether such property generally or particular such property), grant warrant for arrestment if the property would be arrestable if the person entitled to it were a debtor.
(2) A warrant under subsection (1) above shall have effect as if granted on the dependence of an action for debt at the instance of the prosecutor against the person and may be executed, recalled, loosed or restricted accordingly.
(3) The fact that an arrestment has been executed under subsection (2) above in respect of property shall not prejudice the exercise of a receiver's powers under or for the purposes of section 8, 11 or 12 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 in respect of that property.
(4) No arrestment executed under subsection (2) above shall have effect once, or in so far as, the restraint order affecting the property in respect of which the warrant for such arrestment has been granted has ceased to have effect in respect of that property; and the prosecutor shall apply to the court for an order recalling, or as the case may be, restricting the arrestment accordingly.
(5) Any power of the Court of Session to recall, loose or restrict arrestments shall, in relation to an arrestment proceeding upon a warrant under subsection (1) above and without prejudice to any other consideration lawfully applying to the exercise of the power, be exercised with a view to achieving the purposes specified in section 13 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986.
(6) For the purposes of this section, "prosecutor" includes, where an order has been made by virtue of subsection (2) of section 7 of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and the information mentioned in that subsection has not yet been laid, the person as regards whom the court which made the order was satisfied as is mentioned in subsection (3) (b) of the said section 7.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 23:
Page 129, line 43, at end insert:
588
(" In section 274(5) (e) (record of proceedings at trial), for the words "summing up by the judge" there shall be substituted "judge's charge to the jury".").
Page 136, leave out lines 13 to 26.
Page 138, line 21, leave out ("or 92") and insert (", (Inhibition of Scottish property affected by order registered under section 90) or (Arrestment of Scottish property affected by order registered under section 90)").
Page 139, line, 39 leave out paragraph 108 and insert:
(" .—(1) Schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (forfeiture orders) shall be amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 16—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect;

(b) in sub-paragraph (2) (b), the words "where granted under sub-paragraph (1) (a) above," shall cease to have effect; and

(c) in sub-paragraphs (5) and (6), the words "or arrestment", in each place where they occur, shall cease to have effect.

(3) After paragraph 16 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"16A.—(1) On the application of the prosecutor, the court may, in respect of moveable property affected by a restraint order (whether such property generally or particular such property), grant warrant for arrestment if the property would be arrestable if the person entitled to it were a debtor.
(2) A warrant under sub-paragraph (1) above shall have effect as if granted on the dependence of an action for debt at the instance of the prosecutor against the person and may be executed, recalled, loosed or restricted accordingly.
(3) The fact that an arrestment has been executed under sub-paragraph (2) above in respect of property shall not prejudice the exercise of an administrator's powers under or for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule in respect of that property.
(4) No arrestment executed under sub-paragraph (2) above shall have effect once, or in so far as, the restraint order affecting the property in respect of which the warrant for such arrestment has been granted has ceased to have effect in respect of that property; and the prosecutor shall apply to the court for an order recalling, or as the case may be, restricting the arrestment accordingly.".")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Lord Rodger of Earlsferry moved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
Page 144, leave out line 26, column 3, and insert:

("In section 11, in subsection (1), paragraph (b) and, in paragraph (ii), the words "where granted under subsection (1) (a) above,"; in subsections (4) and (5), the words "or arrestment" in each place where they occur; and subsection (6).").

Page 145, line 9, at end insert:

("1989 c.4.

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989.

In Schedule 4, in paragraph 16, sub-paragraph (1) (b); in sub-paragraph (2) (b) the words "where granted under sub-paragraph (1) (a) above,"; and in sub-paragraphs (5) and (6), the words "or arrestment", in each place where they occur.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
3.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
This is a major piece of legislation which, if enacted, will do much to enhance the efficient and effective operation of the criminal justice system in Scotland. Those of your Lordships who entered the Chamber from time to time during our discussions on the Bill might have considered that the qualification for participating in those discussions was to be either Scots or a lawyer—or preferably both. I do not believe that it is necessarily desirable to conduct legislation within quite such an exclusive preserve, so, although I am grateful to my legal colleagues from Scotland for their participation, perhaps I may extend even warmer thanks to those who are not lawyers who contributed to our debates on the Bill and who played a significant part in improving it.
Your Lordships scrutinised with some care the proposals relating to bail. I welcomed that scrutiny, particularly in relation to the possibility of prejudice to the accused and the proposals for limiting access to bail. What we must address—I believe that your Lordships support this—is the growth in the number of offences committed while on bail. I believe that the measures contained in the Bill do this and will serve to bolster the public's confidence in the workings of the bail system. In recent years, it has been somewhat tested.
We have had two lively debates in Committee and on Report about the principles underlying the selection of juries, and in particular the likely effect of our proposals to abolish peremptory challenge and to remove the occupation of potential jurors from the list. I listened with interest and care to the views expressed both from the Opposition and the Cross Benches, but we remain of the view that both proposals will improve the selection of juries without detriment to the interests of those accused of committing crimes.
I recognise that the debates which took place about the proposal to extend the scope of questions permitted at judicial examination did not persuade some of your Lordships that the change is desirable. The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, expressed most eloquently their concerns about the proposal.
590
I believe, however, that your Lordships' consideration of the matter has resulted in a better understanding of the nature of judicial examination and of the purpose of the modest changes in the Bill. The inclusion of a duty on the prosecutor to investigate any defence disclosed at judicial examination—a proposal initially brought forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—will undoubtedly improve the operation of the system overall.
Your Lordships' opinion was sought on our proposal to remove the prohibition on the prosecutor commenting on an accused person's failure to give evidence, and your Lordships' House approved our proposals. We remain of the view that this is a common sense reform which will enable the issue of what inferences may be drawn from an accused person's silence in a particular case to be dealt with openly and in a fair manner.
The proposals to introduce a system of leave to appeal were examined in detail by your Lordships, most notably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I hope that the answers provided by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate have alleviated some of his concerns. We firmly believe that the new procedures are essential to meet the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights, while at the same time ensuring that the Appeal Court is not overburdened with unmeritorious or frivolous appeals.
A number of improvements have been made to the details of the proposals as a result of the debates in your Lordships' House, and I am grateful in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for their contributions.
The Government were greatly encouraged to find that the very important provisions in the Bill for reducing unnecessary attendance at court by victims and other witnesses appeared to enjoy broad support in your Lordships' House. The creation of mandatory intermediate and preliminary diets may not have attracted headlines, but the reforms will, I am confident, affect more people who come into contact with the criminal justice system than any other provisions in the Bill, and for that reason they are to be welcomed.
Allied to those provisions are the proposals for changes in the law of evidence which again are aimed at reducing unnecessary attendance at court by witnesses whose evidence is not, in the event, challenged. These measures appear to have the full support of your Lordships' House.
By way of contrast, our proposals to extend the circumstances in which evidence might be permitted as to the bad character or previous conduct of an accused provoked some controversy. In particular, we have reconsidered and improved the provisions in the Bill in the light of comments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. We are glad that we have been able to take the opportunity to introduce an important safeguard for the accused by placing on a statutory footing the decision of the court in Leggate.
Further safeguards for the accused and especially those who are unfit to plead or insane, also secured agreement on all sides of your Lordships' House. I was grateful for the attention which the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, brought to bear on this package of measures. The helpful result has been a number of extensions to the periods allowed for certain appeals.

591
The Government recognise the increasingly significant contribution criminal justice social work services are making towards reducing offending behaviour. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, that I welcome the supportive remarks made by a number of your Lordships during the course of this Bill for the initiatives we are proposing aimed at increasing the scope and effectiveness of those services.
On Part II of the Bill, the provisions on the new arrangements for confiscation and forfeiture are necessarily complex, and l am grateful, as is my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, for your Lordships' forbearance in considering the amendments which we have found it necessary to bring forward. They were necessary as a result of our having moved so quickly, because it was only last September that the Scottish Law Commission's report became available to us; but we are pleased that we were able to introduce those amendments.
We have also managed to make significant progress with the minor amendments necessary to facilitate the forthcoming consolidation of criminal procedure legislation.
I should not like to see this Bill pass to another place without referring to the informed debates which have taken place on the position of the victim in the criminal justice system. I have welcomed the opportunity to address that fundamental matter. I welcome also the wider public debate that has been provoked in Scotland as a result of the debates that took place in Committee. Sometimes it might not appear that we provoke such interest in Scotland, but on this occasion we certainly did.
It is too easy to think of our criminal justice system as one concerned principally with the accused. A system which enjoys public confidence must be much more than that. The public rightly demands that victims be treated with courtesy and dignity, indeed even with appropriate compassion when there has been real trauma and distress. Much has been and is being done, but I fully acknowledge there is room for further improvement both in the quantity and quality of support and information provided to victims.
I am pleased to be able to inform your Lordships of an 11 per cent. increase in funding for Victim Support (Scotland) next year, bringing the total grant up to £.975,000. We are committed to improving the victim's experience of the criminal justice system, and we believe that the route we have set out on is the correct one, without imposing new statutory duties on the court.
While we might not have liked all the proposed new statutory duties, we are not entirely adverse to them. Your Lordships will recall our addressing in Committee the important subject of racial crime and racial discrimination. While I made clear my opposition to singling out racial motivation and requiring courts to consider that one aggravating factor above all others, I was content to accept a new statutory duty regularly to publish information designed to combat racial discrimination in the criminal justice system.
I conclude by again expressing thanks to all who have participated in the debates, in particular my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate who has dealt with a number of extremely complicated matters. The Bill will pass now from this House to another place, amended and
592
considerably improved in the light of the proper and detailed scrutiny that has been afforded to it. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the kind remarks that he has made about my contribution and that of other Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in this debate. It was a useful but, as the Minister will recognise, not an exhaustive review of the criminal law in Scotland. That is an ongoing process, as is said, and we have to look at it from time to time. The Minister mentioned the Scottish Law Commission. We hope that with the change of government that will come within the next couple of years the Scottish Law Commission's reports may receive the attention that they deserve, and pass through a Scottish parliament in due course, but that is by the way.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, I just mentioned that in passing in case your Lordships had not noticed.
I welcome being involved to a certain extent with victim support organisations. I welcome and express the gratitude of the voluntary sector for the increase in funding to voluntary organisations that the Minister has managed to obtain. I know that he does not like being flattered by me, but I have described him previously as a caring Minister, and I repeat that, and make no apology for doing so. It is very much appreciated by the Scottish community.
What the Minister said about the Bill is in some ways puzzling. Your Lordships may wish to know that I lost my voice on Saturday morning. I was unable to speak until yesterday afternoon. It may be a matter of some regret that I can speak for a few minutes to answer some of what the Minister said. I cannot for the life of me see how removing any indication of a potential juror's occupation makes jury selection fairer. We have been over that course, and I have no doubt that it will be pursued in another place.
The way that judicial examination now stands is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing judicial about it. It is an attempt to get the accused to confess. That is the way it is being seen. The most remarkable thing the Minister said was when he talked about the inference to be drawn from silence. I am told by my noble friend Lord Carmichael, who has greater experience of Glasgow musicals than I have, that the late and great Tommy Morgan used to say to his wife, "You are nothing but a silent nagger". It seems to me that the inference to be drawn from silence is almost on a par with that. However, those are not matters to be taken lightly.
Both sides of your Lordships' House should recognise the input of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who has spent a great deal of time discussing matters with the noble and learned Lords the Lord Advocate and the Minister. He did not

593
always agree with them—he is not one for agreeing with Ministers—but useful amendments have emerged from our discussions.
We have reviewed and improved the Bill before it goes to another place on a purely non-party basis. I made it clear, leading the debate from this side of your Lordships' House, that it is not a party issue when we are trying to improve the criminal law system. I hope that it will be recognised by those on the government Benches—I am sure that it is—that the Bill's progress has been the result of the traditional exercise of a listening and amending process. As the Minister said, we hope that when the Bill goes to the other place it will take note of what has been said here and not go flying off at a tangent.
Other issues were raised which the Minister did not mention. Without a shadow of a doubt the issue of the non-proven verdict will come back in another place, as will the review of the jury system upon which I have already commented, and the appeal system. I tried this morning to obtain a copy of last week's decision in the High Court in Scotland which appeared to open the door to a greater degree of flexibility over the court considering new evidence.
I say this in the spirit in which we have conducted consideration of the Bill, and without having seen what the Lord Justice General said, but if the door is opened to appeals on evidence available at the trial, if there is a reasonable excuse for not leading it—if that is the broad import of the High Court's decision—is it necessary to have the Sutherland Committee sitting any more? What is the point of waiting two-and-a-half years for a committee to report back to the House? I believe that 1996 is the reporting year. A great deal of public money will be spent on a quango—or call it what you like. What is the point of that when the High Court has pushed itself into the 20th century and is looking forward to the next century and at what is worrying people throughout the United Kingdom; that is, possible miscarriages of justice?
The argument has been that if someone is allowed to bring in evidence that was available the so-called floodgates of appeal of one kind or another will be opened. The answer to that might be, "So what?". Every convicted person has the right of appeal and it is no answer to say that it is inconvenient for the courts to deal with that. We need a system which will deal with appeals efficiently and with a degree of flexibility.
I hope that between now and consideration of the Bill in another place, with its more robust surroundings, the Government will grasp the nettle of appeals and look at the Sutherland Committee and ask whether it is necessary. Is it not easier for the Government to go to the Lord Justice General and say, "We have read your opinion in that case. What does it really amount to? Do we need this committee any more or can we sit down and amend the Bill so that as it goes through another place we build into it the proper provisions to meet the safeguards that the public is worried about?"?
594
The Government should put in place a new system and one that is not strangled by antiquity. The fault with the Scottish appeal system is that it has been strangled. Everyone says, "If we allow this appeal we will get another 10 on the same ground". Again, I ask, "So what?". That is the right of the individual.
Being in opposition is an exercise in political impotence but in considering the Bill we may have achieved a few of our targets. We look forward to the not-too-distant future when perhaps the roles will be reversed. It would be churlish of me to conclude my remarks without paying tribute to the noble and learned Lords the Minister and the Lord Advocate for their consideration of everything that has been said from all sides of your Lordships' House. I thank them for the consideration and courtesy with which they dealt with all the remarks that were made during the debates on the Bill. It has been a valuable debate and I hope that it has improved the administration of criminal justice in Scotland.
3.52 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it will not have escaped your Lordships' notice that the Bill has been an education for me at every level. Perhaps in over dramatising the point, I can record that the baptism of fire has been gentle and on my part well received. Noble Lords have been both kind and generous. I thank the noble and learned Lords the Minister and the Lord Advocate for responding to my nine amendments which were usually drafted more with enthusiasm than with parliamentary skill. I was pleased that the care of victims was so well aired and that there was a commitment further to improve services to victims and their families. On Second Reading I called only for a 100 per cent. increase for Victim Support but the 11 per cent. increase is a real improvement and is welcome.
I look forward to the results of the research being undertaken by Stirling University into the effects of the increased use of compensation orders. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, gave the House a perspective of our legal system that I for one had not previously had. Perhaps the exchanges about the precise moment when a victim can be referred to as such characterise what I am referring to. Clearly, there are times when the social work and legal viewpoints can be widely separated. It is a little like the medical and legal situation which leads to the statement, "You are not dead until a doctor says that you are".
The Bill contains three controversial clauses dealing with changes to the judicial examination, the use of the accused's previous convictions and alterations around the accused's apparent right to silence. No doubt those issues will be raised again in another place.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Environment Bill [H.L.]
3.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 81 [Consultation before making or modifying certain subordinate legislation for England]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 316:
Page 88, line 1, after first ("The") insert ("appropriate").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 317, 320, 321B and 324. Many of the amendments in the group relate to improved consultation with various bodies and persons. Amendment No. 316 is a consequential amendment which would insert the word "appropriate" before the word "Minister" in order to make it clear that we are talking about the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales as well as the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment.
Amendment No. 317 inserts the words "or modifying any legislation" in order to make clear those who shall be consulted when the legislation to which this clause applies is changed as well as when it is made ab initio.
Amendment No. 320 provides that for Scotland and Wales the same people should be consulted as are consulted in relation to England. Therefore, the subsection is split into three parts. The present legislation contains an anomaly which does not require the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to consult the statutory bodies before changing or modifying the legislation. Therefore, the amendment is intended to be helpful to the Government.
Amendment No. 321B relates to consultation and provides that local authorities are consulted in relation to important hedgerows. That covers some of the issues we dealt with last week. It suggests that in determining which hedgerows are important it is important that local people are consulted.
Amendment No. 324 seeks to apply environmental conditions to arable area payments. Those would then be put on all fours with set-aside payments, which also require environmental conditions to be attached to them. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I support this group of amendments and wish to speak to those standing in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Peel. They are Amendments Nos. 320A, 322, 323, 325 and 326. I hope that I shall not muddle my noble friend on the Front Bench but, with the permission of the Committee, I would prefer to deal separately with Amendments Nos. 318 and 321.
596
The amendments support the line taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. As the Bill is drafted, the Minister of Agriculture in England is required to consult his statutory advisers on conservation matters before formulating or modifying environmental land management schemes. There is no similar duty on the Secretaries of State for Wales or Scotland. I appreciate that both are Ministers of Agriculture in their area. However, it is odd that those two Secretaries of State should not have a duty to consult their statutory conservation advisers about land management schemes. I hope that my noble friend will see the sense of the amendments.
4 p.m.
Baroness White: I should like to comment on Amendment No. 320. Needless to say, I am looking at it from the point of view of Wales. Some of us were informed by the Countryside Council for Wales that it had not been consulted and that it had been left out against its will. That is astonishing. Surely somebody somewhere should have realised that there would be strong indignation and complaint about the fact that the Countryside Council for Wales and our heritage body, Cadw, were left out without any consultation whatever. I hope that that is not significant but merely an error of administration or judgment to which, I am afraid, we are all too accustomed in relation to legislation coming before us these days. I could not allow the situation to pass without drawing attention to it. Those of us who are concerned about the environmental problems of Wales were very much put out by the omission.
Lord Walpole: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 316A, 321A and 324A standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. The amendments aim to widen and deepen the consultation process. However well informed the Minister's advisers may be, there is a wealth of experience outside that magic circle. When strategies are developed and changes are made, it is essential to seek the benefit of the experience of those at the sharp end.
I am sure that the Minister has been briefed by his department and has also received the briefing from the Countryside Commission which was, after all, set up to advise the Minister. I understand from the Countryside Commission that it is broadly in sympathy with the type of amendments which are put forward but that it does not support them as such because they are unnecessary. I am sure that that is what the Minister is about to tell us.
I have looked back several years to Volume 520 of Hansard when, at col. 2188, I was arguing with the Minister's predecessors on the Environmental Protection Bill. At that time also I was fighting for greater co-operation and information concerning what was being done. And that is what today's amendments are about. On the previous occasion the problem was overcome by letters of intent. In replying to this group of amendments, perhaps the Minister will make a ministerial announcement on letters of intent or the intention of Ministers to co-operate with one another. I am referring, of course, to the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment.

597
Indeed, I hope that the Minister will go further—I suspect that he would like to—and say that the letters of intent should go beyond the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and the statutory bodies. Perhaps the Minister will be willing to discuss that with the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and myself before Report stage.
I feel very strongly that wider consultation is needed. There have been no complaints about the 1990 letters of intent, so obviously they have worked. I hope that the Minister will think seriously about better communication.
Earl Howe: All of these amendments would, in one way or another, extend the scope of the consultation arrangements set out in Clause 81. The clause requires the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England to consult the specified environmental agencies, as well as the Secretary of State for the Environment, before making or significantly amending legislation which aims to conserve or enhance the countryside or to promote public enjoyment of the countryside.
Amendments Nos. 316, 320, 320A, 322, 323, 325 and 326 seek to require similar consultation of environment bodies in Scotland and Wales by the relevant Secretaries of State. The Government do not consider that that extension is either necessary or appropriate because in Scotland and Wales the institutional arrangements and powers of existing bodies are different from those in England. For example, Historic Scotland and Cadw are not separate statutory agencies, unlike English Heritage, but are executive agencies of the Scottish and Welsh Offices. The amendment, if agreed, would require the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to consult themselves on issues affecting the built heritage and clearly that would not be sensible. In addition, Scottish Natural Heritage and the Countryside Council for Wales already have statutory power to provide advice to their respective Secretary of State.
Amendments Nos. 316A, 317, 324, 324A would widen substantially the scope of Clause 81 in three ways. First, they would require the Minister of Agriculture to consult the Secretary of State for the Environment and the three countryside agencies before making any amendment to the specified statutory instruments, regardless of whether or not he considers it material. Secondly, they would require the Minister to consult those persons and bodies before making or in any way modifying any land management legislation which has a subsidiary environmental objective, even though its primary purpose is not related to conservation or public enjoyment of the countryside. Thirdly, they would require that the scope of the consultation should cover the objectives, delivery and performance of schemes at national and, where appropriate, local level.
The purpose of Clause 81 is to draw in the full range of environmental expertise available within all the relevant government agencies to ensure that we are getting the most out of schemes with specific environmental objectives. We consider that such formal statutory consultation as is proposed would be out of all
598
proportion in relation to other policy developments where environmental purposes are not the primary objective. It could, for example, require the Minister to consult the specified bodies on minor amendments to the Crop Residues (Burning) Regulations.
We consider also that it would be undesirable to provide for formal statutory consultation where proposed modifications to statutory instruments are of a purely technical nature. That would be bound to create unnecessary additional bureaucracy and delays in operating schemes. It would, for example, mean that the Minister would be obliged to consult on every routine adjustment made to payment rates and grant ceilings in environmentally sensitive areas.
We believe that the extension of the clause to refer specifically to consultation on the objectives, delivery and performance of schemes is unnecessary because the requirement in the present text for Ministers to consult before making or significantly modifying legislation will, where necessary, encompass these elements as well as other aspects. The idea that consultation should, where appropriate, take place at local as well as national level is one which we support but we believe that it is already catered for in the current wording. By consulting the statutory countryside agencies, all of which have locally based staff, and through the Ministry of Agriculture's own local consultation arrangements, local views will be fully taken into account.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 321A and 321B is, first, to extend the list of statutory organisations which the Minister of Agriculture is required to consult to include the Forestry Commission and local government representatives; and, secondly, to add to that list non-statutory bodies representing the interests of land managers as well as wider environmental, business and community bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Walpole, asked about letters of intent. The consultation arrangements set out in Clause 81 are, as I said, designed to extend the approach which already operates successfully in setting up new environmentally sensitive areas. The Department of the Environment and the three countryside agencies have specific expertise with regard to conservation on agricultural land which is uniquely valuable in developing schemes of this type and it is right that their advice should be sought on a statutory basis. Since those schemes are not directed principally at woodland or afforestation, in our view it would not be appropriate to extend such statutory consultation procedures to the Forestry Commission. However, the Forestry Commission, local authorities and other statutory bodies are, in practice, consulted as appropriate on specific issues affecting their interests.
In introducing and developing conservation schemes we also recognise the importance of seeking advice and comments from non-statutory organisations outside government, representing both agricultural and environmental interests. However, whereas it is appropriate to provide a legal basis for the consultation of statutory bodies under certain conditions, more general consultation with non-statutory bodies is carried

599
out on an ad hoc basis as the need arises. Those arrangements work very effectively and we do not consider it necessary to alter them.
I trust that the fact that the arrangements are working as well as we all hoped will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, to the extent that, perhaps, letters of intent may assume a lesser degree of importance. However, I would be more than happy to talk to the noble Lord about the issue between now and Report stage. With that somewhat lengthy explanation of the purposes of Clause 81, I hope that Members of the Committee will feel comfortable in withdrawing the amendments.
With the leave of the Committee and before I sit down, perhaps I may respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I apologise for not so doing earlier. The noble Baroness mentioned the upset felt by the Countryside Council for Wales. The review of the functions of the council, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is currently undertaking, will not affect the fact that he would continue to consult the council on such matters. The council's statutory functions will not be changed, even if local authorities become more involved in some aspects of its present activities. I should stress that no decisions have yet been made in that respect. The council will remain the Secretary of State's adviser on nature conservation and on countryside and access issues. Therefore, there is no need for the Secretary of State for Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales to be included in the clause.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I thank the Minister for his detailed response. However, it seemed to me that it was inherently contradictory on certain points. For example, if it is appropriate for agencies to give advice to Ministers, then surely it is appropriate for Ministers to consult agencies, even if they are within their own particular set-up within the Scottish Office. I thought the idea of having agencies was that they would be, to some extent, at arm's length from Secretaries of State or Ministers. Therefore if they are at arm's length to some extent, it must be appropriate to consult them. I imagine that our Scottish and our Welsh colleagues will be most disappointed with the Minister's response. It seems to me that there is a case for reciprocity in consultation and in seeking advice. It is not just a duty on the agency; it should also be a duty on the Secretary of State to seek it.
The Minister argued that consultation would entail delays. That is inevitable. Surely it is important to ensure that the action is right in the end, even if there is some delay. It is possible that consultation will improve the final decision. I believe that the Minister also said that it was appropriate to provide legislation in relation to consultation with statutory bodies. That is exactly what we are seeking by way of Amendment No. 324 which requires consultation with local authorities. It seems to me that some of the Minister's arguments can actually be turned against him as regards some of the amendments that have been tabled. However, we are dealing with a most complex issue. Obviously we shall
600
need to study the Minister's response in some detail. Therefore, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I understand that the following raft of amendments on the Marshalled List is not to be moved. I shall, therefore, read out the numbers slowly and if any noble Lord wishes to speak to any of the amendments he is, of course, at liberty to do so.
[Amendments Nos. 316A and 317 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 318:
Page 88, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) The appropriate Minister shall also consult the bodies and persons specified in subsection (2) below as appropriate, and in any case at intervals of not less than three years, regarding the development, establishment of targets, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of any schemes already existing or introduced under any legislation to which this section applies.")
The noble Lord said: I should like to address the amendment. I warned my noble friend the Minister that I should like to move it separately. I listened very carefully to my noble friend's response to Amendment No. 316. I hope that my noble friend will confirm that I have got the message correct.
As I understand it, organisations like Cadw or CCW are automatically consulted by the Secretary of State. Therefore, Amendment No. 318 which suggests that consultation is necessary during the implementation of schemes will presumably receive the same response. I believe that I am right in that respect. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, I am not entirely sure as to whether there is a two-way approach involved. I believe that "reciprocity" is the right word. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that I have the right message. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: Amendment No. 318 would require the Minister of Agriculture to consult the specified persons and bodies not only when making or significantly modifying legislation designed to encourage countryside conservation but also periodically on the subject of targeting, implementing, monitoring and evaluating schemes introduced under such legislation. The Government do not consider that such a statutory requirement is appropriate.
Clause 81 is designed to build on the type of consultation arrangements laid down under the Agriculture Act 1986 for legislation setting up new environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs). It: does so by requiring consultation on statutory instruments modifying existing ESA legislation and on a wide range of other statutory instruments concerned with conservation and public enjoyment of the countryside. That constitutes a major expansion of the statutory consultation procedures.
Quite outside the statutory arrangements there is, as I indicated earlier, a less formal range of contacts and consultations regularly occurring on the sorts of issues referred to in the amendment. The Ministry of

601
Agriculture, the Department of the Environment and the countryside agencies are currently considering sympathetically how to develop those contacts further. We shall bear in mind the aspects referred to in the amendment. The Government will make a further statement on the subject during the passage of the Bill. I hope that my remarks will be of help to my noble friend and that he will feel able to study my response between now and Report stage. If my noble friend requires further clarification, I shall be more than happy to talk to him on the matter.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I shall study my noble friend's response with great care. It seemed to me a little more encouraging than I expected. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 319 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 320 and 320A not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 321:
Page 88, line 14, at end insert:
("(e) bodies representing the interests of land managers.").
The noble Lord said: As before, I warned my noble friend the Minister that I should like to deal separately with the amendment. Of course, it is possible that I have, again, got the message wrong. I believe that my noble friend gave an assurance in this respect when addressing Amendment No. 316. However, I should be grateful if he would confirm that the Minister will consult bodies representing land managers—they are obviously different to CCW and Cadw—in making any legislation relating to environmental land management schemes or modifying such legislation.
Land managers have ultimate responsibility for delivering environmental land management under government schemes. Taking full account of the views of bodies representing land managers in formulating or modifying such schemes should help to ensure their success. For example, consultations could enable potential problems to be identified and resolved before schemes are launched, rather than subsequently. Equally, land managers have a growing fund of practical experience in delivering environmental land management which I believe could be usefully tapped.
I believe that consulting such bodies as the CLA and the NFU, both of which represent land managers, offers an effective way of drawing on that experience. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will provide for such bodies representing land managers to be consulted. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to my noble friend for speaking to this amendment so clearly. As he has indicated, it would add land managers to the list of consultees in the Bill. The Minister would also be required to consult such other organisations as he considers appropriate. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, I have no difficulty with the principle of the amendment as such, but I would invite my noble friend
602
to remember that the environmental schemes we are talking about are all about delivering specific environmental benefits through certain specific types of land management. The consultees laid down in the Bill all have specific technical expertise alongside the expertise of MAFF and the Department of the Environment.
The expertise which land managers have is, I suggest, of a different kind. We believe that it is necessary to include the statutory bodies on the face of the Bill but more general consultation with non-statutory bodies is something that is carried out on an ad hoc arrangement as the need arises. I do not believe it is appropriate to put those bodies on the face of the Bill. I say again to my noble friend that I hope he does not feel that the arrangements as currently practised fall short in any way. I do not think that they do, and I do not believe there is any underlying need, or underlying disquiet, which should give rise to pressing this amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: If I understood the Minister correctly, the view taken by Government is that the best people to determine what happens in the area of land management are the Ministry of Agriculture, the Countryside Commission and so on. If I may say so, I think he seriously underrates the private sector land manager as opposed to what I might describe as the theoretical approach of the established government adviser in these fields. Before the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, decides what to do with the amendment, I must say I have grave misgivings about the quality of consultation and decision making, and about the quality of understanding among many of these agencies about what really happens on the ground when one has to make long-term decisions using one's own money and in the knowledge that the policy may change several times in the course of the period in which one has to see that policy through.
In years gone by it seems to me that policies were almost as durable as the timescale over which they had to be unfolded, but that is no more because everything is on a fundamentally short term arrangement. We have seen environmental schemes that have disappeared after a few years and we have seen forestry schemes that have been wound up and turned into something different. No land manager can take long-term decisions or have a long-term sustainable approach on that basis. I would say in response to what the Minister has just said that that is not satisfactory. I certainly have grave misgivings and, irrespective of what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, might have to say, I believe my misgivings are shared by a large number of land managers. I would be particularly concerned that, having a university degree in a relevant subject and a certain amount of hands-on experience in difficult country in the Exmoor National Park, my views could somehow be shovelled aside.
We have spent far too much time putting aside the views of competent traditional land managers who may not have had degrees in anything but—my goodness me!—who knew what would grow on a particular site. They knew about the weather and about the soil, and they had an intuitive understanding that was passed down to them from their grandfathers. That may not carry much clout; but in my view it carries a great deal

603
more clout than the opinion of someone straight out of university who will be paid £20,000 or whatever a year, and who will then tell people who have worked on the soil and who have to pitch in with their own resources and take risks how they can get on and manage their own affairs. That is wrong and it would be wrong if I did not stand up and tell the Minister that that is what I think.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I must be the only member of my family for the past 100 years who does not have a degree so perhaps I speak from the other side having seen how the rest of my family behave. I support much of what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said. I feel quite strongly—if I may say so to my noble friend on the Front Bench—that the worry over this particular Bill as I have followed it is that it has been driven by the academic and the non-practical. Having listened to some of the debates the other night, I was horrified at the impracticality of some of the suggestions coming forward. I am a little worried as regards the idea that we are always listened to on the ground. I take the point that my noble friend made that land managers are different. Thank God they, are different, and pray God they will be listened to! However, between now and Report I shall read carefully what my noble friend said because he gave some good answers. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Walpole Lord Walpole moved Amendment No. 321A:
Page 88, line 14, at end insert:
("(e) the Forestry Commission;
(f) such bodies or persons which are representative of local government, environmental, business and community interests.").
The noble Lord said: I am not sure that the Minister has completely answered the arguments. I am still firmly of the opinion that the Forestry Commission or the Forestry Authority, or whatever one likes to call it, is highly relevant. Perhaps that is a personal opinion. As regards the other bodies, the Minister said that consultation—in spite of what my noble friend Lord Lytton has just said—is fairly good on the whole. With the possible exception of land managers, I think it is fairly good on the whole but this is what these amendments are designed to ensure. When we discussed the Environmental Protection Bill, things were going quite well; but some people were worried whether they would continue to go well. That is why I feel this amendment is important. I thank the Minister for the suggestion that we could meet with him before the Report stage. I would very much like to take him up on that suggestion. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: First of all, I apologise to the Committee for arriving a little late. I am probably one of a number of people who have been caught out by the timing. If the Minister feels that I am pushing my luck in referring to this point now, I will entirely understand if he tells me so. In supporting this amendment, I wish to relate it to Clause 81(1) which sets out the items on which consultation is to be carried out. I wish to ask the
604
Minister about Clause 81(1) (b). I re-read that paragraph last night and it made me gulp a little as it refers to the modification of legislation,
"in a way which changes the purpose of the legislation in question".
I find that a curious notion. The Minister may say that there are other safeguards which would prevent an inappropriate change to the purpose under this heading; in other words, the mechanisms that have to be carried out. But to have buried within this clause a reference to a change in the purpose of legislation took me a little by surprise when I read the paragraph rather more slowly than clearly I had done the first time. Perhaps I am pushing my luck in raising the matter outside the group of amendments which deal with this topic. If the Minister does not wish to reply now perhaps we can discuss it later.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Howe: As always, I am happy to help the noble Baroness as far as I can. I indicated earlier that the purpose of that clause was to avoid a situation in which we would create bureaucratic consultations for minor modifications in environmental schemes. We do not want to have to consult each and every time a tiny amendment is made for example, to the rates of payment of ESAs or whatever it may be. The point is that only a substantive change in the scheme should trigger the consultation procedure.
In answering the noble Lord, Lord Walpole, I apologise to him because I thought that his amendment was included in the previous group of amendments. That is why I referred to forestry matters when I spoke to that group of amendments. I can only say again that the interest of the Forestry Commission in environmental schemes is of a different order from the interest of the environmental agencies. I reiterate that we frequently consult bodies which are representative of a whole range of interests, including the Forestry Commission where appropriate. We shall continue to do that. There is no intention to do anything differently.
I am sorry to hear the sentiments expressed by some Members of the Committee, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and that there is dissatisfaction with the way the current arrangements are working and that they have fallen short in some way. We shall continue to listen to—and we greatly value—the views of farmers and landowners in particular, but also the Forestry Commission, whose expertise the Committee will agree is unquestioned. However, that expertise is not required for every scheme.
This is not something that we feel needs to appear on the face of the Bill. I believe that the arrangements work well in practice. I look forward to my discussions with the noble Lord on that point at a later date.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in relation to Amendment No. 316A. I had not fully appreciated the point. Changing the

605
purpose of legislation is rather more than changing mere rates of pay and so on. That is a serious issue to which we shall have to return at Report stage.
Lord Walpole: The last arguments are slightly beyond this amendment. In the light of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 321B to 326 not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Meaning of "drainage" in certain enactments]:
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 327:
Page 89, line 5, leave out (", other than spray irrigation").
The noble Earl said: I move the amendment at the request of the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, who unfortunately is unable to be present today.
The purpose of the amendment is to add a further aspect to the water level management activities of internal drainage boards. The boards already do excellent work in managing water levels. The amendment would enable the boards to move water around the drainage networks in such a way as specifically to facilitate direct abstraction of water for spray irrigation purposes.
The exercise of such a power would be subject to all the other duties of the boards in relation to the environment and in no way supersedes those. The conditions attached to any specific licence for abstraction of water for spray irrigation purposes would also have to be observed.
The circumstances in which such a power is needed exist in particular in the low-lying fenlands of East Anglia. The dense networks of drainage channels in those areas extend over many square miles. They are managed by a number of internal drainage boards. The land drained by those networks constitutes some of our highest grade and most productive agricultural land. Horticultural crops are widely grown in those areas, often under contract to major supermarket suppliers. Therefore, this is very much the sharp end of commercial horticulture. Because reliable supplies of water are essential, there is widespread use of spray irrigation using water abstracted directly from the drainage channels under licences granted by the National Rivers Authority. Spray irrigation is the predominant method of irrigation in this country.
The aim of the amendment is to enable internal drainage boards to respond to requests from irrigators to ensure that surplus water—and I stress "surplus"—is directed down the channels from which the water is abstracted for irrigation purposes rather than simply being allowed to flow out to sea. I submit that that is a role which is entirely consistent with the efficient augmentation, redistribution and use of water resources.
Ensuring that internal drainage boards are able to manage water resources in that way would bring important benefits to the horticultural industry and no little comfort to its long-term prospects. I repeat that boards would be able to respond to requests from irrigators for water to be managed in this manner.
This would happen only if the actions were consistent with the other duties of the boards and with any conditions attached to specific abstraction licences. That is vitally important.
I invite the Minister to give an assurance that the Government will look favourably on proposals to allow IDBs to play a fuller role in this area and manage water levels to benefit spray irrigators as well as the other interests already covered by Clause 82. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I was not sure what the purpose of the amendment was until the noble Earl moved it. It gives me some anxiety, particularly because it seems likely to cause confusion about responsibilities. Drainage is described in the clause. It is essentially the moving of water about in order to maintain the right levels. We are suddenly confusing that with the provision of water for a particular purpose, which, as the noble Earl said, is controlled by abstraction licensing.
I have not had an opportunity to examine the legal implications, but I would be concerned if the effect of the amendment were to undermine the ability of the agency to protect the environment through its licensing arrangements. Extensive spray irrigation, about which we have been told, can have immediate and sometimes extremely damaging consequences for the environment during times of drought. I suspect that that is .a subject to which the noble Earl may return later in a debate on the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
My concern at present is to ensure that there is effective protection of the environment and that that is not undermined by this proposed change. It is always open to agricultural interests to obtain abstraction licences. For 30 years or more they have been urged by government and those responsible to provide, as far as possible, reservoirs or other impoundments on farms or coastal farms so that they can take water in times of drought when it may not otherwise be available without damage to the environment.
We are dealing with an important issue and I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister says. I suspect that his advisers and lawyers will have examined the impact of the amendment more carefully than I confess I have.
Earl Howe: The main effect of Amendment No. 327, spoken to by the noble Earl, would be to allow internal drainage boards, and local authorities acting as drainage bodies, to undertake drainage works and water level management in order to facilitate spray irrigation. It would not, however, amend the corresponding definition in Section 113(1) of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the result would be that the agency would not have similar powers to those of other drainage bodies in relation to its flood defence functions. I think it would be undesirable for the definitions of "drainage" in the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Act 1991 to diverge, since they derive from a single provision in the Land Drainage Act 1976.
Further, the amendment would reverse the decision taken in 1976 when the Land Drainage (Amendment) Bill was being considered. Then the definition of "drainage" was amended to exclude spray irrigation, for

607
consistency with the definition in water resources legislation which has now also been consolidated in the Water Resources Act 1991.
Although in the past IDBs concentrated on drainage matters, over the years there has been a change of emphasis, and indeed the purpose of Clause 82 is to clarify that drainage bodies can undertake water level management, for example for conservation purposes. I recognise that there are also arguments for changing the definition so as to include spray irrigation but, on the other hand, it would be important to ensure that any such change did not have unforeseen adverse repercussions on the water abstraction provisions in Part Il of the Water Resources Act 1991, which will continue in force, in particular Section 29, which deals with the right to abstract for drainage purposes. We do not think it would be appropriate to extend the exemption from restrictions on abstraction, which drainage operations enjoy, to cover spray irrigation.
Given that the definitions were made consistent in 1976, the Government could not accept an amendment of this kind unless they were satisfied that it would not cause problems for the management of water resources by the agency. Against that background, I hope that the noble Earl will wish to reflect and at this stage would not wish to press the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As is always the way when dealing with amendments at second hand, I have to declare that there are elements where, to use a colloquialism, I am out of my tree! The Committee will already know from what I have said previously that I farm on top of a hill and not on the level areas of the eastern counties.
As I understand it, the anxiety is that the internal drainage boards have duties now not only to drain away water and ensure that it goes out to sea, but also to maintain water levels, perhaps for environmental reasons. All I wish to ascertain is whether the interests of spray irrigators and, therefore, the economic aspects of the areas which are so heavily dependent on that type of activity will be among those taken into account. It is no more nor less than that.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, obviously I did not stress sufficiently that the existing environmental duties remain in place. All I seek is to ensure that we do not reach a situation where we are managing the water only for environmental purposes and not in any way for economic purposes as well.
It is obviously a complicated area. I am not entirely sure that I am satisfied with what the Minister said, but I shall read it carefully in Hansard. In the meantime, while reserving my position, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Grants in connection with drainage works]:
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 328:
Page 89, line 19, leave out ("protection") and insert ("defence against sea water").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 329 to 333. All the amendments are of a minor, technical nature. Amendments Nos. 328 and 332 are to clarify that grant applications must relate to plans for sea defences rather than coast protection works, which are subject to separate legislation.
Amendments Nos. 329 and 331 change singular words to plural equivalents for consistency with references to drainage bodies in Section 59(4) of the Land Drainage Act 1991. Amendment No. 333 deletes subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 83, as we think it is unnecessary to extend the new grant provisions to works carried out by an internal drainage board or local authority on behalf of another person, as in practice such cases are extremely rare and the new provisions are unlikely to be relevant. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 329 to 333:
Page 89, line 33, leave out ("it") and insert ("them").
Page 89, line 40, leave out ("it") and insert ("them").
Page 89, line 41, leave out ("its") and insert ("their").
Page 89, line 41, leave out ("protection") and insert ("defence against sea water").
Page 90, leave out lines 8 to 31.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Other marine or aquatic environmental conservation powers]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 334:
Page 92, line 19, leave out from ("section") to end of line 21 and insert:
2 of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 there shall be inserted—
"Powers to restrict fishing, or to prohibit the carriage of specified types of net, for marine environmental purposes.
2A.—(1) Any power to make an order under section 1 or 2").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 334, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 335. Clause 85(2) matches the provision in Clause 84 relating to inshore fisheries. It proposes to authorise the Secretary of State for Scotland to exercise his regulatory powers under Section 1 of the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984 for marine environmental purposes. That brings the Secretary of State's powers into line with the powers of those bodies that regulate inshore fisheries in the rest of Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 335:
Page 92, line 23, after ("1") insert ("or 2").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 86 [Fixed penalty system for certain fisheries offences]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 335ZA:
Page 93, line 43, leave out ("(4) (b)") and insert ("(4) (a)").
The noble Earl said: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 335ZA and 335ZB together. They are both minor technical amendments. The first simply corrects a reference to an earlier subsection, while the second reinstates words that were unfortunately omitted in error from the Bill as published. Without the amendments, the relevant provisions would not make sense. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Mills Viscount Mills moved Amendment No. 335ZAA:
Page 94, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) the monetary amount of the fixed cost which shall be paid").
The noble Viscount said: I welcome the introduction of the new fixed penalty scheme for fisheries offences in Clause 86. The purpose of my amendment is simple. It would allow the agency to recover costs—not the fines themselves—from offenders in fisheries cases. That would be consistent not only with the other cost recovery provisions in the Bill but also with the present situation. At present the costs awarded in fisheries cases are paid to the NRA. In contrast, Clause 86 does not enable the agency to recoup costs in a similar situation.
Although the overall costs of administering the new scheme will be less, the inability of the fisheries service to recover its own costs will result in a significant loss of income. The NRA currently takes some 5,000 cases a year against unlicensed fishermen fishing for trout and coarse fish. I estimate that the costs of taking each case under the new system would be £20, totalling some £100,000. That is a considerable sum. It will be lost to the agency and will no longer be spent on enforcing fisheries regulations. Furthermore, the cost of regulating the fisheries will fall entirely on those anglers who have purchased a rod licence rather than on the offenders who break the regulations.
It might previously have been argued that, because the Government partly fund the fisheries service, it is reasonable for the costs that are recovered to be repaid to the public purse. However, following a further reduction in grant-in-aid last year, trout and coarse anglers now pay, through the purchase of their rod licences, for all of the management and regulation of their fisheries. I suggest that it is inappropriate that the Government receive the costs from offending anglers when legitimate anglers have to foot the Bill.
The Government have made it very clear that they wish for the fisheries service to recover costs wherever possible. It is only a matter of consistency that the agency should have that facility. Indeed, this amendment provides that facility in relation to fisheries cases. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will find it possible to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: As my noble friend explained, this group of amendments would provide for the costs that are incurred by the agency in relation to the administration of the fixed penalty system for which Clause 86 makes provision to be met by a fixed charge levied on those who are liable to pay the penalty.
610
Let me say straightaway to my noble friend that I entirely understand the rationale behind this proposal. However, it could have wider implications, and it therefore needs to be considered with particular care. We wish to look more closely at what my noble friend has proposed. We shall do so between now and Report. Against that background, I hope that my noble friend will be content to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Viscount Mills: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments. I should like to make just one further point which may be relevant. As I understand it, the new agency will not be compelled to use the fixed penalty scheme. It could therefore pursue cases through the courts. If the new agency is unable to recover its costs, will that not be a strong disincentive to using the new scheme, which in all other respects would seem to have some very great advantages? Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on this point.
Earl Howe: Again, that is a point that we shall have to consider very carefully. I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend. We believe that the fixed penalty system will prove attractive and far less bureaucratic. But I am grateful to him for the point that he made. We shall of course bear it in mind.
Viscount Mills: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 335ZAB to 335ZAE not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 335ZB:
Page 96, line 12, after ("above,") insert ("a water bailiff or other officer of the Agency").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 87 [Miscellaneous minor amendments relating to fisheries]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 335ZBA:
Page 96, line 20, after ("Act") insert ("(which makes minor and consequential provision in relation to fisheries)").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, perhaps I may also speak to government Amendments Nos. 335ZC, 335ZD, 335B, 335C, 335D, 399C and 402A together.
Clause 87 introduces Schedule 12 to the Bill. Amendment No. 335ZBA will make a small addition to the wording of this clause so that it states the purpose of that schedule.
Amendments Nos. 335C and 335D do likewise in respect of Clauses 88 and 89, which introduce Schedules 13 and 14 respectively. Amendments Nos. 335ZC, 335ZD and 335B are intended to rectify an omission from the Bill. The changes to fisheries legislation that they introduce are required as a consequence of the abolition of the NRA and the transfer of its fisheries function to the agency. The amendments provide that any provision in specified legislation which contains, or falls to be construed as containing, a reference to the National Rivers Authority, shall have effect on and after the transfer of responsibility to the agency as if it were a reference to the agency. They also provide for the

611
replacement of certain references to the National Rivers Authority with references to the agency, and give the Minister or the Secretary of State the power to amend subordinate legislation by statutory instrument if it appears to them to be appropriate to do so for the purpose of, or in consequence of, the coming into force of this schedule.
The amendments to Schedule 12 are based on and follow closely the provisions of Schedule 17 to the Water Act 1989 which made similar changes to the same fisheries legislation in order to reflect the transfer of responsibility for fisheries matters from the water authorities to the National Rivers Authority. As a consequence of these amendments, some parts of Schedule 17 to the 1989 Act will become redundant. Amendments Nos. 399C and 402A provide for their repeal. These are essentially technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 335ZBB:
After Clause 87, insert the following new clause:
("Due diligence defence to charge of polluting waters
—(1) After subsection (6) of section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 there shall be inserted—
"(7) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence."
(2) After subsection (3) of section 4 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 there shall be inserted—
"(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.'').
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should just point out that two of the amendments with which it is grouped comprise words which make the substance of this amendment. Under the Water Resources Act 1991 and also the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, as developed by the courts, it is an absolute offence to pollute a water course. As a result, any individual or business, even if they behave with the utmost propriety, is guilty of a criminal offence if a discharge of pollutant is proved to have taken place from their property. The court may find that an absolute discharge is appropriate to the circumstances of a particular case. But a criminal record, with all that that implies, is unavoidable. The purpose of my amendment is to provide a defence of due diligence to make it possible to bring in a not guilty verdict in appropriate circumstances and so avoid the possibility of an unjust criminal record.
My noble friend the Minister is aware of the case law in this matter; I do not need to take up the Committee's time in rehearsing the details. However, I should point out that due diligence is an acceptable defence in another area of environmental law. The Environmental Protection Act of 1990 accepts such a defence at Section 33(7) and also in Section 34. These clauses deal with the control and disposal of waste. Due diligence must be proved to the satisfaction of the court and only when that has been done is a not guilty verdict possible.
Due diligence is an acceptable and proper defence in other countries. For instance, both Canada and Australia, which are Commonwealth countries with legal systems that are based on ours, accept that defence as a proper one in appropriate circumstances.
Finally, I shall refer to Schedule 13 to the Bill which deals with the pollution of rivers and coastal waters in Scotland. In new Section 30J(b) in line 31 on page 169 of the Bill it looks as though due diligence is an acceptable defence. I should tell the Cornmittee that I am advised that that may not be the intention of the Government at this point in the Bill. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will clarify the point when he comes to wind up this short debate. This is a small but very important matter. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister will have to say about it. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Having put my name to this amendment, obviously I wish to support it. As my noble friend on the Front Bench knows, the amendment arose from the case of a company called CPC which was convicted of a discharge which arose in the following circumstances. The company bought a factory dealing with dairy produce from another company. It went through all the due diligence and survey procedures. Some nine months earlier some piping had been installed by the subcontractor of another company and some failed glue had been used to join two pipes together. As a result, some 164 gallons of caustic soda went into the stream and killed several thousand fish. The company immediately summoned the NRA. Even when prosecuting, the NRA admitted that the company had behaved in an exemplary fashion. The company was given a conditional discharge—with payment of £20,000 costs.
If people who behave in such an exemplary fashion are treated in that way, one is asking for trouble. People are tempted to duck and weave and not act properly. If people are satisfied in their own minds that in all honesty and integrity they have done the best that they possibly can, it is very silly to prosecute them and throw the book at them when they come to ask for help to do the right thing.
I have gone to considerable trouble and taken advice in constructing the following scenario. A man buys a house by the River Test. He has it surveyed and it is given a clean structural survey. He decides to go fishing with his son. On the way back from fishing, they call in at the garage to buy a container of sulphuric acid in order to fill up batteries. By chance, two tiles fall off the roof. One falls on the head of his son and kills him. The other falls onto the glass jar of sulphuric acid and breaks it. The sulphuric acid tips into the River Test and several fish are killed.
Because all due diligence has been taken, there can be no possible prosecution on his causing the death of his son. However, along comes the NRA or PC Plod and charges him with killing fish. I accept that that is a carefully constructed argument to show ridicule. But it

613
is extremely silly for us to pass laws which produce absolute offences for killing fish when a defence of due diligence can be raised for killing your children.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I too support the amendment. I cannot compete with my noble friend Lord Onslow in a graphic description of the circumstances; but I shall quote one sentence from the judgment in the case:
"The fact that the appellants were unaware of the existence of the defect and could not be criticised for failing to discover it meant that the defect was latent rather than patent, so far as they were concerned, but this was not relevant in law, because the statute does not require either fault or knowledge to be proved against them".
It seems to me that it is inherently repugnant for Parliament to create offences which, however careful the accused may have been and however little he may have known about the circumstances—or should or could have known about them—nevertheless he can still be held guilty of an offence.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith gave an example from the sphere of environmental law in the Act from which he quoted. I have with me a whole fistful of examples from other legislation where a due diligence defence is allowed. It is not as though it is used in possible offences of less importance. In the Consumer Protection Act under the "general safety requirements":
"In any proceedings against any person for an offence under this section … it shall be a defence for that person to show … that he reasonably believed that the goods would not be used or consumed in the United Kingdom".
That is one exception. I continue:
"it shall be a defence … to show that, at the time he supplied the goods or offered or agreed to supply them or exposed or possessed them for supply, he neither knew nor had reasonable grounds for believing that the goods failed to comply with the general safety requirement".
After all, one can imagine that the consequences of supplying defective goods could possibly be very serious indeed and perhaps much more serious than killing a number of fish.
There is also the Trade Descriptions Act, where there is a "defence of mistake, accident, etc.":
"In any proceedings for an offence under this Act of supplying or offering to supply goods to which a false trade description is applied it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained, that the goods did not conform to the description or that the description had been applied to the goods".
Again, in the Weights and Measures Act 1985 if somebody takes "reasonable precautions and due diligence", that is a defence. Again, in the Food Safety Act 1990:
"it shall … be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence by himself or by a person under his control".
Yet, when it comes to a question of accidentally spilling something into a river, in circumstances where one could not know or have known and therefore could not have taken any precautions against it, one can still be brought before the courts by the NRA (or, as it will be, the agency). That seems to me to offend against all canons of fair treatment. I do not believe that Parliament should pass laws in their defence. We seem to have let
614
this matter go through in the Water Resources Act 1991. However, the case has now shown that it is no defence that one did not know anything about the matter.
I warmly support the amendment. I cannot help feeling that the innate sense of justice of my noble friend on the Front Bench will leave him no alternative but to accept the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: Parliament may be doubtful about passing such legislation and the courts doubtful about enforcing it, but they have been doing so since at least 1846. They have done so for good reasons. It is true that in 1846 the case of Woodrow dealt with a matter other than the pollution of a river. It dealt with the adulteration of tobacco. At that time the courts held that:
"It is very true that in particular instances it may produce mischief, because an innocent man may suffer … but the public inconvenience would be much greater, if in every case the officers were obliged to prove knowledge. They would seldom be able to do so".
My noble friend quoted a number of instances in which the defence is valid. But that is not so in a large number of other cases; for instance, driving while over the prescribed limit, driving without insurance or using a motor vehicle without an MOT.
If one's drink is laced without one's knowledge, or one is driving a car ignorant of the fact that it has not passed an MOT, one may be just as innocent as in the case described by my noble friend. But one does not have that defence. I cannot do better than to produce the other side of the argument and quote from a judgment of Lord Justice Salmon in the 1972 case of Alphacell v. Woodward, wherein he states:
"It is of the utmost public importance that our rivers should not be polluted. The risk of pollution, particularly from the vast and increasing number of riparian industries, is very great. The offences created by the 1951 Act seem to me to be prototypes of offences which 'are not criminal in any real sense, but are acts which in the public interest are prohibited under a penalty'. In the case of a minor pollution such as the present, when the justices find that there is no wrongful intention or negligence on the part of the defendant, a comparatively nominal fine will no doubt be imposed. This may be regarded as a not unfair hazard of carrying on a business which may cause pollution on the banks of a river.
"If this appeal succeeded and it were held to be the law that no conviction could be obtained under the 1951 Act unless the prosecution could discharge the often impossible onus of proving that the pollution was caused intentionally or negligently, a great deal of pollution would go unpunished and undeterred to the relief of many riparian factory owners. As a result, many rivers which are now filthy would become filthier still and many rivers which are now clean would lose their cleanliness. The legislature no doubt recognised that as a matter of public policy this would be most unfortunate".
I believe that the consequences of accepting this amendment would be most unfortunate. Due diligence would inevitably be raised in a large number of cases. It would depend upon the circumstances of each case, but it would place a major and almost intolerable burden on the regulatory body to obtain all the necessary evidence to take such cases. It would entail the regulator finding out and understanding a great deal about the operator's practices, site management, operation and matters of that kind. And tough though it may be, there is no doubt that the legislation as it stands—it has stood for much longer than since 1991—has had a salutary

615
impact on the way in which management approaches the matter of running its factories and individuals on preventing pollution.
The NRA's prosecution policy was referred to. In the case of a serious pollution incident, the NRA can take the case if necessary to the Crown Court and go for the penalties that can be imposed there. In such cases as those referred to it has always been our practice to pursue the case in the magistrates' courts and put forward all the grounds for mitigation that are offered. But where there is a serious pollution incident causing heavy pollution of a river and a large loss of fish life, we have judged—rightly or wrongly—that such a case should result in prosecution. It comes into our category of most severe pollution incidents. In lesser cases, where damage is light, such a case would not be pursued anyway. But where a serious pollution incident occurs and where it may not be easy to establish exactly the degree of innocence in a complex system of a factory on the banks of a river, for example, it would impose an almost intolerable burden on the regulator if he had to overcome that defence.
My noble friends say that it would be justice; I understand that. But I am not sure that it would be justice to see a rapid deterioration in river quality or at best a halt to the considerable improvements that have been obtained because we have effective law that can be effectively enforced. Before the Committee accepts the amendment too readily, it must be recognised that from the point of view of the regulator it will impose a massive handicap. The example of Canada was cited. Has my noble friend inquired as to the extent of litigation in Canada as a consequence? I believe he will find that it is extremely heavy. My inquiries did not lead me to think that it would he an encouraging precedent if we want effective regulation.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend sits down—
5.15 p.m.
Lord Elton: Amendments Nos. 358ZA and 378BA in my name are grouped with Amendment No. 335ZBB. Perhaps I may interpolate briefly because I may say what my noble friend Lord Onslow was about to say. I tabled the amendments in ignorance of the amendment to which he and my noble friend spoke and therefore I want only to touch the edge of the matter and respond to what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said. I am not sure that the difficulty that he sees is as real as he believes it to be.
My noble friend said that the result of accepting the amendment would be to place upon the regulator the duty to prove knowledge. But the defence proposed does not require that proof, as I understand it. I am not a lawyer and I hope that somebody who is a lawyer will correct me if I am wrong. It is proposed that the onus of proof should lie with the defendant to show that he did everything in his power to prevent such an occurrence. That does not mean saying, "I am sorry, I did not know about it", which is the defence which my noble friend Lord Crickhowell believes would lead to these calamitous consequences.
616
Like my noble friend, I should like to avoid those calamitous consequences. I do not believe that in order to do so it is necessary to saddle with a criminal conviction a person who, to all moral appearances, is entirely guiltless. My noble friend says that mitigation would be taken into consideration and only a nominal fine imposed. But that does not mitigate the fact that the person in question holds a criminal record if not for the rest of his life, until the record expires after many years, which will prevent him from, among other things, visiting the United States. If my noble friends and I have this matter right, I hope that my noble friend Lord Ullswater will look kindly on the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Grouped with Amendment No. 335ZBB are Amendments Nos. 359, 374 and 378 in the names of my noble friend Lord Beaumont of Whitley and myself. The thrust of our amendments is similar to the others spoken to, though I tabled them very much in a spirit of inquiry. I felt that this was a matter of public policy which needed to be debated. Apart from anything else I am aware that Amendment No. 359 in particular contains considerable drafting defects.
I was concerned not only about the potential criminal convictions that would follow, but also—I am not sure that it has been mentioned—that as a result of conviction under some of the areas referred to in this group of amendments, the person convicted may be declared not to be a fit and proper person, for instance, to hold a waste management licence or to carry waste. The implications therefore would be even wider—and also narrower—than perhaps have been already referred to.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, who himself, and in quoting Lord Justice Salmon, expressed what concerned me—that is, that as a matter of public policy the balance should be as the legislation currently provides and as the Bill intends to provide. In an area where knowledge and technology are advancing rapidly, I am concerned among other things that somebody may say, "I did everything I could"; but had they inquired a little harder, because the world has advanced, it may have been possible to prevent the polluting incident.
This may be a minor point, but I am concerned also about the term "due diligence" acquiring a specific meaning. For instance, one undertakes due diligence in acquiring a company and investigates everything there is to be known about that company. It is perhaps becoming a term of art which may not now be appropriate to be used in legislation. But that is a minor point.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Lest it be thought that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has no support on this side of the Committee, I should very much like to say that I do support him. We have said very clearly that we want to clean up our rivers, which are in a disgraceful state. Unless we stick to a very tough line on that, the burden on the National Rivers Authority or its successor will be very great, very complicated and very difficult to carry.
The Earl of Onslow: No one is disagreeing for one tiny moment with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I agree

617
word for word with what he says. But an important point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he picked up my noble friend Lord Crickhowell quoting the very aptly named Lord Justice Salmon in a fish waters case saying that someone has to prove intent. It is the other way round. Provided the person who is accused can show beyond all reasonable doubt that he took every reasonable and proper precaution and did nothing criminal at all, it seems fundamentally wrong that he should have a criminal charge falling around his neck. There is a difference between proving intent on the NRA's part and proving in defence that one took every reasonable and proper precaution.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): I approach these amendments with some trepidation because the law is quite difficult in this area—I would be the first to appreciate that—and I understand the great concern that my noble friends have indicated by putting down what I would consider to be a series of amendments all to do with due diligence. Before I commence I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, because he brings with him a great deal of experience in these matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated that some form of public policy is involved. I should like to try to demonstrate to the Committee the requirement for that policy.
These amendments seek to add to Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991, to a similar provision of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, to Section 23 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and to Section 118 of the Water Industry Act 1991 the defence of due diligence. Section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 makes it a criminal offence for a person to cause or knowingly permit poisonous, noxious or polluting matter to enter controlled waters. It is probably the most important and significant provision in the armoury of the NRA's prosecution powers and I understand that it has been used in more than 2,000 cases since 1989, in which time, and perhaps partly as a result, there has been a halving in the number of serious pollution incidents involving controlled waters. Section 23 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 creates the offences used to underpin the enforcement of the systems of integrated pollution control and local authority air pollution control in Part I of that Act.
Very importantly, the relationship between Section 85 of the Water Resources Act and the defences provided by that Act has recently been considered by the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House in the case of NRA v. Yorkshire Water Services Limited. In that case the chemical should not have been put in the company's sewers and there was little it could have done to prevent it passing through and being discharged from its works. The opinion of their Lordships, delivered by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, was that the water company had caused the release of a chemical into controlled waters but, on the facts of the case, had available to it the defence now contained in Section 87(2).
618
The NRA, like any other prosecuting authority, must take full account of the judgments of the court in applying and adapting its prosecution policy and I know that that has already been done as regards the Yorkshire Water case. However, the practical effects of these amendments would be to place a very real additional burden on the prosecution—presently the NRA and HMIP and the procurator fiscal in Scotland—in areas where it is already difficult to collect evidence. Prosecutors would not only have to prove that a polluter had caused pollution or knowingly permitted it, which I understand to mean a failure to prevent the pollution accompanied by knowledge.
In practice, the prosecutor, as well as having to be able to show that none of the existing defences applied, would in addition have to adduce sufficient evidence to overcome the due diligence defence. To my noble friend Lord Elton, who spoke to his amendment, I would say that the practical result of the amendment moved by my noble friend is that the prosecution would have to know enough and prove enough to be able to overcome the defence. In water pollution cases and cases involving prescribed processes the difficulties of doing so are enormous. I am sure your Lordships will wish to take careful note of what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell has had to say on that point. It would, I am sure, be echoed by those charged with the task of bringing prosecutions at HMIP.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell put things into perspective. It is a question of balance between the need for effective enforcement of pollution offences and the rights of defendants. We should be careful not to make the job of the prosecutor so difficult in these cases that in effect they can seldom be brought. At the end of the day prosecutions are a necessary underpinning of an effective system of enforcement.
My noble friend Lord Onslow referred to other cases where, perhaps as a result of the availability of substantial mitigation, very low penalties were imposed by the courts in cases brought by the NRA. Few prosecution agencies bring cases for the sake of it and the general level of penalties in particular categories of case is certainly one factor which they will take into account in deciding whether to bring a prosecution. One should, however, be careful before drawing too many conclusions from the facts, as opposed to the law, of an individual case.
My noble friend Lord Onslow brought to the attention of the Committee a scenario which I do not believe really helped us in this matter. He would need to look very much to the state of his roof, as he described it, and he ought to check his liability insurance in case he faces a civil action brought on behalf of his deceased son. As to the spillage of the acid which he talked about, as always the NRA would have to consider carefully whether it had sufficient evidence to justify criminal proceedings and whether the public interest required such proceedings. I do not believe that the example given by my noble friend is any argument at all for imposing a due diligence defence in all water pollution cases.
The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend is not arguing, is he, that the due diligence of the son being killed by

619
the tile is a perfectly runnable defence? If I had not looked at my roof, if I knew that it had tile rot and that the thing was likely to fall down, negligence comes into it. If there is no negligence nothing can happen to me because of my son being killed. But it can if I kill fish. That must be wrong.
Viscount Ullswater: I do not want to prolong the argument as to what is right in the case of my noble friend's roof and whether or not he is liable there. I have sought to demonstrate that it should not produce a defence of due diligence for the pollution of water.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has also drawn attention to the fact that a due diligence offence is available in other legislative provisions such as in the waste provisions in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The facts of each case are different and, if one takes into account the defence to which I have referred in the Water Resources Act 1991, the contrast is not as great as may appear.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Crickhowell indicated that in most instances when a pollution incident takes place in water it is not possible for it to be remedied. The pollution incident has taken place and the destruction that follows is also very difficult to ameliorate whereas, as regards waste, if pollution takes place, there is very often an opportunity to ameliorate it before it causes any damage to water. There is a distinction which should be drawn between those two types of pollution incident.
We are advised that the amendments proposed will place very real practical difficulties in the path of effective enforcement of some of the most important provisions of environmental law. I do not believe that the amendments are necessary in order to address all the concerns expressed by those proposing them. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who have taken part in what has been an absolutely fascinating debate. It seems to me that there are quite a number of levels of judgment in this matter. Nobody is quarrelling with the policy that any pollution of watercourses should be dealt with in the most rigorous and extreme way. That is not in question. It would be for the defendant to prove, if he can, that he has behaved with absolute propriety.
We should not attempt to second-guess the judgment of the court on a particular case. Each case is separate and its facts will be revealed in court. If the regulators are not prepared to make their case before the court then there is a problem. The third judgment that we have to make here is perhaps the more significant one. We are having to judge between the convenience and ease of the regulators and the possibility of an unjust judgment on a man who has behaved with absolute propriety and who could have done nothing about the circumstances in which he found himself. It was in that spirit that I moved the amendment. I have heard what my noble friend the Minister has said, but I cannot say that I am
620
enthused by his reply. I shall consider what he has said and may need to come back to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 335ZBC not moved.]
Schedule 12 [Minor amendments relating to fisheries]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 335ZC:
Page 164, line 2, at end insert:
("Interpretation
A1. In this Schedule—
"local statutory provision" means—

(a) a provision of a local Act (including an Act confirming a provisional order);

(b) a provision of so much of any public general Act as has effect with respect to particular persons or works or with respect to particular provisions falling within any paragraph of this definition;

(c) a provision of an instrument made under any provision falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above;

(d) a provision of any other instrument which is in the nature of a local enactment;

"the Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

"subordinate legislation" has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978;

"the transfer date" has the same meaning as in Part I of this Act.

General modifications of references to the National Rivers Authority
A2.—(1) Subject to—

(a) the following provisions of this Schedule,

(b) the provisions of sections 84 to 86 of this Act, and

(c) any repeal made by this Act,

any provision to which this paragraph applies which contains, or falls to be construed as containing, a reference (however framed and whether or not in relation to an area) to the National Rivers Authority shall have effect on and after the transfer date as if that reference were a reference to the Agency.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) above is subject to paragraph 1(2) (a) of Schedule 17 to the Water Act 1989 (references in certain local statutory provisions or subordinate legislation to the area of a particular water authority to have effect as references to the area which, immediately before the transfer date within the meaning of that Act, was the area of that authority for the purposes of their functions relating to fisheries).
(3) Subject as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, any provision to which this paragraph applies which contains, or falls to be construed as containing, a reference (however framed) to the whole area in relation to which the National Rivers Authority carries out its functions in relation to fisheries shall have effect on and after the transfer date as if that reference were a reference to the whole area in relation to which the Agency carries out its functions relating to fisheries.
(4) The provisions to which this paragraph applies are the provisions of—

(a) the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966;

(b) the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975; and

(c) any local statutory provision or subordinate legislation which is in force immediately before the transfer date and—

(i) relates to the carrying out by the National Rivers Authority of any function relating to fisheries; or

(ii) in the case of subordinate legislation, was made by virtue of any provision to which this paragraph applies or under the Diseases of Fish Act 1937.

(5) The modifications made by this paragraph shall be subject to any power by subordinate legislation to revoke or amend any provision to which this paragraph applies; and, accordingly, any such power, including the powers conferred by section 102 of this Act and paragraph A3 below, shall be exercisable so as to exclude the operation of this paragraph in relation to the provisions in relation to which the power is conferred.
Power to amend subordinate legislation etc.
A3.—(1) If it appears to the Minister or the Secretary of State to be appropriate to do so for the purposes of, or in consequence of, the coming into force of any provision of this Schedule, he may by order revoke or amend any subordinate legislation.
(2) An order under this paragraph may—

(a) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities; and

(b) contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Minister or the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) The power conferred by virtue of this paragraph in relation to subordinate legislation made under any enactment shall be without prejudice to any other power to revoke or amend subordinate legislation made under that enactment, but—

(a) no requirement imposed with respect to the exercise of any such other power shall apply in relation to any revocation or amendment of that legislation by an order under this paragraph; and

(b) the power to make an order under this paragraph shall be exercisable (instead of in accordance with any such requirement) by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

The Diseases of Fish Act 1937
A4.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, in the Diseases of Fish Act 1937—

(a) any reference which to any extent is, or falls to be construed as, a reference to the National Rivers Authority shall have effect, in relation to the area which by virtue of section 6(7) of this Act is the area in relation to which the Agency carries out functions under that Act, as a reference to the Agency; and

(b) references to an area (including references which fall to be construed as references to the area which by virtue of subsection (6) of section 2 of the Water Resources Act 1991 is the area in relation to which the National Rivers Authority carries out functions under the said Act of 1937), in relation to the Agency, shall have effect as references to the area described in paragraph (a) above.

(2) In section 8(3) of the said Act of 1937 (offences in relation to the Esk) for the words "National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "Environment Agency".
(3) Nothing in this paragraph or in that Act shall authorise the Agency to take legal proceedings in Scotland in respect of any offence.
The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966
A5,—(1) The provisions of section I of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 (establishment of fisheries committees) which provide that an order under that section modifying a previous such order is to be made only on such an application and after such consultation as is mentioned in that section shall not apply to an order under that section which contains a statement that the only provision made by the order is provision which appears to the Minister making the order to be appropriate in consequence of any of the provisions of this Act.
(2) In section 2(2) of that Act (constitution of local fisheries committee) for the words "the National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency".
(3) In section 18(3) of that Act (provision where a water authority or harbour authority have the powers of a local fisheries committee) for the words "National Rivers Authority)" there shall be substituted the words "Environment Agency)".
The Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967
A6. In section 18(1) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (enforcement of orders relating to salmon and migratory trout)—

(a) for the words "subsection (6) of section 2 of the Water Resources Act 1991" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (7) of section 6 of the Environment Act 1995"; and

(b) for the words "the National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency".").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 335ZD:
Page 164, line 7, at end insert:
(" . In section 6(3) of that Act (definition of "unauthorised fixed engine") in paragraph (d) for the words "the National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Agency".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Mills Viscount Mills moved Amendment No. 335A:
Page 165, line 7, at end insert:
(" . In Section 14 of that Act there shall be added after the word "mill" so often as it appears the words "or fish farm".").
The noble Viscount said: The noble Lord, Lord Moran, regrets that he cannot be here today due to illness. He telephoned me this morning to ask me to propose Amendment No. 335A on his behalf. I am very glad to do so.
There has been a proliferation of fish farms in England and Wales during the past 20 years, to raise both rainbow trout for table consumption and brown trout for stocking. Many fish farms are situated adjacent to rivers containing wild populations of trout and also salmon and sea-trout. Many fish farms also take advantage of leats to obtain their water supply; both old leats which formerly served mills and new purpose-built ones.
Both the NRA and riparian owners have recorded instances where wild fish have entered these leats and have become entrapped. That is a problem which can be avoided if screens are inserted to prevent fish entering into the leat. However, at present, Section 14 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 allows the NRA to compel only the owners of mill leats or conduits and artificial channels used for the purposes of a water or canal undertaking to install screens to prevent such problems. No such powers exist in relation to fish farms.
At the time when the 1975 Act was passed there were relatively few fish farms. Now that many more exist there is an urgent need to amend Section 14 to include fish farms. The need for such provisions has been recognised for some considerable time and there can be no doubt that the amendment of the noble Lord Lord Moran, would help to protect wild salmonid stocks.
However, I should also like to highlight two further issues as regards this amendment. First, concerning the timing of its introduction, there needs to be a reasonable "lead-in" time before any new regulations are enforced. The new agency should be allowed time to identify the

623
design and location of any such gratings and time to allow fish farming interests to make the necessary preparations for their installation.
The second and possibly more important issue concerns an additional reason for gratings at the inlets and outlets from fish farms; namely, to keep farmed fish in as well as to keep wild fish out. The escape of farmed fish, especially of rainbow trout, is of considerable concern to both the NRA and riparian owners. Farmed fish in the wild may not only disturb the natural ecological balance, but also they are regarded by many anglers as being a nuisance.
I fear that the amendment, as drafted, may not overcome that problem because, while screens of a particular size across outfalls will prevent relatively large fish from migrating upstream into the farm, these would not prevent small juvenile farmed fish from migrating downstream via the same route.
Can my noble friend the Minister confirm whether the amendment as presently drafted will meet my concern? If not, will he possibly consider a modification to the amendment to overcome this additional problem which I have outlined? However, even without such a modification, this amendment will go a very long way towards protecting wild salmonid stocks. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may point out that there is an urgent need to provide productive work in the countryside and, for better or worse, fish farmers do that. I speak as a fisherman rather than as a fish farmer. When my noble friend replies, I hope that he will make quite sure that costly restrictions and practices are not placed on fish farmers.
Earl Howe: The amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Mills would have the effect of requiring the intakes and outfalls of fish farms to be fitted with gratings to prevent salmon and migratory trout from becoming trapped.
The fitting of gratings to fish farms is something that has been recommended by the Government's own Salmon Advisory Committee. We do, therefore, have some sympathy with what my noble friend has proposed. Nevertheless, it is clear, as I am sure he will acknowledge, that such a requirement would impose a financial burden on fish farmers, both in terms of the initial cost of buying and installing the gratings and of the ongoing cost of maintaining them and keeping them free from debris. I note the concern of my noble friend Lord Stanley on that issue. It is a point that cannot be ignored. Moreover, the amendment would have the effect of applying the requirement immediately to all fish farms. That would clearly be unreasonable.
The Government would therefore like to consider the amendment in more depth and, if appropriate, will bring forward a suitable amendment in due course. I should like to reassure my noble friend Lord Mills that, in considering the whole issue, we shall bear in mind his suggestion that gratings on outfalls should equally be
624
capable of preventing the escape of farmed fish. Meanwhile, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: I have listened with some sympathy to the argument that we must not impose unreasonable costs on fish farmers. However, it is relevant to point out that if fish escape because the proper grilles are not in place, costs and losses can arise for others. Not very long ago, as chairman of the National Rivers Authority, I paid a visit to the West Country. A special meeting was convened of local hoteliers and others interested in the tourist trade who expressed their serious concern about the impact of escaping fish on the business of hotels which concentrated on fishing. People visited those hotels in order to fish for wild trout, but were faced with rivers filled with trout that had been bred. That was not what they were after. It was put to me that that was having a detrimental and damaging impact on the tourist industry in that valley.
Again, it is a matter of balancing different interests. When my noble friend considers the matter again, I hope that he will realise that we are not talking only about burdens, but are addressing a real problem about which other people are expressing a good deal of concern.
Earl Howe: I take on board my noble friend's points. We shall consider that part of the equation very carefully. As my noble friend said, it is a matter of balancing the different interests.
Viscount Mills: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and am encouraged by what he has said. I look forward to seeing the Government's amendment at a later stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 335B:
Page 165, line 36, at end insert:
(" .—(1) In section 35 of that Act (power to require production of fishing licences) in subsection (3), for the words "the National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Agency".
(2) For subsection (4) of that section (definition of "the appropriate office of the National Rivers Authority") there shall be substituted—
"(4) In subsection (3) above, "the appropriate office of the Agency" means—

(a) in a case where the person requiring the production of the licence or other authority specifies a particular office of the Agency for its production, that office; and

(b) in any other case, any office of the Agency;

and for the purposes of that subsection where a licence or other authority which any person has been required to produce is sent by post to an office of the Agency that licence or other authority shall be treated as produced by that person at that office."
. In paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to that Act (close seasons and close times) for the words "the National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Agency".
The Diseases of Fish Act 1983
. In section 9(1) (d) of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983 (disclosure of information for the purpose of enabling the National Rivers Authority to carry out any of its functions) for the words "the National Rivers Authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency".
The Salmon Act 1986
. In section 37(3) of the Salmon Act 1986 (byelaws requiring consent of the National Rivers Authority) for the words "the National Rivers Authority has" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency has".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 88 [Control of pollution water in Scotland]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 335C:
Page 96, line 22, leave out ("(which amends the control of pollution of rivers and coastal waters)") and insert ("to this Act (which amends the Control of Pollution Act 1974 as respects the control of pollution of rivers and coastal waters in Scotland)").
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Howe spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 335ZBA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 89 [Statutory nuisances: Scotland]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 335D:
Page 96, line 24, after ("Act") insert ("(which makes provision with respect to statutory nuisances in Scotland)").
The noble Viscount said: Again, my noble friend Lord Howe spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 335ZBA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 89, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 90 [Powers of enforcing authorities and persons authorised by them]:
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved Amendment No. 335E:
Page 97, line 15, at end insert ("including carrying out experimental borings or other works on the premises and installing and keeping monitoring and other apparatus there.").
The noble Baroness said: This is an exploratory group of amendments, dealing with other legislation that will be amended by this Bill, and asking for explanations about why, in some cases, powers have been reduced. In speaking to Amendment No. 335E, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 336C, 338A, 342ZB, 342ZC, 342ZD and 401ZA.
The first amendment probes the variation from the power contained in the Water Resources Act 1991, which has been disapplied in this legislation. It suggests that when entering premises there should be a power to examine and investigate what are possibly polluted areas and waters. It suggests that, in addition to the power to examine and investigate, there should also be a power to carry out experimental borings or other works on the premises, as provided under the Water Resources Act. We therefore wondered why that power has not been transferred into the current legislation.
Similarly, there are powers under Amendments Nos. 342ZB, 342ZC and 342ZD which relate to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act. The
626
amendments attempt to clear up some confusion which might arise. As drafted, Clause 92(2) defines the offence as failing,
"to comply with any requirement imposed under section 90".
But Clause 90 lists the "powers" of enforcing authorities and those authorised by them. The other word used is "requirements". The amendment is an attempt to refer to both and to make clear what is meant by "requirements".
Amendment No. 401ZA suggests that it might be possible to absorb the statutory nuisance entry power into the consolidated entry power that is given by this legislation.
In general, the group of amendments is intended to explore why the current powers of entry and examination of possible pollution have been reduced from those contained in the Water Resources Act. This is also an attempt to clarify references in this part of the Bill and to make them logically consistent with those in other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 335E, which has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, seeks to include in Clause 90(2) powers for an enforcing authority to carry out experimental borings or other works on relevant premises—
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister at such an early stage of his reply, but I understand that this group of amendments contains Amendments Nos. 337 and 338. I do not know whether the noble Lord in whose name they stand wishes to speak to them before the Minister replies—
Lord Crickhowell: I do not propose to move those amendments.
Viscount Ullswater: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for eliciting that fact.
Amendment No. 335E seeks to include in Clause 90(2) powers for an enforcing authority to carry out experimental borings or other works on relevant premises and to install and keep monitoring or other apparatus there. Such a power already exists under Clause 90(3), although it is purposely limited to the purposes of the function under Clause 90(1) (a)—determining whether any provision of the relevant pollution control enactments is being, or has been, complied with—and is not available for the general purpose of carrying out one of the authority's pollution control functions or determining whether, or how, such a function should be carried out.
This provision mirrors Section 169(2) of the Water Resources Act 1991. We believe that Clause 90(3) as it stands is what an enforcing authority needs: it can install monitoring equipment, for example, to determine whether the pollution control legislation is being complied with, and make borings to discover whether the legislation has previously been complied with. I cannot foresee any circumstances in which this power as it stands would be inadequate to meet the needs of an enforcing authority. It is extremely important that enforcing authorities should have sufficient powers of entry to carry out their pollution control functions and, where appropriate, enforce the relevant pollution control

627
legislation. But it is also important that we do not give the authorities wider powers than they really need to carry out their functions effectively. Bearing in mind the potentially wide application of the powers—for example, to residential premises—we have not sought to extend them beyond the scope of existing legislation unless we have felt able to make out a good case for doing so, based on the necessary enforcement powers, to make the enforcing authorities effective. The amendment would indeed extend the authorities' powers more widely than they need, and therefore I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
I understand that Amendment No. 336C is also grouped with these amendments. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, will want to address that amendment in particular.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 342ZB, 342ZC and 342ZD. They seek to expand Clause 92 to ensure that all the powers mentioned in Clause 90(2) are covered by the descriptions of the offences set out in Clause 92(2). I believe however that those amendments are unnecessary since the descriptions of the offences used in Clause 92 already cover the wider applications which the noble Baroness is concerned should be included—that is to say, a "requirement" of an enforcing authority should include a "direction" by it; "information" under Clause 92(2) (b) should include "records" and other information which an authorised person may reasonably require to be provided; and "inspection" in this clause is also of wide effect. I hope with that reassurance the noble Baroness will feel able to 'withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful for that description which I shall read carefully. On the face of it, it appears reassuring, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 336:
Page 98, line 19, leave out ("the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) (a) or (b)") and insert ("a purpose falling within any paragraph of subsection (1)").
The noble Viscount said: I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 337A, 339, 340, 341 and 342. The amendments are minor and technical. They correct a number of minor errors in Clause 90 and Schedule 15. I could indicate what each of them does, but it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I just beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 336A:
Page 98, line 35, after ("least") insert ("twenty-four hours notice in the case of residential premises or").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 336B, 341A and 342ZA. I am concerned particularly with Amendments Nos. 336A and 336B which are both to the same effect. Their purpose is to question the need for a change to the existing regulations and law from the status quo with regard to residential premises. Clause 90 does not just provide a power of entry, it includes what can be done after gaining entry. It replaces wholesale
628
similar powers of entry in Section 17 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The power will apply to local authorities administering Part I of the Environmental Protection Act and the new contaminated land regime.
On the whole, Clause 90 is a fairly faithful re-enactment. However, for residential premises at least seven days' notice prior to exercising the right of entry is required under Clause 90(4) unless it is an emergency. Under the statutory nuisance power, only 24 hours' notice for residential premises is required (Schedule 3, paragraph 2(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990). Similarly, only 24 hours' notice is required currently under Schedule 2 paragraph 3 of the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.
Authorities will continue to have the power to inspect to establish whether harm or pollution of controlled waters is likely or occurring. At the moment that will tend to be detected by sight or smell. A power of entry coupled with a power to examine and investigate may be sufficient, but the first amendment probes why the power under the Water Resources Act has been disapplied in relation to water pollution control functions. That is:
"to carry out experimental borings or other works on those premises and to install and keep monitoring and other apparatus there".
Were that power in existence, it might prove useful in dealing with contaminated land. There is a concern—it is not too far-fetched to think of this—that if a residential occupier is given seven days' rather than 24 hours' notice that may provide the occupier with more time than was previously the case to destroy evidence or remove articles or substances to other premises.
The second amendment probes why that change has been made. These are important amendments, and I hope that the Minister will give a satisfactory reply. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 341A, and 342ZA which raises a point which is rather curiously grouped in this set of amendments. All the others deal with powers of entry, and that amendment deals with something rather different. The first amendment is a simple but technical one. If the relevant power to which we are referring means Clause 90, then, on the face of it, an investigation into a possible pollution offence cannot begin until someone can be shown an identity card.
Unless the provision in the Bill is altered in the manner that I propose, I am advised that the agency would need to rely upon a 1951 case (Groves v. Eastern Gas Board). That case held that words to the effect of "subject to the production when called on of such a document" could be read into a similar power. If that is so, we should not have to rely on case law; we should make the matter clear on the face of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will clarify that point.
Amendment No. 342ZA deals with a different point. Having entered the premises, the agency's representative might find articles or substances which he had reasonable cause to believe were causing imminent danger of serious pollution of the environment or serious harm to human health. In that case the representative is

629
entitled to seize the article or substance and render it harmless. The amendment seeks to enable the agency to recover the reasonable costs of such work from the person who caused the problem to exist in the first place.
Perhaps I may give the Committee an example. Let us assume that there was a factory closed for a public holiday and that there was a leaking drum of fuming waste adjacent to a surface water drain. That is not an unusual situation with which representatives of the NRA have to deal at present. In that case the agency would have to deal with the emergency containment; it would have to take the article to some safe place; it would have to deal with it; and it would undoubtedly incur costs. It seems unreasonable that those costs should fall on the agency. There should be some power to ensure that they can be recovered from the person responsible in the first place. That is the object of the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: Clause 90(4) provides that where a person authorised by an enforcing authority needs to enter residential premises, seven days' notice of that entry should be given to the occupier of the premises except in an emergency. Amendments Nos. 336A and 336B seek to amend the requirement for seven days' notice and provide for 24 hours' notice only.
I consider it important that those enforcing authorities should have the power to enter residential premises if necessary in the course of performing their functions, but I consider it equally necessary that the Bill provide some safeguards for residential occupiers of such premises. The provision for seven days' notice, which is one such safeguard, mirrors part of the existing powers of entry legislation—namely, paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 20 to the Water Resources Act 1991—and reflects others, such as the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.
In the event of an emergency, authorised persons have powers to enter any premises immediately and, if necessary, by force. As regards non-residential premises, they may enter at any reasonable time. In some cases we recognise that authorised persons may need to enter premises in residential occupation and we have provided for that. However, I believe that it is vital that this Bill does not provide fewer safeguards than any of the existing enactments for people who occupy such premises. While of course I appreciate the noble Lord's desire to ensure that the enforcing authorities have sufficient powers of entry to operate effectively, I am not convinced of the need to decrease the notice provided to residents. I hope that the noble Lord is persuaded to withdraw his amendment.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 15 requires a person authorised to exercise powers of entry, including a person designated to authorise these powers in accordance with a magistrate's warrant, to produce evidence of his designation and authority before he exercises the power. Amendment No. 341A seeks to amend this provision so that the designated person need only produce this evidence if he is required to do so.
630
This provision replicates one in the Water Resources Act 1991 under which the NRA operates (Schedule 20, paragraph 3) which we think it is reasonable should apply to the powers of entry for all enforcing authorities; that is, both agencies and local authorities as relevant. The requirement for designated persons to show evidence of their authority to enter the premises is another reasonable safeguard for the occupiers of residential premises. I do not think that the agencies should lag behind the utility companies in not producing this evidence unless asked to do so.
In line with the existing legislation, we have taken care to make impersonation of a person who is authorised to exercise powers of entry an offence. I see no reason why we should make it easier for anyone impersonating such a person by changing the legislation and not requiring legitimate agents of the enforcing authorities to establish their credentials from the beginning. I would be very surprised if the existing provisions in paragraph 3 of Schedule 20 to the Water Resources Act have caused the NRA difficulties in practice. Therefore, I ask my noble friends to withdraw their amendment.
Finally, I have some sympathy with the intention behind Amendment No. 342ZA. However, I am afraid that I cannot see how the process proposed would work fairly and effectively in practice. The amendment deals with incidents where a person authorised by the environment agency has rendered harmless an article or substance which had been a cause of imminent danger of serious pollution to the environment or serious harm to human health, as identified in the example given by my noble friend. In such circumstances, the amendment would entitle the agency to recover its expenses from any person who caused or knowingly permitted the article or substance to be the cause of such imminent danger.
The environment agency has powers under Clauses 39 and 40 to make charging schemes in order to recover its charges in respect of environmental and other licences. Under Clause 35 it may also charge fees in respect of work done as a result of a request for advice or assistance in connection with environmental licences. But not all costs will be recovered through charges; and I am sure that my noble friends would agree that the ability of the agency to act in the kind of cases that we are discussing should not depend upon the prospects of recovery.
None of the existing organisations has a power equivalent to the one proposed by this amendment. Clause 91 repeats most of Section 70 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It is an "emergency" type power where the priority would inevitably be prompt action. Where a pollution offence has actually been committed, and where the polluter is convicted, a prosecution can be brought; the prosecution's costs may be recovered and a fine may be levied on the offender. The issue raised by this amendment is whether the possibility of recovering costs in the very limited number of cases which might be captured by the amendment will further reduce the likelihood of such incidents and enhance the ability of the agency to act effectively. My feeling is that, on

631
balance, it would not but it would increase the risks of complex litigation. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. It leaves many issues unanswered; for instance, the definition of "emergency". I accept that in an emergency authorised people would have powers of entry, but I can foresee litigation about whether there was an emergency.
While listening to the debate I recollected a Bill that went through this House some years ago—the Scottish salmon Bill. Under the provisions of that Bill the bailiffs had power on mere suspicion to blow open the boot of a car or to blow entry into a house. That was merely in connection with a few stolen salmon, but in this Bill we are talking about a serious threat. The authority must wait for 24 hours, and I believe that there is an imbalance. The salmon Bill is a good comparison and I shall check its powers—
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I may draw the noble Lord's attention to the definition of "emergency" in Clause 90(13).
Lord Crickhowell: I listened carefully to what my noble friend said about Amendment No. 341A and I am content for the time being. He referred me to various other parts of the legislation and I shall wish to look at those before deciding whether to return to the matter.
I find the Government's attitude towards Amendment No. 342ZA most curious. When I visit the Department of the Environment there, is hardly an occasion when I am not told that we should do more to recover the cost and that the polluter should pay. Yet I am now told that only in circumstances where we have allowed a pollution incident to happen and the offender has been prosecuted should we pursue him for the recovery costs. That does not appear to be a good approach.
The costs could be high. There may be a situation in which the agency realises that there is a serious risk of pollution if it does not take action and therefore it takes the appropriate action. It seems odd that there is no ability then to recover the costs. That is a complete breach of the polluter-pays principle.
If my noble friend wall not accept the amendment now, I shall wish to return to the matter because, I say with great respect, I did not find his argument convincing.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 336B to 337 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 337A:
Page 100, line 22, after ("I") insert (", IA").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 336. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 338 and 338A not moved.]
Clause 90, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 15 [Supplemental provisions with respect to powers of entry]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 339 to 341:
Page 173, line 28, leave out ("or that vessel").
Page 173, line 34, leave out ("or vessel").
Page 173, line 36, leave out ("or vessel").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these with Amendment No. 336. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 341A not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 342:
Page 174, line 6, leave out (" 90(11)") and insert (" 90(10)").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 336. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 91 [Power to deal with cause of imminent danger of serious pollution etc.]:
[Amendment No. 342ZA not moved.]
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Offences]:
[Amendments Nos. 342ZB to 342ZD not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 92 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: I wonder whether I can persuade the Government to have another look at the drafting of Clause 92. It replaces various provisions of the Environmental Protection Act but it seems to us to create certain possibilities for confusion.
Clause 92(2) defines the offences referring to failure to comply with the requirements imposed under Section 90 of the Environmental Protection Act. In Section 90 of the Environmental Protection Act the only requirements are in paragraphs (j), (k) and (1) whereas paragraphs (a) to (m) relate to powers of an authorised person and paragraph (d) is a direction. Therefore, we are not quite sure whether the Government intend Clause 92(2) to catch those people who fail to comply with the requirements made in paragraphs (j), (k) and (1) of Section 90 of the Environmental Protection Act or whether they wish it to be wider.
There is some confusion there and I hope that the Government may be persuaded to look at that, unless I have it completely wrong, to see what they really mean.
Viscount Ullswater: I am not sure whether I heard correctly but I am not sure whether the noble Lord referred to Section 90 of the Environmental Protection Act or Section 90 of the Bill. Section 92 of the Environmental Protection Act is Clause 90 of the Bill. I do not know whether that alters the noble Lord's interpretation.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I believe that it does. I misread the clause. I do apologise.
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Evidence in connection with certain pollution offences]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 342A:
Page 103, line 2, at end insert:
("( ) any consent under Part II of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 to make discharges of trade effluent;
( ) any agreement under section 37 of that Act with respect to, or to any matter connected with, the reception, treatment or disposal of such effluent;").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 344, 353, 354, 355 and 356. The amendments in this group are all technical in nature. Amendment No. 342A would include references in the definition of "relevant licence" in Clause 93(5) to those sections of the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968 which parallel the sections of the Water Industry Act 1991 already listed in the clause.
Amendments Nos. 344, 354, 355 and 356 correct erroneous cross-references in the Bill as drafted. Amendment No. 353 deletes a reference to Section 42 of the Control of Pollution. Act 1974 from the list of provisions which require the existing term of river purification authorities to be replaced with SEPA. Its inclusion is unnecessary as Section 42 is being fully replaced by other provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 93, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: In opposing the Motion, I shall refer also to Amendment No. 401C, which amends Schedule 20. Clause 93 and Schedule 20 repeal important parts of Section 209 of the Water Resources Act 1991. Those include the repeal of the long-standing requirement of the NRA to follow a tripartite procedure for samples that are to be admissible in water pollution cases and when the NRA is testing whether businesses have exceeded their discharge consents. Secondly, it removes the legal obligation on the NRA to notify the occupier of land that it has taken a sample.
Tripartite sampling involves dividing a sample taken into three parts immediately after it has been collected. One part is sent for analysis; one part is given to the discharger; and one part is kept by the NRA for production in court. That is a procedure similar to that used for enforcing certain areas of food regulation and by the police when testing alcohol in the blood. If they wish to prosecute someone for being over the limit, they must offer tripartite sampling. Therefore, it is a well-established principle in law.
At present, if compliance with the tripartite procedure is not possible, as I understand it, the results of any analysis are completely inadmissible. However, Clause 93 goes entirely in the opposite direction by allowing any information obtained or provided under the terms of an environmental licence, including information from any apparatus, to be admissible in legal proceedings.
634
In some cases, practical reasons may prevent tripartite sampling. But a wholesale removal of that procedure is not the way to resolve the problem. Tripartite sampling plays an important role in taking account of the uncertainties and inconsistencies associated with certain types of sampling techniques. Techniques for sampling in assessing water quality are a rapidly evolving area of technical expertise. Even now there is a significant potential for individual laboratories and test rigs to obtain different results. I am informed that there are examples of where that has happened.
I accept that there may be arguments in favour of self-monitoring. Businesses certainly recognise that and the CBI, which has given me a great deal of information on this, has indicated that its members recognise clearly the importance of self-monitoring. Nevertheless, it believes that tripartite sampling has a continuing role to play in providing an essential audit role in relation to the quality of the sampling. The reason for that is quite simple: machines do not necessarily last forever. They have to be checked, tested and calibrated to make sure that they are working properly.
Apart from the safeguards in any proceedings which tripartite sampling provides, its removal must be viewed in the context of what is happening generally in the law as regards the escalating levels of fines and the standards of proof which will apply in any given case. Those are critical. I ask the Committee to consider what effects removal would have on the confidence of those affected.
I am informed that tripartite testing has worked quite well over the years. I realise that there may be some official misgivings about it in the area of new technology but I feel that it should be carried forward in the new agency's functions. Water companies regularly analyse their samples and all business understands the safeguards which that provides. HMIP, which has no statutory duty to carry out tripartite sampling, nevertheless carries it out in sampling effluent when it is considering enforcement action. The National Farmers Union, which also supports the amendment, tells me that tripartite sampling goes back to the River Boards Act 1948. Therefore, the measure is very nearly 50 years old. Similarly, the Country Landowners' Association supports the principle behind the amendment.
There is a general principle of law that any defendant should be provided with a sample for his own independent analysis before he is taken to court so that he can compare it with the sample taken by the NRA and the findings can be weighed in the balance. As I said, similar provisions already apply in other areas of the general law. I do not see that there are sound reasons for throwing it out altogether.
If tripartite sampling is not an option in any given instance because of the nature of the material, I feel that it should be up to the NRA to justify the different approach in any given case. The responsibility of a prosecuting authority does, I believe, have to be appropriate to the nature of the offence. I stress again to

635
Members of the Committee that the wholesale removal of tripartite sampling is something which I believe to be mistaken. It goes too far in that direction.
Lord Crickhowell: I am glad that the noble Earl referred to the question of self-monitoring. I believe increasingly in the years ahead both industry and the agency will want to depend upon a considerable degree of self-monitoring, checked by adequate audit procedures. We are moving into a different world. Indeed, we are certainly in a different world compared to the time, to which the noble Earl referred, when the legislation was introduced in its present form. We are seeing the advances in sampling methods. We are seeing new technologies developed, especially analytic techniques and laboratory accreditation procedures. And we have seen the introduction of automatic and remote monitoring equipment. I believe that the latter create a new situation where the relevance of the tripartite arrangements are not as strong as they perhaps were in the past. Indeed, it is now held in the courts that a sample taken by an automatic machine sitting in the river is not taking a sample at all in that sense and is not affected by the particular requirement, although it can be produced in evidence.
The noble Earl referred to some of the difficulties inherent in the present arrangements. Perhaps I may spell out the kind of difficulties with tripartite sampling that confront an environment agency. The definition of "samples" has been held to include not just effluent samples but also samples of river water. Tripartite sampling of river water is neither practical nor in line with the aims of an agency. I believe that it can be argued that a "person"—I use the word, so to speak, in quotes—must take a sample in order to apply the tripartite requirements. Therefore, we are not in a position to take admissible samples by automatic machines, although we now have such machines which do the job rather well. So there is a problem in that respect.
The meaning of the term "analysis of samples" might be held to imply that, for example, biological samples need to be divided into three. In many cases, that is simply not a practical requirement. Similarly, the tripartite requirement is very difficult to apply to samples which are not fully homogeneous. One could go on.
I shall not delay the Committee for too long, but I must explain the considerable practical difficulties inherent in the present arrangements. For example, the legislation requires the service of a portion of the sample not on the defendant but on the occupier who may not be the same person. A contractor might be the defendant and not the occupier. Moreover, how does one identify the occupier in many cases where a pollution incident has occurred? Is he an employee of a farm manager? Further, in the case of a company, does the NRA have to contact the secretary who may, perhaps, be in the Cayman Islands? As I said, there are considerable, practical difficulties in the whole arrangement.
The noble Earl pointed out that machines can deteriorate. However, I have to say that samples can also deteriorate. The keeping of large stocks of tripartite
636
samples is a real problem, especially as, in the vast majority of cases, the second and third samples are never called for. There is the necessity to have properly accredited laboratories. I know that that is one concern of the CBI. The laboratories of the NRA are accredited—and, no doubt, those of the new agency will be—by NAMAS for a very large number of chemicals; indeed, that involves over 100 chemicals at present. Moreover, techniques for analysis, sampling methods, and so on, are improving all the time.
Surely the agency should be given the flexibility to create a best practice policy. It may still take tripartite samples in some cases. Indeed, it may be very sensible for it to do so. But why should the agency have a tougher requirement in that respect than HMIP which is not required to take such samples? That also applies to the waste regulation authorities and private environmental organisations which can take a prosecution case without a tripartite sample. We have the rather bizarre situation whereby Friends of the Earth, or an organisation of that kind, can take a case to court and not produce the kind of evidence which is called for from the agency.
The NRA currently monitors and takes samples from about 4,000-plus sewage treatment plants. The process takes place between 12 to 48 times a year according to the volume and seriousness of the effluent discharge. All those samples need to be tripartite in case there is a breach of consent conditions and non-compliance has to be demonstrated over a period of time of up to one year. Surely that is an over-bureaucratic and unnecessary procedure.
If we are to have arrangements that work in practice and take advantage of the developments of modern technology, I believe that we should change the arrangements if they make such things impractical. It is very much in the interests of the industry for it to be able to play its part by self-monitoring and to be dependent more and more on low-cost, automatic monitoring systems. The onus will be on the agency to satisfy the courts that its evidence is reliable. That is the way to proceed.
I believe that the NRA's experience in recent years has shown increasingly that tripartite arrangements cause difficulties and unnecessary cost. Moreover, they add to bureaucracy and make it more difficult for us to have an effective environmental pollution policy. Indeed, they make it much more difficult to move to a sensible arrangement in which costs and monitoring equipment are shared for the interests of everyone. For all those reasons, I beg the noble Earl not to press his Motion.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am afraid that I am not in the least bit keen to move into the new world of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. However, I am not in the least surprised by my noble friend's love of the NRA's methodology; indeed, it certainly took him quite some time to explain it. That surely must show a guilty conscience.
I support the continuing of tripartite sampling. My noble friend on the Front Bench keeps saying that it is important in this Bill to keep the balance correct

637
between one interest and another. I have to comment that doing away with tripartite sampling is a case of giving the bureaucrats of the NRA, or what will be the environment agency, too much power in order to abuse the rights of the accused individual, or indeed company.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: Clause 93 is concerned with the admissibility in evidence of information obtained from samples. It deals in particular with the two aspects of this issue: tripartite sampling and the admissibility in legal proceedings of information provided or obtained under certain pollution control licences or consent, as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton.
To deal first with tripartite sampling. Clause 93 repeals the requirement for tripartite sampling in legislation applying to England, Wales and to Scotland. The repeals will apply both to samples taken by the agencies in respect of effluent discharged into controlled waters and to samples taken by sewerage undertakers of trade effluent discharged into sewerage systems.
We have proposed the removal of tripartite sampling for a number of reasons. First, there have been genuine and unforeseen practical problems which have arisen under the present system, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell indicated. The existing requirement applies in legal proceedings in respect of effluent, and the legislation refers to any sample. The courts have held that the tripartite procedure must be applied to all samples not just those of effluent. While samples of effluent may readily be divided into three, there can be difficulties with other substances due to their chemical or physical nature which could prevent the agencies from taking action against polluters. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell told us of some of the difficulties experienced with some samples.
The NRA has told us that it decided not to bring a prosecution in one case because the evidence would have rested only on samples of sediment and fish tissue which had been chemically analysed but not tripartite sampled. Secondly, these repeals are in keeping with the approach which we have adopted in setting up the agencies, of seeking to achieve a degree of consistency—or the balance that my noble friend Lord Stanley would want me to mention—in the measures which will be used to control different kinds of pollution, and removing some existing anomalies. The tripartite procedure does not currently apply to enforcement action taken under IPC, as my noble friend has said, where monitoring data is provided by the process operator. That really is self-monitoring. This does not appear to have caused difficulties. Again, as my noble friend has said, nor is it .a requirement for waste regulation authorities.
Thirdly, there is a more general argument that the requirements of tripartite process do not apply to samples taken by third parties such as environmental groups, as we have heard. Without these repeals, the agency for England and Wales as regulator might be unable to prosecute in some cases where an environmental group could. That seems to us to be completely undesirable.
638
I am aware that there are fields in which tripartite sampling is employed. Equally there are others where it is not. Our concern is for the control of the kinds of pollution for which the agencies will be responsible. As I have said, the removal of the requirement will bring the water regulatory bodies into line with the other existing regulators who will make up the agencies.
I know that this proposal has been opposed. Some have argued that it is inequitable as they suggest that a discharger would in future be unable to contest evidence used in legal proceedings. There is nothing in this proposal that would prevent a discharger contesting evidence. That evidence would, as in all legal proceedings, have to satisfy a court in order for a successful prosecution to be secured. Our proposal simply addresses the narrower point that the agencies should not be disadvantaged in exercising their enforcement powers in respect of discharges to water by a requirement which in some cases may be impractical to observe and which does not apply in respect of other work undertaken by the agencies. That does not in any way alter the responsibility of the agencies to provide evidence of the highest quality nor does it remove the right of defendants to question the evidence brought against them. The agencies will of course be free to use tripartite sampling if there are circumstances where they consider it to be appropriate.
Moving to the second issue—admissibility as evidence—Clause 93 also provides necessary clarification of the types of information which may be used as evidence. It makes it clear that information provided or obtained under the conditions in certain pollution control licences shall be admissible as evidence whether against the person subject to the condition or any other person. This establishes that evidence cannot be ruled inadmissible by virtue of the general presumption against self-incrimination. It also makes clear that such information includes that obtained or recorded by means of a wide range of apparatus.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has drawn our attention to the improvements which have taken place in recent years in monitoring equipment and chemical analysis. In this light, Clause 93 creates a presumption that apparatus which provides information in connection with pollution control licences has registered or recorded accurately unless the contrary is shown or the licence provides otherwise. This is similar to a presumption which already exists for apparatus which provides information in connection with consents for the discharge of trade effluent into a sewer. Installations of automatic effluent and water sampling devices—a move towards self-monitoring by dischargers—are trends which it is expected will continue under the agencies. They should reduce the costs of monitoring which are of course passed on to the dischargers.
Finally, where records are required to be kept as a condition of a licence, the fact that an entry has not been made will be admissible in proceedings. This is in keeping with an existing provision under IPC. I believe that Clause 93 as it stands should stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of Lytton: I listened with care to what the Minister has said and to what the noble Lord, Lord

639
Crickhowell, said earlier. I accept to a degree what has been said but I would make the following observations. First, I believe that this clause puts administrative convenience and cost before a fair balance between parties in a court of law. Secondly, although the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, says how onerous tripartite testing is, he did not explain how it is that HMIP succeeds in doing it voluntarily, apparently without too much difficulty.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. However, there is all the difference in the world in being not required to do it but doing it from time to time because you think it may be relevant and helpful, and having to do it in effect on every single occasion if you are ever to get a prosecution. The result is that HMIP, if it thinks it will be valuable evidence or strengthen its case, can take a tripartite sample but it is not obliged to. The NRA, effectively at the present time is obliged to take a tripartite sample in a huge number of cases just in case it wishes subsequently to bring a prosecution.
The Earl of Lytton: I am grateful for that intervention by the noble Lord because it brings into sharp focus the point I was trying to make in my opening remarks; namely, that there may be circumstances when it is not appropriate to take a tripartite sample. But that is not the same as saying we will relieve all obligation to take any tripartite sampling at all. That is simply not the same thing. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, I think we probably are ad idem here but if best practice means anything it is wrong to say in the context of Clause 93 that we will dispense with the measure altogether and that it is not necessary. I am saying that it may well be necessary and it may well be highly appropriate in certain circumstances. I believe the Minister alluded to that very point.
There is another point I wish to make. I believe there is a confusion here between automatic monitoring equipment as monitoring equipment and the function of an environmental agency as a prosecuting authority and as a body gathering evidence for prosecution. Automatic monitoring equipment is fine if one is testing flows and one is returning the sample to the water and that sort of thing. However, if there is a suspicion that there is a real pollution problem which needs to be dealt with by prosecution, that is a quantum leap in my opinion. I commend that thought to the Committee. It is a quantum leap away from the day-to-day monitoring function to the question of enforcement. The two have to be kept quite separate in this context. The clause muddies the water—if I may use that analogy—between the monitoring and prosecuting functions. Nor does it address the fact that some materials are easily subject to tripartite testing and should rightly be dealt with by that means.
The technological solution of the brave new world of automatic equipment is fine, but there is also a human interface—real people making real mistakes and misunderstandings. Legislation also has to come to terms with that possibility.
640
It is not appropriate to discuss the matter at further length. I shall consider what has been said and may return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I shall not press my opposition to the clause.
On Question, Clause 93, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 342B to 342D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 94 agreed to.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Power of Secretary of State to delegate his functions of determining, or to refer matters involved in, appeals]:
[Amendment No. 343 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 344:
Page 103, line 28, leave out ("47B") and insert ("49B").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to Amendment No. 344 with Amendment No. 342A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 345:
Page 104, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations may be made by the Secretary of State in respect of appeals against the decisions of a competent authority acting under the EC Council Regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community (Regulation No. 259/93); and such Regulations may provide for such appeals to be dealt with under subsection (2) above.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 345, which is the only amendment to which I shall speak, is grouped with Amendments Nos. 363, 363A, 366C and 367 to 371.
This is a short, discrete point. The EC regulation which is referred to in the amendment allows a competent authority to refuse to permit shipments of waste to be made or to require shipments to return to the country of origin or to be dealt with in the UK in a manner other than that envisaged by the parties to the shipment. Someone who has been guilty of illegal trafficking can be barred from the industry through the operation of the regulation.
The regulation is implemented in the UK by the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994. The regulations make no allowance for an appeal against any decisions. The purpose of the amendment is to alter that position. I beg to move.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 363A and 366C. They are intended to be helpful.
Amendment No. 363A relates to site licences, which may be partly revoked for non-payment of charges or the holder having ceased to be a fit and proper person. Both situations can be remedied by the operator, but no mechanism currently exists to allow reinstatement of licences, even if the operator has taken appropriate action. The amendment seeks to provide that power within the Bill.

641
The purpose of Amendment No. 366C is to allow one licence to be replaced with another. At present the Environmental Protection Act does not permit that, but the amendment would allow it within the terms of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 367, 368, 369 and 370. I do not propose to speak to Amendments Nos. 363 and 371 which are included in the group.
Amendment No. 367 is a small amendment. As the Committee will note, the Bill adds a few words to Section 42 of the 1990 Act. Despite the inclusion in Schedule 18 (which I remind the Committee is entitled "Minor and consequential amendments") of these eight words:
"or is likely not to be complied with",
that is neither a minor nor a consequential amendment to the Act. The effect of adding those words to Section 42 would be to extend considerably the agency's already wide-ranging powers to act against operators who breach licence conditions. In future the regulator will not be restricted to enforcing conditions which are breached but will be liable to initiate enforcement action where it considers a breach is likely.
It is not easy, but I suppose it is possible, to envisage instances where such an occurrence can be predicted with some degree of certainty. Without any doubt there will be many more instances where it cannot be predicted.
What problem has come to light since waste management licensing came into effect in May of last year? Has a new problem arisen, about which we know nothing, that necessitates this new power in order to deal with the problem? I do not know of one.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can sooth my fears. It is a sweeping new power. I cannot see the necessity for it. Nor can I see any safeguards for industry against potential misuse of the powers. Is the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the circumstances in which non-compliance can reasonably be predicted? We have to deal with facts, not guesswork or crystal ball gazing. What new authority is the agency to have that did not obtain before? What is so mysterious about the period between May of last year and the time when this Bill comes into force? Perhaps my noble friend can tell me. There seems to be an iniquity.
Viscount Ullswater: This group of amendments seeks to make various changes to the waste regulation functions of the agencies.
Amendment No. 345 moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, seeks to make provision for appeals against decisions taken by competent authorities carrying out their duties under the EC Waste Shipments Regulation. In Great Britain those competent authorities are either the waste regulation authorities or the Secretary of State. The functions of the former are to be transferred to the new agencies.
642
The possibility of providing an appeals mechanism under the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994—which supplement the EC Waste Shipments Regulation—was given careful consideration when the regulations were drafted. However, the EC regulation does not make specific provision for an appeals mechanism, nor would it readily accommodate an appeals process.
Amendment No. 363A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, would enable a waste management licence revocation under Section 38 of the 1990 Act to be rescinded by the authority which had issued it. Revocation of a waste management licence is one of a range of measures available to waste regulation authorities to ensure compliance with the requirements of a licence. These include temporary suspension of the licence under Section 38(6) of the 1990 Act, as well as partial revocation. In the case of partial revocation, the licence is still in force and hence the power to vary a licence—under Section 37(2) of the 1990 Act—provides a mechanism by which reinstatement of the revoked part can be effected, should that be appropriate.
Amendment No. 366C would prevent the surrender of a waste management licence while a licence for the site was still in force. We cannot see any need for this. If, for whatever reason, there are two separate licences for the same site, then the surrender of each will be considered on its merits and will only be accepted if the criteria set down in Section 39 of the 1990 Act are met.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 367 to 370 seek to remove the amendments to Section 42(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which are provided by paragraph 50 of Schedule 18 to the Bill. These are harmonising provisions. They create a power for an agency to issue an enforcement notice where a waste management licence condition is likely not to be complied with. At present an enforcement notice may only be served under this section where non-compliance has already occurred. The new provision is in line with the power currently available to enforcing authorities under Section 13(1) and (2) of the 1990 Act. A parallel power in relation to discharge consents is provided by new Section 90B of the Water Resources Act 1991, which is inserted by paragraph 105 of this schedule.
The serving of an enforcement notice before a licence condition has actually been breached, but where such a breach seems likely, will give the agency the opportunity to avert pollution before it happens, as well as giving the licence holder a chance to correct a problem before more serious—and expensive—consequences arise. Existing provisions under Section 42(8) will allow the Secretary of State to give directions to an agency as to whether and how it should exercise its powers under Section 42. This provides a safeguard against unreasonable use of the power.
This is a large group of amendments covering a wide range of issues. I hope I have offered an adequate explanation of the Government's policy in each case, and the reasons that we do not feel able to accept the

643
amendments. I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hilton, will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I am sure that other Members of the Committee will press extremely hard on the relationship between our regulations and the EC directive, but I shall not do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 345ZA:
Page 106, line 4, at end insert:
(" ( ) Subject to subsection (4) above—

(a) an application to an enforcing authority for—

(i) a waste management licence under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990;

(ii) an authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993; or

(iii) a variation of an existing waste management licence and authorisation; and

(b) an appeal in connection with such an application, must be advertised, in each case in such manner as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

( ) The regulations shall provide that—

(a) the advertisement shall explain that any person may make representations in writing to the enforcing authority or party considering the appeal in response to the advertisement; and

(b) any representations so made shall be considered by the enforcing authority or the party considering the appeal in determining the application or appeal.

( ) The regulations shall provide for—

(a) when the advertisement is to be placed;

(b) for what period or periods;

(c) in what publication or publications circulating in—

(i) the location where the licensed or authorised activity would occur; and

(ii) the location which is likely to be affected by the activity;

(d) what information the advertisement shall contain regarding—

(i) the application;

(ii) the applicant;

(iii) the enforcing authority or the party considering the appeal;

(iv) the availability of further information;

(v) the matters referred to in subsection (2) above;

(vi) the timetable for dealing with the application or appeal and in particular the period allowed for making representations;

(e) who is to place the advertisement.

( ) In this section, "enforcement authority" means those authorities identified in section 90(1) (a), (b) and (c) above.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment, standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Hilton. Its purpose is to reinforce what is known as Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration, which allowed individuals the opportunity to participate in environmental decision-making. The Committee will recall that at the Earth Summit in June 1992 the United Kingdom Government agreed to the Rio principles, including the principle that:
"each individual shall have … the opportunity to participate in the decision-making processes (concerning the environment)".
644
Since then, as I understand it, the United Kingdom Government have quoted in support of their compliance with that principle the requirements to advertise planning applications, applications for Part I IPC and APC applications, applications for licences and consents under the Water Resources Act.
However, the Committee will be aware that all those requirements predate the 1992 Earth Summit. The Government have taken no steps that we can see to expand the application of Principle 10 since 1992, despite opportunities to do so under, for example, the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and the new waste management regime under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, introduced in spring 1994.
For example, currently no advertisement is statutorily required for an application for an authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste and no advertisement is required for an application for a waste management licence under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There is simply no requirement for the public to be told. Although applications are placed on the register, the keepers of the register are not required to inform the public of the existence of the application. Additionally, there is no provision for the taking into account of representations made by members of the public in those instances. The amendment is designed to make those two requirements the norm for all environmental licence applications. That would make the Bill consistent with Principle 11) of the Rio Declaration. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I am very appreciative of the care that has been taken in the drafting of the amendment. I should be greatly concerned if arrangements to allow representations by the public on such important matters were not in place. However, with respect, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Under Section 36(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a waste management licence can only be issued if planning permission has first been given for use of that site for that purpose. The planning stage is much the most appropriate one for inviting and considering public representations regarding the land use and the impact on local amenity which a waste management facility would involve. Of course, related appeals—
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I may intervene on that point. Is it not the case that a planning application, if granted, gives authorisation for five years? That is to say, one does not have to re-apply for five years. Therefore, for any of those five years, the planning application having been granted by the appropriate authority, an authorisation may be given to dispose of radioactive waste without the public knowing about it. Is that not true?
Viscount Ullswater: I appreciate what the noble Lord says and I believe that it is correct. My point is that in view of the impact on the amenity which the waste management facility would involve, any related appeals are advertised in the usual manner prescribed by the relevant town and country planning legislation.

645
By contrast, a waste management licence is a technical authorisation dealing with the detailed operation of a facility. With matters on which specialist expertise is needed, there is, of course, consultation of appropriate bodies at that stage too—of the local planning authority and of the Health and Safety Executive. But we believe that it will be unnecessarily regulatory to require further advertisement as well.
Detailed information on waste management licence applications, applications for licence variations and related appeals will be available for public inspection at agency offices, in accordance with the regulations to be made under Section 64(6) of the 1990 Act, as amended by this Bill.
Current provisions in the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 require the regulating authorities to consult the appropriate local authorities and public bodies before granting authorisations for nuclear sites. The application, together with an explanatory memorandum, forms part of a consultation package and it is the regulator's practice to ensure, whenever necessary, that there is wider public consultation. The application is sent to the relevant local authorities and is available for public scrutiny at offices of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution.
It would be an added complication for small users of radioactive substances, whose activities are not radiologically significant, if such arrangements were extended unnecessarily. Existing regulations require the party considering the appeal—that is, the Secretary of State—to notify those bodies previously consulted on the application of their right to make representations concerning the appeal.
I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said about the requirement for public consultation. I hope that I have indicated that there is ample opportunity for the public to be consulted and notified on these matters.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Well, no. The Minister has failed to persuade me that there is adequate opportunity. I am grateful for his long explanation. But I return to the principle that planning applications, if successful, give authorisation for five years before reapplication has to be made. A planning application can be for a change of use for a fairly wide variety of waste purposes. The application for an authorisation to dispose of radioactive waste—and I hope that I do not have to tell the Minister how sensitive this matter is; it may be low level radioactive waste, but it is still radioactive waste—is not publicised in any manner whatsoever. I find that somewhat contrary to the stated principle of the Rio declaration.
I hope very much that the Minister will give some thought to this point before the next stage. It is a point upon which we place a certain amount of importance. It is vital that in all these matters the public are kept fully informed about what is going on in relation to the disposal particularly of radioactive waste—of all waste,
646
in my view, but radioactive waste in particular. I do not intend to pursue the matter further, unless the Minister wishes to add anything to what he has already said.
Viscount Ullswater: I appreciate the opportunity of being able to explain a little further. The department has undertaken a review of radioactive waste management policy. Our officials are carefully considering responses to the preliminary conclusions of the review. It would be premature to make any changes to the legislation while this process is still under way. I believe that that indicates the concern that the Government have about the disposal of radioactive waste. I do not believe that the picture is quite as the noble Lord paints it in suggesting that we are not taking the matter very seriously.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Now we are getting somewhere. I am grateful to the Minister for supplying that last piece of information. I certainly agree that it is pointless to try to change the legislation in Committee while officials are still studying the results of an investigation that they have carried out. Nevertheless, I very much hope that at a later stage of the Bill noble Lords will have some idea of what those conclusions might be; or at least that the Government will say, "We think this, that and thus", and will take the matter to another place, so that Parliament can have its say on what should be the right way of handling radioactive waste, and not least the right way for the public to be informed, in a sensible and rational manner, as to how radioactive waste is being dealt with. I hope very much that in giving the Committee the information that the Minister has he will accept that we look forward to further statements from the Government about this matter.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: Before the noble Lord, Lord Williams, sits down, is he primarily concerned with the low level waste that mostly emanates from hospitals and with substances of that kind, or does he have some rather more serious underlying worry?
Lord Williams of Elvel: My worry is not serious and underlying. It is simply a general unease that the public may not be informed about authorisations given to dispose of radioactive waste, whether low level or high level. I am not specifying what sort of waste it is.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 95, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Clause 95 allows the Secretary of State to delegate the functions of determining, or to refer matters involved in, appeals. The Committee will remember that we debated at some length the judicial functions that could be contracted out—that is to say, delegated—when we debated the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. Perhaps I may remind the Committee of Section 71 of that Act. It states that a function is excluded from Sections 69 and 70—that is, contracting out—if,

647
"its exercise would constitute the exercise of jurisdiction of any court or of any tribunal which exercises the judicial power of the State; or … its exercise, or a failure to exercise it, would necessarily interfere with or otherwise affect the liberty of any individual".
There are also two other exceptions that I will not go into.
We need to be persuaded by the Government that Clause 95 of the Bill does not run directly contrary to Section 71 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I look forward to hearing from the Minister exactly what the explanation is.
Viscount Ullswater: Clause 95 gives powers to the Secretary of State to delegate his functions of determining appeals against agency decisions or to refer matters involved in such appeals against agency decisions to persons appointed or nominated for that purpose. These powers apply to the Secretary of State for the Environment in relation to the environment agency for England and Wales and to the Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to SEPA.
Under the current legislation, applicants for or holders of certain environmental licences issued by the NRA, HMIP and HMIPI or other existing bodies have the right to appeal to the appropriate Secretary of State. This clause would give power to delegate this function to an appointed person who would have, with certain limited exceptions, the same powers and duties as the Secretary of State in deciding such appeals.
To a large extent these powers are not new. They are precedented in, for example, subsection 15(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Many environmental appeals are already dealt with by, for example, those members of the planning inspectorate of the Department of the Environment who have the relevant expertise and experience. However, under the existing provisions appeals can be delegated only on a case by case basis. Clause 95 would allow classes of cases to be delegated, thus streamlining the existing system.
I should stress that this is only a power to delegate. The Secretary of State will of course exercise his discretion in using it. Where it seems appropriate he will retain cases for his own determination and will have the power to call in cases if he thinks fit. Thus the Secretary of State would expect to deal with any case which involves difficult policy decisions or which raises particularly sensitive issues.
The purpose of this clause is to ensure that straightforward appeals, which represent the majority of cases referred to the Secretary of State, can be dealt with quickly and efficiently by those who have the experience and knowledge to do so. This should speed up the appeals procedure, and that must be in everyone's interest. But the powers are sufficiently flexible to ensure that the Secretary of State can retain his role in relation to appeals where it is appropriate for him to do so. I trust that with that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his opposition to this clause.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for explaining what this clause is about. But he has not addressed himself to the question that I put. All the precedents that he cited were prior to Royal
648
Assent to the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The question that I put (and I must perhaps be more precise about it) is: are the powers that it is proposed will be granted under Clause 95 of this Bill in any way in conflict with the judicial functions excluded under Section 71 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994?
The noble Viscount said that the Secretary of State will use his discretion in using this power. If the power granted to him is in contravention of Section 71 of the 1994 Act, he will not be able to use that power at all. So it is pointless to have the clause. I hope that an explanation in greater detail will come in due course.
Viscount Ullswater: I appreciate that the clause as it stands has been drafted when the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act is on the statute book. But I feel that I should investigate what the noble Lord has brought to my attention to make entirely certain that the power we are taking in Clause 95 is not in some way contradictory to Section 71 of the Act he mentioned. In the meantime, I propose that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 345A:
After Clause 95, insert the following new clause:
("Efficient use of water and sewerage services"
Efficient use of water and sewerage services
.—(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) In section 2(3) (d) after the word "undertaker" there shall be inserted the words "and the efficient use of water and of sewerage services supplied to consumers by a relevant undertaker".
(3) The following section shall be inserted after section 39A—
"Promotion of efficient use of water.
39B.—(1) The Director may, after consulting every undertaker and persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected, from time to time—

(a) determine such standards of performance in connection with the promotion of the efficient use of water by customers as, in his opinion, ought to be achieved by water undertakers; and

(b) arrange for the publication, in such form and in such manner as he considers appropriate, of the standards so determined.

(2) Different standards may be determined for different water undertakers.
(3) Each water undertaker shall, in such form and manner and with such frequency as the Director may direct, take steps to inform its customers of—

(a) the standards determined under this section which are applicable to that undertaker; and

(b) that undertaker's level of performance as respects those standards."

(4) The following section shall be inserted after section 96A—
"Promotion of efficient use of sewerage services.
96B.—(l) The Director may, after consulting the sewerage undertakers and persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected, from time to time—

649

(a) determine such standards of performance in connection with the promotion of the efficient use of sewerage services by customers as, in his opinion, ought to be achieved by sewerage undertakers; and

(b) arrange for the publication, in such form and in such manner as he considers appropriate, of the standards so determined.

(2) Different standards may be determined for different sewerage undertakers.
(3) Each sewerage undertaker shall, in such form and manner and with such frequency as the Director may direct, take steps to inform its customers of—

(a) the standards determined under this section which are applicable to that undertaker; and

(b) that undertaker's level of performance as respects those standards."

(5) In section 37 the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) It shall be the duty of every water undertaker, in meeting its obligations under this Part, to do so in such a manner as will promote—

(a) the conservation of water, whenever it is economic to do so; and

(b) the efficient and economic use of water by customers of that water undertaker."

(6) In section 37(2), for -the word "duty" there shall be substituted the word "duties".
(7) In section 94 the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) It shall be the duty of every sewerage undertaker, in performing its duty under subsection (1) above, to do so in such a manner as will promote—

(a) the conservation of water, whenever it is economic to do so; and

(b) the efficient and economic use of water and of sewerage services by customers of that sewerage undertaker."

(8) In section 94(3), for the word "duty" there shall be substituted the word "duties".").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment we return to a matter we discussed in Committee on 19th January. To me, and I know that I speak for my noble friend also, that seems a very long time ago. It is a question of a duty to conserve water and how we can best embody that duty in legislation.
The Committee may remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, moved an amendment which sought to put a very general duty to conserve water on the agency and various other bodies, including the undertakers. In his reply my noble friend on the Front Bench had some criticisms to make of part of the amendment. Referring to an amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, which put water undertakers under a duty to conserve water, he said:
"This seems to us a more promising approach. Coupled with the setting of standards by the director general, it could offer helpful possibilities".
He went on to say:
"I am therefore happy to undertake that we will consider, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament, whether it should be amended to introduce now a duty on water undertakers to promote water conservation".—(Official Report, 19/1/95; cols. 822 and 823.)
The Committee may remember that I drew attention to the fact that only that day I had tabled the new clause which is now before us. My noble friend had not had a chance to see it, but he undertook to consider it
650
carefully. The new clause offers precisely what my noble friend thought was a more promising approach. In a sense it implements what the Government suggested in their publication Using Water Wisely; namely, that there was a case for requiring water undertakers to promote conservation and the efficient use of services by their customers, and that the Director General of Water Services might have the same powers as have the economic regulators of the electricity and gas industries concerning the promotion of efficient behaviour on the part of customers.
That is what the new clause seeks to do. It takes the form of extending the duties imposed on the Director General of Water Services, Ofwat, by Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991. It requires him to carry out his functions in the manner he considers best calculated not only to promote economic and efficient behaviour on the part of water and sewerage undertakers but also efficient use by their customers of the services they provide. As I said, there are close parallels with the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989.
Subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause would enable the director general to set standards of performance—precisely as my noble friend indicated on 19th January might be appropriate—to be achieved by water and sewerage undertakers, again for the promotion of the efficient use by customers of water and sewerage services.
Perhaps I may say at this point that it is important that the provisions should apply equally to sewerage undertakers as to water undertakers. For instance, it would be somewhat strange if there were a system which imposed duties on the use of water, with the result that in a particular area it might be appropriate to go in for metering of water but somehow one had a different system applying to sewerage. The words "integrated pollution control" must have some implications that these things should be treated together. For instance, sewerage undertakers might well be encouraged to embark on publicity programmes to try to persuade customers not to put down the drains inappropriate articles, such as plastic and so on, but to promote the Bag It and Bin It campaign with which we are all familiar and on which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on one occasion made a speech that attracted a good deal of publicity.
There are a range of ways in which the duty might be carried out. But the structure of the clause is such that it puts a duty on undertakers to see that their customers use water and sewerage services economically and sensibly in order to promote conservation and broadly sustainable development. The clause also confers a power on Ofwat under the director general to set standards.
I may be pushing at an open door. It seems to me that the new clause, if not absolutely on all fours with what, in the earlier debate, my noble friend indicated he would smile on, is very close to it. I do not for a moment assert that the drafting is right. I have sufficient respect for parliamentary counsel to know that they will want to redraft the clause. It will not be necessary for me to argue the matter at great length at this stage. The case

651
has been well made in earlier debates. My noble friend thought that he might be able to look at it during the passage of the Bill.
I make one further point. At least one water undertaking—Welsh Water—has expressed doubts and has written to a number of honourable and right honourable Members in another place to say that it believes that the new clause would give Ofwat the power to direct undertakers to install metering. As I understand it, that is not the director's policy which remains unchanged. He is anxious to encourage new developments to include metered supplies and that is now being done in many cases. But he fully recognises that it would be entirely inappropriate to impose a general duty to install meters in existing premises.
A short time ago, the director general published a document Paying for Water: the way ahead, in which he said:
"In the long term, metering is the only satisfactory way of achieving payments which are well related to the amount of water used. A rapid change to universal household metering would, however, be uneconomic. Instead, metering should be targeted, and should spread progressively".
There are also obligations on the director general to consult widely before introducing metering. He must consult every undertaker and persons or bodies appearing to him to be representative of persons likely to be affected. So, with the greatest respect to Welsh Water—I say this in recognition that somebody present may wish to make the point—I think it has jumped the gun. The clause does not have the effect feared. It does not change in any way the policy of the director general on the question of the introduction of water metering. It puts the duty on undertakers to see that their customers use water and sewerage systems wisely so that Ofwat can set standards and monitor them. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I should like to speak to the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in relation to the objections of Welsh Water and the fact that the amendment as drafted could be used by the director general of Ofwat to impose compulsory metering on undertakers. That was also the view of the all-party parliamentary water group in another place which, as the Committee will be aware, discussed charging policy, affordability and consumer interests in great detail. It reported that it was broadly in favour of the joint paper put to the Secretary of State for the Environment last November by the water companies and water services associations to which the Secretary of State has yet to respond. As I understand it, the paper was strongly opposed to the compulsory or widespread water metering of domestic properties.
That is the view of the all-party parliamentary water group; it is also the view of my party. We are strongly opposed to any form of compulsory metering for reasons which have been discussed at great length and with which I shall not weary the Committee this evening. Whatever the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in tabling the amendment, we from these Benches would not wish the Government to include it in the Bill.
Lord Bancroft: My name is attached to the amendment. Virtue and good sense often receive their
652
right rewards in your Lordships' Chamber. I listened to the virtuous, sensible and persuasive words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. I listened to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams. Although half Welsh myself, I am persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, rather than by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. That being so and in order to get on with the business, I do not propose to add to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, except to say that I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The amendment is directed towards the efficient use of water resources. It is commonly held, for historical reasons, that there is an imbalance of water resources between water companies in the South-East. Southern Water, the former Southern Water Authority, is generously or almost over-provided for in respect of abstraction licences, whereas some of the smaller water companies are under-provided for. For instance, in the case of South-East Water, on forecasts agreed with Ofwat, there may be a shortage of water in dry conditions.
Both the Government and the NRA have a duty to promote the most effective distribution of water resources. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister to look at the matter. It may be said that these problems should be addressed by bulk supply arrangements. But bulk supply arrangements do not address the fundamental problem of an imbalance of abstraction licences. Indeed, by deferring that correction, they could provide a less economically effective solution.
The NRA's water resources strategy for the southern region contemplates the possible option of using NRA powers of licence revocation as a means of reallocating water resources. I wonder whether the Minister feels that that may be a solution to some of these problems and that the time is now at hand when such action should be taken.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 345A proposed by my noble friend Lord Jenkin has many similarities with the group of amendments about the efficient use of water that we debated earlier in Committee. My noble friend reminds me just how long ago it was that we actually had that debate. The amendment goes further however in that it includes promotion of the efficient use of sewerage services by customers.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of the earlier debate. I said that we were sympathetic to the proposal for water undertakers to be given a duty to promote the efficient use of water so long as they also had regard to the economics of such activities. Similarly, I also accepted that consideration might be given to increasing the powers of the Director General of Water Services to allow him to set and make suitable arrangements to publish standards of performance that water undertakers should achieve in respect of the promotion of efficient use of water by their customers. However, I could not accept that the director general should be given a duty to promote the efficient use of water which would require him directly to organise campaigns among customers to persuade them of the benefits of using water efficiently. I note the anxieties

653
of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and his party in relation to metering. I do not need to say anything about that in this context.
Turning to the amendment before us, there are some parts concerning water with which, in the light of the earlier debate, I can sympathise. I am, however, concerned about the proposals for promoting the efficient use by customers of sewerage services. It is already an offence under Section 111 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to discharge harmful substances of a liquid or solid nature into a public sewer. As well as the possibility that such discharges could lead to blockage and damage to the customer's drain or the public sewer, they may also present costly problems for the sewerage undertaker at the treatment works.
It is in the water companies' own interests to try to ensure that customers do not discharge certain waste products into the public sewerage system. I understand that one water company was sued as a result of household waste being washed up on beaches after being discharged through an outfall pipe at sea. I understand that sewerage undertakers periodically give guidance to customers about this matter. Typically, such guidance provides advice about the proper use of sewerage services and the importance of disposing of certain waste products through the household waste collection service or at controlled waste disposal sites instead of down WCs, drains and manholes.
This month the Water Services Association intends to launch its Bag It and Bin It campaign to which my noble friend Lord Jenkin referred, which aims to encourage the public to dispose of household items in a responsible manner. The campaign is supported by a number of environmental pressure groups.
If customers are encouraged to use water efficiently, that in itself will have a knock-on effect in reducing the volume of water discharged to the sewerage system. The efficient use of water would also embrace re-use or recycling before water is discharged into the sewer system where such methods are economic. And volume-based sewerage charges may provide an added incentive to use less water. Indeed, where water is charged for by meter, it is generally the case that sewerage services are also charged for on the basis of the volume of water used, often with an allowance for water not returned to the system. But I do not consider that legislative provisions relating to the efficient use of sewerage services will achieve anything that is not already done or cannot be effected by provisions about the efficient use of water.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith introduced another but perhaps not related point in relation to shared resources. Where one company provides another with a bulk supply, the director general of Ofwat has power to insert provisions in supply agreements. The terms of bulk supply agreements are important and should be drafted to protect the interests of both parties in the event of problems such as water shortage. In some cases it may be appropriate to set up joint management boards to oversee the operation of bulk supply schemes.
654
I shall read my noble friend's remarks. If I find that my reply has not addressed the problem, perhaps I may be allowed to write to him.
In the earlier debate I gave a commitment to consider during the passage of the Bill through Parliament whether it should be amended to introduce provisions about water conservation. That consideration is in hand but is not yet complete. Although I sympathise with the general aims of the amendment, I believe that much of it is unnecessary and ineffective. I would therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw it.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful to my noble friend for the points he has made, but I am not sure that I would feel able to accept them at this stage. I shall read carefully what he has said. He objected to imposing a duty on undertakers to get their customers to use sewerage services responsibly. The director general certainly feels that it is very important that he should have a parallel power to set performance standards for sewerage undertakers. It is not enough just to encourage the conservation of water. We should try to secure and facilitate integrated pollution control. We have heard a great deal about that during the passage of the Bill. Sewerage undertakers should, and of course do, make a charge for their services, including treatment and disposal, which is based broadly on the polluter pays principle. That is particularly true in relation to trade effluent charges. Without the parallel duty for sewerage it seems to me that these issues may not properly be addressed.
However, I shall study what my noble friend has said. I am grateful to him for repeating the undertaking to consider during the passage of the Bill the provisions about the conservation of water. It may well be that if measures come back from another place, probably in two or three months' time, we may have an opportunity to return to this subject again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg to move that the Committee be adjourned and begin again at 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.32 to 8.30 p.m.]
Clause 96 [Application of this Act to the Crown]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 345B:
Page 106, line 20, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also address Amendment No. 346, standing in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. The Bill as drafted provides for the Secretary of State to exempt any Crown premises from the powers contained in the Bill if he believes that it is in the interests of national security. We take the view that there needs to be a much clearer definition of when such a dispensation shall be available or used.
There are instances where property or operations covered by Crown immunity have resulted in serious acts of pollution. A particular case in point is the extremely damaging effects that radioactive and other discharges have had on the ground water beneath the Aldermaston plant. If the Bill is left as it is, its provisions would also seem to be against the general tenor of more openness on environmental matters which we believe is both demanded by the public and to some extent recognised by sites formerly covered by Crown immunity. An example is that, as I understand it, the present canteens are now subject to health and safety legislation whereas they had Crown immunity before.
I accept that this is a probing amendment and I hope that the Government will take that line. In the light of that explanation and to encourage more openness we would like to see a much clearer definition of when the dispensation written into the Bill will be used. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: This amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, seeks to remove the subsection which gives the Secretary of state power to issue a certificate under Clause 96. With certain limited exceptions, the provisions of this Bill would bind the Crown; and would give the Secretary of State power, where he thinks fit, to issue a certificate that it is not in the interests of national security that the powers of entry be exercised in relation to certain Crown premises.
I recognise that the noble Lord is concerned about exemptions to the way in which this Bill is applied to the Crown, but I consider it to be quite unacceptable for this power to be removed. The subsection is well precedented. It mirrors art existing provision in Section 159(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which, for the same reasons, we are not proposing to amend. I believe it is essential that if the exercise of any power of entry under this Bill to particular Crown premises could pose a threat to national security, the Secretary of State should have the ability to exempt those premises as appropriate.
Considering what the noble Lord has said, it is difficult to come up with a proposal which might satisfy him and yet protect the power of the Secretary of State. I should like to see whether this power can be looked at in view of what he has said. For the reasons I have indicated, I believe that it is quite unacceptable for the power to be removed.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. I agree with him in that I do not want the power removed. As I explained, this is a probing amendment. However, the expression "national security" is one which the noble Viscount might wish to think about and perhaps define a little more for us either in the context of the Bill itself and on the face of the Bill or by some future document in the form of a letter or a statement in the course of the passage of the Bill. We are worried that it is unclear what "national security" means. It could mean, for instance, action against riots or civil disobedience, which can come into national security. We need a little more from the Government on this. I understand that the noble
656
Viscount is going to look at the matter to see what he can provide for us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Application of certain other enactments to the Crown]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 346:
Page 178, leave out lines 21 to 24.
The noble Viscount said: This is a minor technical government amendment which removes a duplicate reference in Schedule 17 to the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. Reference in subsection (8) of the amended Section 221 of the Water Industry Act 1991 which this amendment will delete is in fact already included in subsection (5). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Application of certain other enactments to the Isles of Scilly]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 347 to 349:
Page 108, line 36, at end insert:
("(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament").
Page 109, line 8 at end insert:

("(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").

Page 109, leave out lines 9 and 10 and insert:

(6) For section 75 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (application to the Isles of Scilly) there shall be substituted—

"Application to the Isles of Scilly.
75.—(1) Subject to the provisions of any order under this section, this Act shall not apply in relation to the Isles of Scilly.
(2) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council of the Isles of Scilly, by order provide for the application of any provisions of this Act to the Isles of Scilly; and any such order may provide for the application of those provisions to those Isles with such modifications as may be specified in the order.
(3) An order under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different cases, including different provision in relation to different persons, circumstances or localities; and

(b) contain such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including provision saving provision repealed by or under any enactment.

(4) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Viscount said: In speaking to Amendment No. 347, I wish to address also Amendments Nos. 348, 349 and 402. In our Memorandum to the Delegated

657
Powers Scrutiny Committee we undertook to bring forward amendments to subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 99 to ensure that the Secretary of State's order-making powers should be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Amendments Nos. 347 and 348 take forward this undertaking. These subsections provide that the Secretary of State may make orders after consultation with the Council of the Scilly Isles to apply the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991 and the Water Resources Act 1991 to the isles with such modifications as may be specified. Amendments Nos. 349 and 402 ensure that the provisions of the Land Drainage Act may also be applied to the Isles of Scilly by order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Local statutory provisions: consequential amendments etc.]:
[Amendment No. 349A not moved.]
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Directions]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 350:
Page 111, line 40, at end insert:
("(6) A draft of any directions proposed to be issued by the Ministers, or either of them, or the Secretary of State under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall not be issued until after the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft was so laid or, if the draft is laid on different days, the latter of the two days.
(7) If, within the period mentioned in subsection (6) above, either House resolves that the directions, the draft of which was laid before it, should not be issued, the Ministers, or either of them, or the Secretary of State shall not issue those directions.
(8) In reckoning any period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (6) or (7) above, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(9) Any directions issued, and any draft of any directions proposed to be issued by either Agency under this Act hall be in writing and shall be published.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hilton. Clause 103 specifies that directions "shall be in writing". The directions come from the Secretary of State. It is our view that,
"directions proposed to be issued by the Ministers"—
that is the expression that is used—
"or the Secretary of State under this Act",
should be reviewed by Parliament in a proper manner. We consider that ministerial and agency directions should be made public as a matter of law. The whole thrust of the policy on sustainable development has to be seen to be implemented in all the directions which the Government give to the agencies—either that in England and Wales or SEPA. I do not see that there can be much difficulty for the Government in conceding that Parliament ought to have an opportunity to comment on
658
the directions to ensure that it can follow and, if necessary, correct the Government's policy with regard to the agencies. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 350 would require guidance issued by Ministers, such as on sustainable development or on contaminated land, to be subject to negative resolution in this House and in another place. It would also require guidance issued by the agencies to be produced in writing and to be published. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. It would hinder the effective work of the agencies as they develop into centres of scientific excellence and expertise.
We have already had lengthy debates in the early days of Committee on the guidance to be issued on sustainable development. As can be seen from the draft scoping document we issued, the guidance will be lengthy and technical and we are committed to wide consultation with the agencies and other experts in the area. The proposed amendment would not help to improve the drafting or the scope of the guidance. It would merely act as a delay for at least 40 days, and much longer while Parliament is adjourned, with the final sanction of a veto. One can conceive of cases where it would be harmful to the work of the agency to stop Ministers from issuing guidance (with which all parties were content) for an extended period over, say, the Summer Recess.
The last subsection of Amendment No. 350 raises a different set of problems which could impede the effective day-to-day working of the agencies. It would require any guidance issued under the terms of this legislation, or any draft of such guidance, to be in writing and to be published.
In many instances, the appropriate response by the agencies could be speedy advice by telephone rather than a formal written response. The effect of the amendment could be to prevent that, thereby preventing the agencies' expertise being made available to others in the best manner, by introducing the rather artificial requirement that any guidance they produce must be written and published.
I believe that we have it about right and I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We must be speaking at cross purposes. Clause 103, to which my amendment relates, refers to any directions given to the agency or to SEPA,
"being a direction to any extent so given for the purpose of implementing any obligations of the United Kingdom under the Community Treaties".
My amendment is directed at that provision.
In a previous amendment to this effect (on a previous Marshalled List), I used the word "guidance" but, on advice, changed it to "directions". I wonder whether the Minister is using a brief that relates to a former Marshalled List rather than that which is before the Committee at the moment.

659
If we are to follow the implementation of Community directives (or whatever) by a "direction" to implement those provisions, it must be right for Parliament to see and discuss such provisions. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
Viscount Ullswater: I have to confess to the Committee that neither I nor my advisers spotted that change of word. I apologise to the Committee because I feel that my reply was inadequate in that I dealt with "guidance". I shall certainly read carefully in Hansard what the noble Lord has said.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount and shall not pursue the matter now. Perhaps we could discuss this at a later stage, by which time the noble Viscount will have read the amendment on the Marshalled List. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 104 [General interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 351 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 351A:
Page 112, line 8, at end insert:
("(2) The amendment by this Act of any provision contained in subordinate legislation shall not be taken to have prejudiced any power to make further subordinate legislation amending or revoking that provision.
(3) In subsection (2) above, ''subordinate legislation" has the same meaning as in the Interpretation Act 1978.").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which clarifies the fact that any amendment made by the Bill to subordinate legislation does not prejudice the power to amend those provisions by further subordinate legislation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 352:
Page 112, line 16, leave out ("on such day") and insert ("at the end of a period of two years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed or on such earlier date").
The noble Lord said: This is the last clause of a long Bill. Subsection (2) provides that Part III, which relates to the national parks provisions,
"shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed",
with one minor exception. After dealing with some not very important matters, subsection (3) provides that the remainder of the Act,
"shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may specify by order made by statutory instrument",
and so forth. That means that the Government may never bring into force the provisions which have been so fully discussed, as we can say now, towards the end of this seventh day of the Committee stage of the Bill.
The amendment conforms closely to the recommendation of the 12th Report of 1993–94 of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. It provides that,
660
instead of there being no limit of time within which the provisions of the Act are to be brought into force—that is the position that I have outlined—the provisions of the Act shall come into force,
"at the end of a period of two years",
from the date of the passage of the Act unless brought into force earlier by a government order. I believe that your Lordships' House should be firm in requiring that the Government carry out provisions which have been enacted after such careful and detailed discussion.
As things stand, the legislation is optional. The Government can either bring it into force or not, as they wish. It may be thought that the possibility of the Government doing such a thing is fanciful; but experience in the environmental context shows that that is not so. I refer to Part II of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 which was central to the provisions of that Act and to the purposes of Parliament in enacting it, and related to water. That part of that Act did not come into force for 10 years after enactment.
Another example is closer to the Bill: Section 143 of the Environmental Protection Act and related sections were enacted in 1990. They related to contaminated land and were discussed exhaustively both here and in another place. The Government apparently decided not to bring those provisions into force, and now under the Bill seek to repeal and replace them. There is no certainty that after all the time and effort spent considering the provisions of the Bill that they will be brought into force within a reasonable time, or, indeed, at all. That is wholly unacceptable.
Of course I accept that there are some provisions where it is wise to leave to government the choice of time for bringing them into force. It would be foolish to require that all provisions should be brought into force on the passing of the Act or within, let us say, two months. A period of two years, which is the period that following the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee I have chosen to insert in my amendment, is ample for that purpose. I believe that most provisions should come into force within months of the passing of the Act, as the provisions relating to National Parks will do as the Bill at present stands. Possible delays may be specified to apply to designated provisions, and those periods of delay can be identified with particular clauses or parts of the Bill.
It is a matter of deep regret that such an approach has not been adopted here or in many other Acts. For the sake of simplicity, I propose in my amendment that all the provisions, other than the National Parks provisions and the other minor provisions referred to in Clause 105, should come into force at the expiration of two years, unless previously brought into force by order. I beg to move.
Lord Crickhowell: I have listened to the noble Lord with considerable interest and a great deal of sympathy. We are repeatedly placed in an extraordinary position in Parliament where we are asked to spend long hours—and indeed days—passing legislation. We are told that the legislation is important, and then it is never implemented by government. At the very least I believe that it would be a good idea if Ministers were forced to

661
come back to Parliament to explain why they are not introducing the legislation which they had previously said was important.
When the legislation that set up the NRA was introduced, we were told that the keystone to that legislation was the system of statutory water quality objectives; five and a half years later we do not have one statutory water quality objective, despite strong representations made over the period by the NRA. The difficulty of course is that departments, for very good reasons, can always find difficulties about introducing something: life is never simple and straightforward. For the very best possible reasons—I do not question their motives—cautious civil servants always identify the problems. There is always a good reason for not introducing something.
We always go on looking for perfection in an imperfect world. That process can go on almost indefinitely until we reach the point when the argument is advanced that of course the world has changed, and things are not what they were thought to be when the legislation was passed five, six or seven years previously.
I have just received such a letter from the Secretary of State about statutory water quality objectives. I am told that the life of the world is very complicated and very different, and we therefore have to move cautiously. I am glad to say that we have been told that the Secretary of State now at least intends to proceed to the point of a first cautious putting of a toe into the water by allowing the NRA to have a small trial run with about half a dozen SWQOs. There is a rather hopeful indication that we may take some time in coming forward with our proposals. If anyone is listening from the department, I can disabuse him of that suggestion. We shall come forward swiftly with proposals because we have been preparing them for a long time. We happen to think that they are important. But the toe is only just being dipped into the water, with a clear indication that it is hoped that the shock will be so great that it can be swiftly withdrawn.
I suppose I do not mind, because the world changes; but we have a situation where Ministers, instead of not proceeding with something that was at the heart of a Bill, should come before Parliament to explain why it is they are not implementing the legislation. What is intolerable is that important Bills should be passed in which great sections are introduced but never implemented, either because the system rolls so remorselessly on in its search for perfection that no decision is ever taken, or because Ministers find it all so difficult and complicated that they would rather not do it.
It may be that there are very good reasons for not doing things from time to time. I am sure that in the days when I was a Minister I often thought there were good reasons for not implementing legislation; but there is an increasing tendency to ignore Parliament in all this. If we are to have legislation on the statute book, it is a good idea to have some timetables, and so I strongly support the amendment. We shall have to have some
662
rather better excuses than those advanced in the past for not doing something like this if we are to drop this proposal when the Bill returns at a later stage.
Baroness Hamwee: I too support the amendment for the reasons that have been voiced and for another reason. I recall, while we were waiting for provisions of the Environmental Protection Act to come into force, that I had to have a diary note on a regular basis to get someone in my office to telephone the department to check whether there was any news as to when particular sections were coming into force. That was on behalf of clients. It is not just the impression that Parliament gives, but those out there in the real world who have to apply the regulations need to have certainty. I endorse the amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. I must say straight away that I am glad that Section 143 registered provisions were not introduced, because they were not as well thought out as they should have been. I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, might disagree with me, but they would have been a disaster. Having said that, there is a precedent here. When we were discussing the planning and compensation legislation, great concern was expressed about unimplemented compulsory purchase orders floating around. If I remember correctly, we put a five-year longstop date on implementation.
It is vitally important that pieces of legislation are not left rolling around like proverbial loose cannon to be implemented or not. It is disturbing for those who have to advise on implementation and who are responsible for dealing with implementation on their own behalf that there is no degree of certainty. I support the amendment to that extent.
9 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I appreciate the anxieties that lie behind the tabling of Amendment No. 352, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I am aware of the anxieties expressed in the Hansard Society report and elsewhere that a number of provisions on the statute book have never been brought into force. That point was forcefully made by the noble Lord in the debate on the legislative process which he initiated on 14th December 1994. I know that he will have noted the reply to that debate which was given by my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Understandably, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has no wish to see the important provisions contained in this Bill left to moulder ineffectively on the shelves. He will wish to ensure that if the Secretary of State fails to specify a date for the provisions to come into force they will automatically do so after two years.
The report on this matter contained important recommendations which will need to be considered carefully for future legislation. However, I assure the Committee that we have no intention of not bringing the provisions of this Bill into force at the earliest opportunity. We have been planning for the agencies to take over their functions in April 1996 and we hope to

663
establish the national parks authorities at the same time. Other provisions will come into force as soon as is feasible.
However, I am cautious about legislation coming into force automatically at a particular date. Circumstances may change or provisions may on reflection be seen to be faulty. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, indicated a provision which he said he was pleased had not been brought into effect. As regards loose cannons, one needs to make certain that they are pointing in the right direction before they are fired.
There may be cases in which it is right not to bring a particular provision into force. I do not believe that that is likely to be the case with the Environment Bill. However, the whole question of bringing legislation into force without any further action deserves more consideration. In the meantime, I hope that I have reassured Members of the Committee that in the case of this Bill there is no need for the proposed amendment, which I ask the noble Lord to withdraw.
Baroness Hamwee: I believe that many Members of the Committee have debated the provisions in this Bill on the basis that they are to Some extent interdependent. If parts of the Act, as it will be, are brought into effect without others we may find that we have debated the provisions on a false premise. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind.
Lord Nathan: I am glad to have received so much support from all sides of the Committee. Perhaps I may say respectfully to the Minister that I am not at all happy with his response. As I said in the earlier debate to which he was kind enough to refer, the issue is important to the environment and to this Bill but it goes beyond the Bill. It goes to the question of bringing Parliament into disrepute. Parliament is spending a great deal of time, energy and thought on all these matters and in the end it is resolved that a certain enactment shall be made. That is turning into a meaningless exercise because, by reason of this clause, the Government decide that they are not going to do what Parliament has decided they should do.
I am aware that the question of whether government can be compelled to exercise their power has come before the courts and the courts have decided that a provision of this kind is effective to protect the Government from doing what in my view they ought to do. I am aware that that this a judicial decision and that that is the law. However, does not alter the fact that the Executive has certain responsibilities in relation to carrying out the decisions of Parliament. There will be decisions not only of your Lordships'. House but also of another place. Ignoring the enactments made by Parliament undermines not only Parliament but also government. That is most regrettable and has far-reaching and adverse consequences.
However, after long debates on environmental issues, this is not the moment to embark on constitutional discussions. For that reason, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 352A:
Page 181, line 11, at end insert:
("The Statistics of Trade Act 1947
.In the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, after section 9 (restrictions on disclosure of information) there shall be inserted—
"Exceptions from section 9.
9A.—(1) Nothing in section nine of this Act shall prevent or penalise the disclosure by the Secretary of State of information obtained under this Act—

(a) to the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; or

(b) to an officer of either of those Agencies authorised by that Agency to receive the information.

(2) A person to whom information is disclosed in pursuance of the last foregoing subsection shall not use the information for any purpose other than the purposes of any functions of the Agency in question."").
The noble Earl said: The disclosure of information obtained under the provisions of the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 is currently restricted to government departments and certain other public bodies. Amendment No. 352A will enable disclosure to the environment agency or SEPA or to an appropriately authorised officer of either agency.
The amendment is needed for the accurate and comprehensive surveys of national waste arisings, which will be essential to the preparation of effective national waste strategies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 352AA:
Page 184, line 29, at end insert:
("The Local Government Act 1972
. In section 223 of the Local Government Act 1972 (which includes provision for authorised members or officers of the National Rivers Authority to conduct certain magistrates' court proceedings on its behalf) in subsection (2)—

(a) after the words "joint authority" there shall be inserted the word "and"; and

(b) the words "and the National Rivers Authority" shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Earl said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 375, 380, 381, 382, 383, 396, 397, 397C, 398, 399 and 399CA. This is a group of government amendments which are all minor and technical. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 352B:
Page 184, line 37, at end insert:
13A.—(1) Section 5 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (licences to dispose of waste) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (3) (duty of recipient of application for licence where planning permission is in force)—

(a) for the words "Where a disposal authority receives an application" there shall be substituted the words "Where an application has been received"; and

665

(b) for the words "the authority", where first occurring, there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency" and, where secondly occurring, there shall be substituted the words "that Agency".

(3) In subsection (4) (duty of disposal authority to refer to National Rivers Authority etc proposals to issue licences)—

(a) for the words "a disposal authority" there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency";

(b) for the words "the authority" there shall be substituted the words "that Agency";

(c) for paragraph (a), there shall be substituted—

"(a) to refer the proposal to any collection authority whose
area includes any part of the relevant land; and";

(d) in paragraph (b), for the words "the disposal authority", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "that Agency"; and

(e) the words following paragraph (b) (reference of proposal to Secretary of State in certain cases) shall cease to have effect.

(4) Subsection (5) (separate provision for Scotland) shall cease to have effect.
13B.—(1) Section 6 of that Act (provisions supplementary to section 5) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (2) (conditions which may be included in disposal licences)—

(a) for the words "the disposal authority which issues it" there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency"; and

(b) for the words "the authority" there shall be substituted the words "that Agency".

(3) In subsection (3) (offence of contravening a licence condition without reasonable excuse) for the words "the disposal authority which issued the licence" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency".
(4) In subsection (4) (duty of each disposal authority to maintain registers etc)—

(a) for the words "each disposal authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency and of SEPA";

(b) for paragraph (a) there shall be substituted—

"(a) to maintain a register containing copies of all disposal licences which are for the time being in force in respect of land in England and Wales or, as the case may be, Scotland;" and

(c) in paragraph (c), for the words "the authority" there shall be substituted the words "that Agency".

(5) In subsection (5) (applications deemed to be refused if not granted within two months of receipt)—

(a) for the words "a disposal authority receives an application duly made to it for a disposal licence" there shall be substituted the words "a duly made application for a disposal licence was received";

(b) for the words "the authority", in the first two places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency"; and.

(c) for the words "the authority", wherever else occurring, there shall be substituted the words "that Agency".

13C.—( l) Section 7 of that Act (variation of conditions and revocation of licences) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1) (modification of conditions of disposal licences issued by disposal authorities)—

(a) the words "issued by a disposal authority" shall be omitted; and

666

(b) for the words "the authority", where first occurring, there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency" and, wherever else occurring, there shall be substituted the words "that Agency".

(3) In subsection (2) (application of section 5(4))—

(a) the words "or, in relation to Scotland, subsection (5)" shall cease to have effect; and

(b) for paragraphs (a) and (b) there shall be substituted—

"(a) the Environment Agency or SEPA, as the case may be, may postpone the reference in pursuance of the said subsection (4) so far as it considers that by reason of an emergency it is appropriate to do so; and

(b) the Environment Agency or SEPA, as the case may be, may disregard any collection authority for the purposes of the preceding provisions of this subsection in relation to a modification which, in the opinion of that Agency, will not affect that authority."

(4) In subsection (4) (revocation of disposal licences issued by disposal authorities)—

(a) the words "issued by a disposal authority" shall be omitted;

(b) for the words "the authority", where first occurring, there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency" and, in the other place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "that Agency".

13D.—(1) Section 8 of that Act (transfer and relinquishment of licences) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1) (transfer of licences)—

(a) for the words "the authority which issued the licence" there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency"; and

(b) for the words "the authority", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "that Agency".

(3) In subsection (4) (cancellation of licences)—

(a) for the words "the authority which issued it" there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency"; and

(b) for the words "the authority", in the other place where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "that Agency".

13E.—(1) Section 9 of that Act (supervision of licensed activities) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1) (duties of the authority which issued the licence) for the words "the authority which issued the licence" there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency".
(3) In subsection (2) (powers of entry of authorised officers to carry out works in an emergency)—

(a) for the words "a disposal authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency or SEPA, as the case may be,"; and

(b) for the words "the authority", wherever occurring, there shall be substituted the words "that Agency".

(4) In subsection (3) (recovery of certain expenditure from licence holders)—

(a) for the words "a disposal authority" there shall be substituted the words "the Environment Agency or SEPA"; and

(b) for the words "the authority" there shall be substituted the word "it".

(5) In subsection (4) (breach of conditions of licences)—

(a) for the words "a disposal authority" there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency";

(b) the words "issued by the authority" shall be omitted; and

667

(c) for the words "the authority", wherever else occurring,
there shall be substituted the words "that Agency".

13F.—(1) Section 10 of that Act (appeals to Secretary of State from decisions with respect to licences) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1) (duty of disposal authority concerned to implement Secretary of State's determination) for the words "the disposal authority concerned" there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency".
(3) In subsection (3) (cases where the decision under appeal is effective pending the determination of the appeal)—

(a) for the words "to a decision of a disposal authority" there shall be substituted the words "if the decision in question is a decision";

(b) for the words "in the opinion of the authority" there shall be substituted the words "in the opinion of the body making the decision in question";

(c) for the words "the authority acted" there shall be substituted the words "that body acted"; and

(d) in paragraph (b), for the words "the authority" there shall be substituted the words "the appropriate Agency".

13G. In section 11 of that Act (special provision for land occupied by disposal authorities: resolutions etc) subsections (1) to (11) shall cease to have effect.
13H.—(1) Section 16 of that Act (removal of waste deposited in breach of licensing provisions) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1) (power of disposal or collection authority to serve notice on occupier of land in its area) for the words from "in the area" to "the authority may" there shall be substituted the words "in contravention of section 3(1) of this Act, any authority to which this section applies may".
(3) After subsection (7) there shall be added—
"(8) The authorities to which this section applies are—

(a) the appropriate Agency;

(b) any collection authority in whose area the land mentioned in subsection (1) above is situated."

13J. In section 30 of that Act (interpretation of Part I) in subsection (1)—
(a) the following definition shall be inserted at the appropriate place—
""the appropriate Agency" means—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Environment Agency;

(b) in relation to Scotland, SEPA;";

(b) for the definition of "waste" there shall be substituted—
""waste" has the same meaning as it has in Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by virtue of section 75(2) of that Act;"; and
(c) the words from "and for the purposes" to the end (which provide a presumption that anything discarded is waste unless the contrary is proved) shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 357, 358, 372E, 372F, 394A, 399A, 399B, 399D, 400A and 404. This group of amendments makes a number of minor and consequential changes to legislation' as a result of the transfer of waste regulation to the agencies, as well as the transfer of the Secretary of State's functions under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I shall move the amendments without further explanation because they are quite straightforward.
Baroness Hamwee: I believe that the Minister referred to Amendment No. 399D which I understand has been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 353 to 356:
Page 185, leave out line 7.
Page 186, line 29, leave out ("41") and insert ("41(1)").
Page 188, line 46, leave out ("89") and insert (" 95").
Page 190, line 27, leave out ("89") and insert (" 95").
The noble Viscount said: Perhaps I should say to the noble Baroness that when we reach Amendment No. 399D of course I shall not move it. I spoke to these amendments when I moved Amendment No. 342A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 357 and 358:
Page 191, line 15, leave out (" 2(2) (b)") and insert (" 2(2) (c)").
Page 192, line 15, leave out ("and "a river purification board"").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments when I moved Amendment No. 352B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 358Z4 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 358A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 359 not moved.]
The Earl of Lytton The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 359A:
Page 201, line 10, at end insert:
("( ) In subsection (4) after the words "or do the thing and" there shall be added the words "subject to subsections (4A) to (4C) below".
( ) After subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
"(4A) No person shall be required to grant rights in relation to any land in accordance with subsection (4) above unless—

(a) the person whose consent is required—

(i) has been given notice of the application for a waste management licence and the full details of the proposed condition which will require the grant of the rights, and

(ii) has been given the opportunity to make objections and to have those objections heard by a person appointed on behalf of the waste regulation authority; and

(b) the waste regulation authority is satisfied—

(i) that the holder of the licence gave details of the person whose consent is required in accordance with subsection (4B) (ii) below,

(ii) that there is no practical alternative to the imposition of the condition in a form which requires the grant of rights in the land,

(iii) that the applicant has sought to negotiate with the person whose consent is required and that person has been unreasonable, and

(iv) that it is reasonable in all the circumstances, taking full account of the objections made by the person whose consent is required, to impose the condition.

(4B) The waste regulation authority shall require the person who has applied for a licence—

669

(a) to certify that there is no other person who has an interest in any land to which the proposed licence or any condition relates at the time the application is made and at anytime thereafter if additional land is to be affected by a proposed condition, or

(b) to specify the names and addresses of each person who has an interest in any relevant land and that he has served notice of the application or the proposed condition on each person in such form as may be prescribed.

(4C) Where a person is required to grant consent, the holder of the licence shall make a payment equal to the amount which would be paid for the grant of the necessary rights in the land after negotiation between a prudent and willing owner with power to grant the rights and a prudent and willing holder of the relevant licence having regard to the burdens and benefits and all other relevant matters.".").
The noble Earl said: I move this amendment for the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, who is not able to be here this evening. He has asked me to move it on his behalf.
Section 35(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 confers an absolute power on anyone with a waste management licence to carry out works to comply with the conditions of that licence on land that he does not own. In effect, that is a power to requisition the land of others for certain works despite the fact that there may be other land, possibly owned by the licence holder himself, which could equally well be used.
I quite accept that there may be occasions when it is necessary for a waste licence holder to take such action and that proper protection of the environment must come first in certain instances. It may mean that such protection comes before private interests. I accept that that is proper. But before such measures are put in place, it is right for the conditions stated in the amendment to be met.
The amendment proposes in subsection (4A) that notice must be given to the adjacent owner and an opportunity provided for that owner to make objections; secondly, it seeks to ensure that there is no practical alternative and that the adjacent owner has been unreasonable in his objections. Subsection (4B) provides that the applicant for a licence must make sure that all those other owners of land which may be affected have been informed. Subsection (4C) provides that where a person is forced to grant consent, compensational considerations should be negotiated on the basis of what is reasonable between a prudent and willing owner of land and a prudent and willing licence holder.
I accept that there are in existence guidance notes which follow along the lines of the amendment. Therefore, it may well be that the Minister will say that the amendment is not necessary. However, I must inform the Committee that that is not so, because at the end of the day it is what is set down in statute rather than what is contained in guidance notes which counts. While many councils have voluntarily and consistently applied the guidance notes, some councils—I am advised that Merseyside is a particular case—have taken the view that the statutory duty is to be interpreted strictly, notwithstanding the guidance notes, and that it is up to the adjacent owner to make representations in the context of a planning application. I believe that the
670
planning situation is an entirely different process and, therefore, that the protection of adjacent owners is deficient. For example, the interests in their land may not be a material consideration for town and country planning purposes.
The Association of County Councils has indicated its support for an amendment along the lines that I have suggested, although perhaps not necessarily in the precise wording. Moreover, the Country Landowners' Association is also most concerned that a safeguard of the sort proposed in my amendment should be included. I should remind Members of the Committee that adjacent owners may not be owners of large estates; indeed, they may be householders, small farmers and people whose interests are vulnerable and who do not have the resources to protect their interests in the way that might be imagined.
Therefore, it is important that the amendment or a provision along similar lines should be put on the face of the Bill, unless and until every authority complies as a matter of course with the guidance notes or the terms within them become mandatory. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: I know that there are concerns about the implications of Section 35(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for owners of land adjacent to licensed waste facilities. However, we have received no evidence that it has in practice caused any difficulties. In the light of the clear guidance that we have given, I do not believe that there is any reason why it should cause any difficulty.
Section 35(4) is not a wholly new provision. It re-enacts, with modifications, Section 6(2) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which has been in force for more than 18 years. The original provision enabled licence conditions to require works to be carried out—for instance on adjacent land—even though the licensee had no right to carry out those works. It was expected that the licensee would negotiate those rights if he wished to continue depositing waste. If he could not, then he was able to surrender his licence and cease all operations.
The 1990 Act modified that provision so as to give the licensee such rights in relation to any land as would enable him to comply with the requirements of his licence. That was necessary because it was no longer possible to surrender a waste management licence without obtaining a certificate of completion under Section 39 of the 1990 Act, with the consequence that licence holders are required to continue monitoring landfill sites for many years after the disposal of waste has ceased.
Under the 1990 Act, waste regulation authorities must satisfy themselves that landfill sites will not cause environmental pollution or harm to human health before they can accept the surrender of a site licence. That rightly ensures that licence holders cannot walk away from their responsibilities. However, it also means they have to be put in a position to carry out their responsibilities in cases where, for example, their lease has expired or access to adjoining land is required to

671
monitor the migration of landfill gases or polluting leachates. It is essential that holders of licences for landfill sites monitor those sites to detect changes and take corrective action before any pollution of the environment or harm to human health is caused. To do that, monitoring of groundwater and gas concentrations in soil adjacent to landfills may be necessary. Nevertheless, we have made it clear that Section 35(4) of the 1990 Act should be used only when strictly necessary.
I believe that the public interest in ensuring that landfill sites do not cause environmental pollution or harm to human health strongly supports the retention of the existing provisions of Section 35(4) of the 1990 Act. In the light of the assurances that I have given, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Lytton: Clearly I shall not press the matter at this stage of the proceedings, and certainly not at such a late hour. I shall read the Minister's response very carefully. I thank the noble Viscount for his response. I believe that there are problems involved. However, I take the Minister's point that, if no particular cases have been brought forward, he is in a difficult position as regards taking account of something which may be regarded as a speculative threat. I believe that the situation is worse than that. I shall consider the matter carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 360:
Page 201, line 43, leave out ("In").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 361, 362, 364, 365 and 366. The primary amendments seek to prevent the planning authorities replacing the National Rivers Authority as statutory consultees in respect of applications for waste management licences and, of course, applications for the surrender of such licences.
Perhaps I may address my remarks to the future, to the time when the Bill becomes enacted and the agency takes over those responsibilities. The involvement of the NRA in those matters was justified by its responsibility for the protection of ground and surface waters. It is difficult however to see exactly what the planning authorities are expected to contribute over and above what they have already achieved through the planning function. The planning authority is dealing at the outset with land use issues and of course, to some extent, the environmental impact of such uses. It will have had ample opportunity to impose appropriate conditions through the planning process. Similarly, planning conditions relating to restoration will not be affected by the surrender of a licence. The planning authority will retain its powers to enforce such conditions.
The guidance of July 1994—departmentally, I think, referred to as PPG23; the Committee might like to know that it is a planning and pollution control guidance document—was issued by the department after four years of consultation. That guidance emphasises the
672
very clear distinction which has to be drawn between the quite separate roles of planning and licensing. The matters which need to be addressed under each regime are set out in that document. I remind the Committee that to a great extent I am speaking with the advice of the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, and it is indeed its view, and certainly my view, that if we make the planning authorities statutory consultees on licences and allow the planning authorities a second bite at the cherry, so to speak, that will encourage a further blurring of the line between planning and licensing and that would certainly go against the spirit of the guidance. I have read the document PPG23.
The amendments I have down would not in any way prevent the agency consulting a wide range of bodies, including planning authorities, but that would be on a voluntary basis. But they would certainly—if my amendments were accepted—avoid excessive and pointless bureaucracy. It would be pointless as the agency is not to be required to take into account planning authorities' representations. If one runs—as I understand is common practice—a twin-track approach, both a planning application and a licence application, there seems little point in having the planning authority decide at one end that certain conditions should apply, the licensing authorities then proposing their own regulation and their own conditions, and then the planning authority having a second bite. That seems quite pointless.
I realise the planning authorities are perhaps somewhat bruised by the change of emphasis in their responsibilities that will occur when these powers move from the NRA to the agency. But, again, they will have to stomach the change. It is sad for them; they like to hold on to their bureaucratic authority. However, I am suggesting to the Committee that this is totally unnecessary and totally against the spirit of four years' work that finished with the planning guidance. Blurring of the responsibilities will cause confusion and will result in the licensees feeling deprived of natural justice, while a bureaucratic argument between licensing authority and planning authority will delay the procedures and cost an enormous amount of money. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: These amendments would remove the provisions in paragraphs 44(3) and 46(3) of Schedule 18 to the Bill which require the agencies to refer any proposal to issue or to accept the surrender of a waste management licence to the appropriate planning authority, and to consider any representations from them. They would also remove the existing requirement to consult the Health and Safety Executive where it is proposed to issue such a licence.
Much has been said in Committee about the need to ensure that the agency is properly accountable at a local level. This provision in the Bill will ensure that planning authorities continue to be informed about waste licence proposals and have an opportunity to comment on them. They have an important role to play because of their responsibilities for the land use and amenity of their area and for drawing up development plans.

673
Planning authorities have a legitimate interest in whether the agency intends to grant a licence or accept its surrender and in any conditions it is proposed to impose. Waste facilities will normally require both planning permission and a waste management licence and although each regime has its own separate purpose and function the dividing line is not always clear cut. The Government have recently set out guidance on the respective roles of the planning and pollution control systems in Planning Policy Guidance Note 23, as my noble friend indicated. This stresses the need for proper consultation between planning and pollution control authorities. It is, for instance, important that licence conditions do not conflict with planning conditions already imposed and that planning authorities have the opportunity to comment on any possible land use implications. Planning authorities may also need to take account of relevant licence conditions in drawing up their development plans.
I hope that for those reasons my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his explanation, which I do not find encouraging. I believe that it is a fudging of the issue, with the exception of my noble friend's mention of the HSE. I had overlooked its role in the matter. If my amendment precludes the HSE then it is defective, but only in that regard.
My noble friend said in effect that the planning authority has the first bite of the cherry. It can then impose conditions to which the licensing authority will be bound to have regard. That is not necessary. It blurs the issue if the planning authority, perhaps five years or two months later, says to the licensing authority, "We have had second thoughts. We would like to do something else". If it wants to do something different the planning authority has the authority through the planning procedures to impose different conditions and different regulations. Therefore, I do not believe that my noble friend's answer holds much water.
The dividing line in the planning policy guidance is clear. There is no doubt about it. If it is not clear why spend four years getting all the parties involved to agree to it? It came out only in July last year. It has not been put to the test. Now, six or seven months later, in this Bill we are seeking to undo all that work.
I am not happy with my noble friend's answer. I accept the point concerning the HSE. I should like to have another look at what I have set down. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 361 and 362 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 362A and 362B:
Page 202, leave out lines 41 and 42 and insert:
(""National Park authority", subject to subsection (11A) below, means a National Park authority established under section 60 of the Environment Act 1995 which has become the local planning authority for the National Park in question;").
Page 202, line 47, at end insert:
674
("(11A) As respects any period before a National Park authority established under section 60 of the Environment Act 1995 in relation to a National Park becomes the local planning authority for that National Park, any reference in this section to a National Park authority shall be taken as a reference to the National Park Committee or joint or special planning board for that National Park.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to the amendments with Amendment No. 258ZB on 2nd February. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 363 to 366 not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 366A and 366B:
Page 203, leave out lines 49 and 50 and insert:
(""National Park authority", subject to subsection (12A) below, means a National Park authority established under section 60 of the Environment Act 1995 which has become the local planning authority for the National Park in question;").
Page 203, line 52, at end insert:
("(12A) As respects any period before a National Park authority established under section 60 of the Environment Act 1995 in relation to a National Park becomes the local planning authority for that National Park, any reference in this section to a National Park authority shall be taken as a reference to the National Park Committee or joint or special planning board for that National Park.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 258ZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 366C not moved.]
9.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 367:
Page 204, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee, but I now wish to move Amendment No. 367 and speak to Amendments Nos. 368 to 370. I accept that the Committee allowed me to speak to the amendments in the group led by Amendment No. 345, moved and subsequently withdrawn by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Minister replied to me at that time, but, due to the procedure, I had no opportunity to reply to his remarks.
I asked the Minister specifically what problem had arisen since the licensing regulations came into force in May last year which had given rise to the necessity for the agency to have a crystal ball to look into the future and find out what might happen in terms of a breach. The Minister did not give me a reason for the wording but said—and I paraphrase—that they were harmonising provisions. He then referred to Section 13(1) and (2) of the Environmental Protection Act, although I may be wrong about that. He did not give me an answer about the breaching of the licensing conditions which had applied since May last year. In my submission, it is not good enough that harmonisation should be the sole reason for bringing in the diabolical words:
"or is likely not to be complied with".
At about 7 o'clock this evening I referred to crystal ball gazing and that is what it would amount to. Unless my noble friend can give me a good hard reason why the agency should be invited to project its ideas and determine the result of an action which has not yet taken place, I fail to see why the industry should be subjected to the quite radical and severe element of jurisdiction. My noble friend talked about the agency being there to avert a breach, to correct a problem at an early stage, to safeguard sound working practices. But he produced to the Committee no instance since licensing began to show that there is a necessity for the provision. The purpose of the amendment is to remove those totally unnecessary words from the Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: When the amendments were moved, I said that the serving of an enforcement notice before a licence condition had actually been breached, but where such a breach seems likely, will give the agency the opportunity to avert pollution before it happens. In addition, it will give the licence holder a chance to correct a problem before more serious and expensive consequences arise. This is a perfectly proper provision. As my noble friend said, it is a parallel power which is the same as that governing discharge consents provided by new Section 90B of the Water Resources Act and under Section 13 subsections (1) and (2) of the 1990 Act. I do not see arty reason why these parallel powers, which I believe will be in the interest of cleaning up pollution or averting pollution when it is likely to take place, should not be included in the Bill.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I thank my noble friend for his further remarks. Harking back to the original harmonising provisions, I am sorry that there is no harmony between me and my noble friend this evening. I should like to consider his remarks much more deeply. But at this moment I cannot accept his response. This is not a time to take the matter further. I gave notice of my intentions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 368 to 371 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 372:
Page 205, line 8, leave out ("so far as extending to England and Wales").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 400. These amendments would extend to Scotland the repeal of Section 50 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 372A not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 372B:
Page 205, leave out lines 22 to 26 and insert:
(" .—(1) Section 62 of that Act (special provision with respect to certain dangerous and intractable waste) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (3), for paragraph (a) (regulations providing for the supervision of certain activities and the recovery of the costs from persons carrying on the activities) there shall be substituted—
"(a) for the supervision by waste regulation authorities—

(i) of activities authorised by virtue of the regulations or of activities by virtue of carrying on which persons are subject to provisions of the regulations, or

676

(ii) of persons who carry on activities authorised by virtue of the regulations or who are subject to provisions of the regulations, and for the recovery from persons falling within sub-paragraph (ii) above of the costs incurred by waste regulation authorities in performing functions conferred upon those authorities by the regulations;".

(3) After that subsection (which also includes provision for regulations to provide for appeals to the Secretary of State) there shall be added—
"(3A) This section is subject to section 95 of the Environment Act 1995 (delegation or reference of appeals etc)."
. In section 63 of that Act (waste other than controlled waste) for subsection (2) (offences relating to the deposit of waste which is not controlled waste but which, if it were such waste, would be special waste) there shall be substituted—
"(2) A person who deposits, or knowingly causes or knowingly permits the deposit of, any waste—

(a) which is not controlled waste, but

(b) which, if it were controlled waste, would be special waste, in a case where he would be guilty of an offence under section 33 above if the waste were special waste and any waste management licence were not in force, shall, subject to subsection (3) below, be guilty of that offence and punishable as if the waste were special waste."").

The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 216A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 372C to 372DA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 372E:
Page 206, line 32, at end insert:
(" . —(1) Section 75 of that Act (meaning of "waste" etc.) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) For subsection (2) (definition of "waste") there shall be substituted—
"(2) "Waste" means any substance or object in the categories set out in Schedule 2B to this Act which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard; and for the purposes of this definition—

"holder" means the producer of the waste or the person who is in possession of it; and

"producer" means any person whose activities produce waste or any person who carries out pre-processing, mixing or other operations resulting in a change in the nature or composition of this waste."

(3) Subsection (3) (presumption that anything discarded is waste unless the contrary is proved) shall cease to have effect.
(4) After subsection (9) there shall be added—
"(10) Schedule 2B to this Act (which reproduces Annex Ito the Waste Directive) shall have effect.
(11) Subsection (2) above is substituted, and Schedule 2B to this Act is inserted, for the purpose of assigning to "waste" in this Part the meaning which it has in the Waste Directive by virtue of paragraphs (a) to (c) of Article I of, and Annex I to, that Directive, and those provisions shall be construed accordingly.
75/442/EEC
(12) In this section "the Waste Directive" means the directive of the Council of the European Communities, dated 15th July 1975, on waste, as amended by—
91/156/EEC
(a) the directive of that Council, dated 18th March 1991, amending directive 75/442/EEC on waste; and
91/692/EEC
(b) the directive of that Council, dated 23rd December 1991, standardising and rationalising reports on the implementation of certain Directives relating to the environment"").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 352B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 372EA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 372EAA to 372EBB not moved.]
[Amendment No. 372EC had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 372ED not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 372F:
Page 208, line 28, at end insert:
(" .After Schedule 2A to that Act there shall be inserted—
"SCHEDULE 2B
CATEGORIES OF WASTE
1. Production or consumption residues not otherwise
specified below.
2. Off-specification products.
3. Products whose date for appropriate use has expired.
4.Materials spilled, lost or having undergone other mishap, including any materials, equipment, etc., contaminated as a result of the mishap.
5.Materials contaminated or soiled as a result of planned actions (e.g. residues from cleaning operations, packing materials, containers, etc.).
6.Unusable parts (e.g. reject batteries, exhausted catalysts,etc.).
7. Substances which no longer perform satisfactorily (e.g. contaminated acids, contaminated solvents, exhausted tempering salts, etc.).
8.Residues of industrial processes (e.g. slags, still bottoms,etc.).
9.Residues from pollution abatement processes (e.g. scrubber sludges, baghouse dusts, spent filters, etc.).
10.Machining or finishing residues (e.g. lathe turnings,mill scales, etc.).
11.Residues from raw materials extraction and processing (e.g. mining residues, oil field slops, etc.).
12. Adulterated materials (e.g. oils contaminated with PCBs, etc.).
13. Any materials, substances or products whose use has been banned by law.
14. Products for which the holder has no further use (e.g. agricultural, household, office, commercial and shop discards,etc.).
15. Contaminated materials, substances or products resulting from remedial action with respect to land.
16. Any materials, substances or products which are not contained in the above categories."").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 352B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 373 and 374 not moved.]
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 374A:
Page 213, line 50, at end insert:
(" . In Section 196 of that Act (trade effluent registers) in subsection (1) (which identifies the matters required to be kept available for inspection) there shall be inserted after subparagraph (e)—

"(f) information provided or obtained pursuant to or by virtue of a condition of any consent referred to in paragraph (a) above, or of a provision of any direction, agreement or notice referred to in paragraphs (b) to (e) above;

(g) information produced by analyses of any samples taken in connection with or for the purposes of any of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (e) above".").

The noble Lord said: I am sorry to delay the Committee at this moment, but we hurried over a group of amendments earlier, and I am afraid that I missed the opportunity to speak to Amendment No. 374A. I warned my noble friend that I might wish to come back to it.
This amendment would create a requirement for sewerage undertakers to keep a record of the quality and quantity of trade effluent discharges to sewers. The agency will have powers to seek information, but the nub of the problem is that the water companies may not be able to provide the information when asked because there is no obligation on them to keep records of analytical results or information on trade effluents apart from the limited documentation—consents, agreements, directions and notices—held on the register.
What is needed is a duty on the companies to maintain a record, either on a public register or elsewhere, so that when the agency approaches the companies for information under existing duties and powers, there are data that they can give. That is the bare minimum that should be required of the water authorities. I am assured that the amendment will not require the water companies to obtain any information that they do not obtain already. They would have to have that information in the course of their trade effluent control operations. We simply seek to ensure that they keep a record of it, so that the law can be effectively enforced. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: I fully appreciate the concern which lies behind the amendment. It is important that the public should have easy access to environmental information, including that held by the agencies, and that exclusions from environmental registers should be kept to the absolute minimum. This is not the first time that we have discussed the issue of the role of the new agencies and other bodies in providing environmental information to the public. I believe that we agree on the principle involved; our differences are over the details of the legislative provisions needed.
Amendment No. 374A, moved by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, seeks to include additional information on trade effluent registers. Section 196 of the Water Industry Act 1991 puts a duty on sewerage undertakers to make available for public inspection registers which contain certain information about trade effluent consents. I believe that the registers already contain sufficient information. I am not aware of any problem in the operation of the registers. Therefore, I see no reason to add to the information that they already contain.

679
With that reassurance. I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: The hour is late and I shall not press the amendment. I am not entirely convinced by the argument. Our experience is that the information is not necessarily always available. I shall think about what my noble friend said before we return to the matter again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 375:
Page 214, leave out lines 23 to 25.
The noble Viscount said: My noble friend Lord Lindsay spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 352AA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 376 and 377 not moved.]
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 377A:
Page 215, line 14, at end insert:
1".—( I) In section 50 (succession where person becomes occupier of part of the relevant land), for the words "to which section 49 above applies" there shall be substituted "in which the holder of a licence under this Chapter to abstract water ("the prior holder") is the occupier of the whole or a part of the land specified in the licence as the land on which water abstracted in pursuance of the licence is to be used ("the relevant land").
(2) This paragraph shall be deemed to have been in force from 1st December 1991.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall refer briefly also to Amendments Nos. 378ZA and 378ZB. They were spoken to briefly by my noble friend, although I understand that they were not moved by my noble friend Lord Mills at the time. I am afraid I was not in the Committee at that time.
My noble friend the Minister made some helpful comments about the amendments. With regard to Amendment No. 378ZA, he asked noble Lords to take comfort from an undertaking to consider the amendment further. On Amendment No. 378ZB, he said that the Government had already published their intention to bring forward changes of that nature and were broadly in agreement with the amendment. With regard to Amendment No. 377A, he noted that while the amendment afforded the ideal opportunity, at that stage he could only undertake to give it further consideration.
It always seems very surprising that, although the Government accept that the amendments are admirable and should be considered, they are never prepared to accept any of them. I rise simply to register that, if they do not produce amendments at the next stage, I shall certainly ask the Chamber to approve my amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Amendment No. 377A would correct the confusion caused by the 1991 consolidation over succession to water extraction licences. As I mentioned in the context of a previous amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, it is our intention to put that right. We cannot accept Amendment No. 377A as drafted, but we intend that a suitable amendment should be brought forward.
680
I also spoke in the same kind of glowing terms about Amendments Nos. 378ZA and 378ZB. As with Amendment No. 377A, we cannot accept those amendments as drafted, but we intend that a suitable amendment should be brought forward. With those very comforting remarks, I hope that my noble friend will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to my noble friend and I hope that in due course I shall be able to speak in glowing terms of his drafting abilities or those of his advisers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 378 to 378ZB not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell Lord Crickhowell moved Amendment No. 378ZC:
Page 215, line 20, at end insert:
(". After section 88(2) of that Act (Defence to principal offences in respect of authorised discharges) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) Nothing in any consent given under this Chapter shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (I) above as authorising a discharge containing substances or having properties other than those identified in the consent.".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 378ZC I shall speak also to Amendment No. 378B, though briefly. I had hoped not to speak because I believed discussions to be taking place outside the Chamber which would give me encouragement to wait for the Government to provide solutions to some problems that have arisen. However, I am not satisfied that that is likely to be the outcome, and in those circumstances I want to signal what is a serious problem and one to which we must find a solution.
Amendment No. 378ZC is a probing amendment to seek an explanation of the way in which the Government may approach a problem that has arisen. The Committee may recall a pollution incident that occurred last year at Wem in Shropshire in a tributary of the River Severn. A discharge from a factory to a sewer got into the river, passed down the river and caused serious pollution problems—smell problems and so forth—to the drinking water of the town of Worcester.
In normal circumstances, following such an incident, the NRA would certainly have wished to prosecute. However, the wording of discharging consents, as they have been prepared in the past not only under the present legislation but also under previous legislation, do not provide a satisfactory legal basis. I do not want to pursue the matter much further. I am giving information which is well known to all the water companies involved and which goes to the heart of the pollution control regime of the NRA at present and the agency in the future.
Confronted by such a situation, the department has a tendency to say that it is all rather difficult and legislation is not the answer—it may be a good idea to rewrite the thousands of discharge consents to try to solve the problem in that way; or it may be said that the Minister is not minded to do this or that. That will not be satisfactory. A significant problem exists and we shall have to return to it later. I am speaking therefore

681
not because I expect my noble friend to give a detailed answer to what is an extremely difficult and complicated problem but to enable him at least to indicate that he understands that the problem is serious and that we should return to it while we have a legislative opportunity to correct the position. Otherwise, the environment agency may find that it is confronted with difficulties.
Amendment No. 378B seeks to provide additional powers to enable the agency to prevent pollution in respect of discharges to controlled waters. In a debate on an earlier amendment I suggested that it was slightly bizarre that we should allow pollution to occur and then seek to recover costs and that the agency should not be able to recover the costs of seeking to prevent pollution. I am again trying to prevent pollution by enabling the agency to serve a notice on a person carrying on a licensed discharge in a manner that involves imminent risk of pollution to require that person to take steps to remove that risk.
HMIP has such powers to issue prohibition notices and waste regulation authorities have powers under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to revoke or suspend waste management licences where it appears that continuation of licence activities would cause, among other things, pollution of the environment or harm to human health. But no similar powers currently exist in relation to consented discharges under the Water Resources Act 1991. That is an anomaly.
Again, I have indications that the Government will say, "Oh well, it may be necessary for HMIP and it may be necessary for the waste regulation authorities, but we do not want to do any more about pollution and it is not necessary". I have to say, as I have said on previous occasions, that I disagree with that view, and I disagree with it at least with the authority of speaking for those who have had the job of trying to prevent pollution over the past five years and to clear it up when it has occurred. So once again, without much hope but in the confident view that such an amendment is sensible and necessary, I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: We have had such harmony until this moment. I know that there is a long history underlying the proposal in Amendment No. 378ZC. I also appreciate that my noble friend takes the view that enforcement actions by the NRA have been constrained by the law as it currently stands. However, we cannot accept the proposal which my noble friend has put forward for a legislative solution to the problems that the NRA has experienced. In the interests of brevity I shall mention only two major concerns in respect of the proposal.
First, we are not convinced that a legislative route is the correct one. In essence, the perceived difficulties stem from the nature of the consents that have been granted. I understand, however, that other regulatory bodies have developed consenting procedures which operate satisfactorily in these respects without the need for a legislative provision of the kind proposed. These bodies are, of course, now coming together in the agency. I am also concerned about the retrospective
682
nature of the provision which would affect a substantial number of discharges. These concerns are all the more important given the very great variation in consents that have been granted by the NRA so that the effect of the change on a discharger would be dependent to a considerable extent on the wording which happened to be used in a particular consent perhaps granted many years before.
A legislative approach would also impose the change in respect of all existing consents without any of the safeguards that attend the usual process of modification, including the right of appeal. Perhaps in the interests of brevity I shall mention only one major concern in respect of the proposal.
Amendment No. 378B would introduce yet another element—the power to serve a prevention notice on a discharger if the agency considered that the continuation of the discharge, albeit under and in accordance with an existing consent, would carry an imminent risk of serious pollution—into the regulatory framework governing discharges to water. A prevention notice as envisaged in the amendment would be a fairly draconian measure modelled on the current powers of HMIP—and the future powers of the agency—to issue prohibition notices under Section 14 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in respect of prescribed processes. I do not think that adoption of this additional, and very strong, power is justified.
I say that for two main reasons. First, the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 already extend to risks of serious pollution from discharges to water, as well as air and land, from prescribed processes. It is already open to HMIP, and it will be open to the agency, to issue a prohibition notice under that Act to prevent a pollution incident. But these powers, which operate even where the process is operating in accordance with the conditions of its authorisation, are justified by the potentially dangerous nature of the processes and the substances involved. I am not convinced that this procedure should be extended to all discharge consents in respect of water.
Secondly, and this follows on from my previous comment, under the provisions of the Bill the agency will inherit the already extensive powers to control discharges to water currently operated by the NRA, including the power to prohibit certain discharges to water. We are adding to those powers through the enforcement notice procedure and we are considering extending the powers available to the agency to serve a notice on a polluter or a potential polluter, requiring the discharger to carry out anti-pollution works rather than the agency performing the works and then attempting to recoup the costs. I know that my remarks will not please my noble friend, but I hope that with what I have said he will feel content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Crickhowell: My noble friend will be glad to hear that I am partially pleased because I have prompted him to put on the record the most hopeful aspect of the advice that his department has been giving the agency, particularly about a proposal to insert a new Section 161A to the Water Resources Act 1991. That is helpful and it may take us some way forward.

683
As regards my first amendment and my noble friend's response, while I understand what he said and his reluctance to go down the legislative route, there is a problem. I have identified one possible way of solving that problem. Before the Bill becomes law we need a public explanation from government of what their alternative way would be for solving the problem if it is not to be done by legislation.
I have to tell my noble friend that there are literally many thousands of discharge consents in existence going back many, many years. If we do not have a legislative change it will probably be necessary to rewrite a very high percentage of them. Furthermore, knowing what happens then, there would almost certainly be appeals against the revisions. Over the past five-and-a-half years the department has not found itself able to deal with any of the very large number of appeals that have been issued against revised discharge consents.
Luckily, I shall not have any responsibility for the situation because it will be the job of the new agency. I shall have retired contentedly to an easier life. The new agency will be faced with a nightmare situation of ineffective consents, the Government refusing to find a solution to the problem and the condition of our rivers deteriorating. I understand why my noble friend is not accepting my amendment tonight and indeed I never thought for one moment that he would. I hoped that I might not even have to amend it because we might have some useful discussions. I beg him to note that this is a very serious problem and the Government will have to find a solution to it.
Viscount Ullswater: Before my noble friend withdraws his amendment, which I hope he will do, as regards his very detailed comments on the discharge consents I would very much like to look carefully at the points he made.
Lord Crickhowell: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 378A, 378AA, 378B, 378BA and 379 not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 380:
Page 218, line 25, leave out ("Section 126(6) (which") and insert ("Sections 126(6) and 129(4) of that Act (each of which").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 352AA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 380A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 380B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 380C not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 381:
Page 227, leave out lines 26 to 31.
The noble Earl said: I also spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 352AA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 381ZA to 381A not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 382 and 383:
Page 231, line 22, leave out ("(3) or (4)") and insert ("(2) or (3)").
Page 231, line 27, leave out ("(3) or (4)") and insert ("(2) or (3)").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these two amendments with Amendment No. 352AA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 384 to 386:
Page 232, line 45, after ("authorities)") insert ("as it applies to Scotland").
Page 233, line 9, after ("Act") insert ("as it applies to Scotland").
Page 233, line 12, after ("Act") insert ("as it applies to Scotland").
The noble Earl said: This is a small group of amendments. Amendments Nos. 384, 385, 386 and 394, to which I should also like to speak, are clarifying amendments. Amendment No. 403 is a technical amendment. Amendment No. 395 is in line with our proposals to amend the period allowed for representations about proposals to issue a waste management licence. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 386A not moved.]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 387:
Page 233, line 40, leave out ("England or Wales, the Environment") and insert ("any part of Great Britain, the appropriate").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 222A on 31st January. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 388 to 393:
Page 233, line 46, leave out ("the Environment") and insert ("that").
Page 234, line 13, leave out ("England or Wales") and insert ("any part of Great Britain").
Page 234, line 27, after ("Wales") insert ("or Scotland").
Page 234, line 32, leave out ("England or Wales, the Environment") and insert ("any part of Great Britain, the appropriate").
Page 234, line 38, leave out ("the Environment") and insert ("that").
Page 236, line 16, leave out ("Environment Agency") and insert ("Agency to which it is given").
The noble Earl said: Again, I spoke to these amendments on 31st January when I dealt with Amendment No. 222A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 394:
Page 236, line 34, leave out ("In section 27 (procedure on appeals under section 26)") and insert:
("(1) Section 27 of that Act (procedure on appeals under section 26) shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this paragraph.
(2) In subsection (1) (power of Secretary of State to refer appeal to appointed person) after the word "26" there shall be inserted the words ", other than an appeal against any decision of, or notice served by, SEPA,".
(3) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(1A) As respects an appeal against any decision of, or notice served by, SEPA, this section is subject to section 95 of the Environment Act 1995 (delegation or reference of appeals)."
(4)").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 384. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 18, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Transitional and transitory provisions and savings]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 394A:
Page 240, line 23, at end insert:
("The Control of Pollution Act 1974
As respects England and Wales, any resolution passed in pursuance of section 11 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (special provision for land occupied by disposal authorities: resolutions etc) which is in force immediately before the day on which the repeals in that section made by this Act come into force shall have effect on and after that day as if it were a waste management licence granted by the Environment Agency under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 subject to the conditions specified in the resolution pursuant to subsection (3) (e) of that section.").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 352B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 395 to 397:
Page 242, line 12, leave out ("21") and insert ("28").
Page 242, line 36, leave out ("subsection (5) of section 97 of') and insert ("sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 17 to").
Page 242, line 39, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("sub-paragraph").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 384. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 19, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 20 [Repeals and revocations]:
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 397A and 397B:
Page 244, line 11, column 3, at end insert ("In section 11A(5), in paragraph (b) of the definition of "local authority", the words "district council".").
Page 244, line 49, column 3, leave out ("onwards") and insert ("to "such a National Park").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 258ZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 397C to 399:
Page 245, line 51, column 3, at end insert ("In section 223(2), the words "and the National Rivers Authority".").
Page 246, line 14, column 3, after ("(3) (c) (ii)") insert (", so far as extending to England and Wales,").
Page 246, line 20, column 3, leave out from ("(5) (b)") to end of line 23 and insert (", so far as extending to England and Wales, the words "the National Rivers Authority".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these amendments when speaking to Amendment No. 352AA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 399A and 399B:
Page 246, line 24, column 3, at beginning insert:

("In section 5, in subsection (4), the words following paragraph (b), and subsection (5).

In section 7, in subsections (1) and (4), the words "issued by a disposal authority" and, in subsection (2), the words "or, in relation to Scotland.subsection.

(5)". In section 9(4), the words "issued by the authority"

In section 11,subsections (1) to (11)

In section 30(1), the words from "and for the purposes" to the end.").

Page 248, line 53, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 2, paragraph 9(2) and (3).").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 352B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 399C and 399CA:
Page 250, line 44, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 17, paragraphs 3(2) and (3), 5(2), 7(9) (d) and 9(1).").
Page 250, line 44, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 25, paragraphs 43(1) and 48(3) and (4).").
The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Howe spoke to Amendment No. 399C with Amendment No. 335ZBA, and I spoke to Amendment No. 399CA with Amendment No. 352AA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 399D had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 399E and 399F:
Page 253, line 4, column 3, after ("(6)") insert ("in subsection (11), in the definition of "National Park authority", the words "subject to subsection (11A) below" and subsection (11A)").
Page 253, line 9, column 3, leave out ("and subsection (8)") and insert ("subsection (8), in subsection (12), in the definition of "National Park authority", the words "subject to subsection (12A) below" and subsection (12A)").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 258ZB on 2nd February. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 400:
Page 253, line 17, column 3, leave out ("so far as extending to England and Wales").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 372. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 400A:
Page 253, line 31, column 3. at end insert ("Section 75(3).").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 352B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 401 to 401C not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 402:
Page 255, leave out line 53.
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 347. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 402A:
Page 256, line 2, column 3, at end insert ("18(a),").
The noble Earl said: My noble friend Lord Howe spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 335ZBA. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 402B not moved.]
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendments Nos. 403 and 403A:
Page 257, line 45, column 3, leave out from ("(9),") to end of line 47 and insert ("and 119(54) (a) (ii) and (h) (iii) and, in paragraph 167, sub-paragraph (2), in sub-paragraph (3) the words "(1) (g),", and sub-paragraphs (4), (5), (7) and (9).").
Page 257, line 48, leave out column 3 and insert ("In section 8, in the definition of "National Park authority" in subsection (5), the words "subject to subsection (6) below" and subsection (6).").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 258ZB. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Viscount Ullswater Viscount Ullswater moved Amendment No. 404:
Page 257, line 48, column 3, at end insert ("In Schedule 18, paragraphs 13A to 13J .").
The noble Viscount said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 352B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  Crown Dependencies and Dependent Territories: Right of Individual Petition
  Crown Dependencies and Dependent Territories: Right of Individual Petition
  GEST Grant for School Effectiveness
  GEST Grant for School Effectiveness
  GEST Grant for Vocational Qualifications in Schools
  GEST Grant for Vocational Qualifications in Schools
  St Philip's RC Sixth Form College, Birmingham
  St Philip's RC Sixth Form College, Birmingham
  Derby Tertiary College, Wilmorton
  Derby Tertiary College, Wilmorton
  EC Legislation Deposited in Parliament
  EC Legislation Deposited in Parliament
  War Pensioners: Payment for Palliative Care
  War Pensioners: Payment for Palliative Care
  Mr. Kevin Taylor: Costs of Action
  Mr. Kevin Taylor: Costs of Action
  Bosnian Refugees: Policy
  Bosnian Refugees: Policy
  Bosnian Refugees in EU Countries
  Bosnian Refugees in EU Countries