Sitting of 6 July 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  NEW WRIT
  For Littleborough and Saddleworth, in the room of Geoffrey Kenneth Dickens Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    ACCOMMODATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Thursday 13 July.

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (NO. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 13 July.

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 June].
    Debate to be resumed on Thursday 13 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Milk
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about the price of milk quota. [31158]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The Department has received a number of representations but, as the House knows, the price of quota is dependent on market factors.
    Mr. Evans: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his new and richly deserved promotion to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I congratulate my other hon. Friends on their ministerial appointments. As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, the price of milk quota is extremely high, and it is difficult for new entrants into dairying to afford it on top of all their other costs. Will he please take note of the problems of new entrants with the price of milk quota,
    500
    and also consider the possibility of securing more milk quota for Britain, as we have only 85 per cent. of the quota that we need for full production in this country?
    Mr. Hogg: On my own behalf and on behalf of my hon. Friends, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for his kind remarks. I know that, with his constituency experience, he is a formidable advocate of the interests of the farming constituency. I am indeed conscious of the fact that the price of milk quota increased substantially last year. That was due to a variety of market factors. I know, too, that there is concern about new entrants, and if there are sustainable proposals for addressing that question we shall certainly consider them.
    Mr. Pike: I congratulate the Minister on his promotion to the Cabinet. Is it not daft that although we have the right climate in this country to produce enough to meet all our requirements both for milk and for dairy products, we cannot do so? That is why the milk quota price is so high. Are not the Government failing the country's farmers if we do not get a higher milk quota which would enable us to meet our requirements?
    Mr. Hogg: It is perfectly true that we are not self-sufficient in milk, but that has always been the case. It arose because the base year of 1981 was less favourable to us than we would have wished. To be honest with the hon. Gentleman, however, the prospect of significantly enlarging our quota is remote.

    Beef
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of beef special premium in the last year for which figures are available in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the European Union as a whole; and if he will make a statement. [31161]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tim Boswell): United Kingdom farmers were paid some £120 million, and European Union farmers as a whole some £500 million, during the year ended October 1994.
    Mr. Riddick: First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to the Ministry; he knows rather a lot about agriculture. Is he aware that a farmer of my acquaintance recently lost the premium on two of his steers because he misread one number on each tag, in one case mistaking an eight for a three? I was there at the time of the inspection and the inspector was very particular. This is an EU-wide scheme. Can we be sure that the scheme is policed as rigorously on the continent as it is in this country?
    Mr. Boswell: First, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We want equality of treatment between ourselves and our counterparts in the EU, and we shall press the Commission to ensure that there is an equal level of enforcement in all member states. I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about the specific case to which he referred, but perhaps it would be better not to rehearse that case in the House this afternoon. As a general principle, while we will be firm in the pursuit of fraud, we wish to be as flexible and farmer-friendly as possible in the interpretation of the rules and any minor errors that occur.

    Nutrition
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what projects his Department is funding aimed at improving nutrition for families on income support. [31162]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): We contribute to the work of the nutrition task force to collate and disseminate examples of effective local initiatives and good practice which might assist those on low incomes to follow a healthy diet.
    Mr. Clapham: I do not think that the Department is doing enough. The Minister will be aware that there are 4 million children living in families with incomes less than half that of the average family. In other words, they are living below the poverty line. Does the Minister agree that many of those children will be living in families whose only income is income support and that those families will be unable to provide the adequate and nutritious meals which ought to be provided to children? Is not the health of those children being harmed? Is the Minister aware that many parents are going hungry to ensure that their children receive adequate meals? In the circumstances, does she agree that the Department ought to be doing more?
    Mrs. Browning: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not fully aware of what the Department is doing. Under the "Health of the Nation" project team, we are contributing to a project—on which a report will be made in October this year—which looks across the lower socio-economic range in terms of nutrition. That project will embrace the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. We are funding research by the Institute of Food Research at both Reading and Glasgow universities, and we are also involved in a project by the Joseph Rowntree trust at the London school of hygiene and tropical medicine on one-parent households.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that fresh produce from British farmers and growers—the price of which has fallen below the rate of inflation since 1979—provides every family in this country with the opportunity of a high-nutrition diet? Will she join me in welcoming the Thank the British Farmer campaign that was launched at the royal show this week and in wishing the campaign every success?
    Mrs. Browning: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in wishing the campaign well. Basic foodstuffs, such as bread, potatoes, pasta, rice, seasonal vegetables and fruit, play an important role in the diets of people on lower incomes.

    Tobacco
    Mr. Etherington: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the cost of the common agricultural policy tobacco regime in 1995. [31164]
    Mr. Boswell: The latest estimate is around £900 million.
    Mr. Etherington: I congratulate the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues on their appointments and wish them well. The Minister confirms that some £2.6 million per day is squandered on supporting an industry which
    502
    leads to the death of people. Will he assure the House that the Government will make every endeavour possible within the EU to ensure the complete elimination of subsidies to this nefarious industry which is well known to be full of fraud? Will he also assure the House that more efforts will be made to have such funding put into something which conserves and improves life rather than destroys it?
    Mr. Boswell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I share his view that the present cost of the tobacco regime is excessive. We wish to reduce that cost, and we shall take every opportunity that we can to do so. We have had some success in cutting the subsidised tonnage by an eighth and we shall continue to press that.
    On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the health implications, in a former capacity earlier this week I had the privilege to be on the platform with my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), then Secretary of State for Health, in connection with "The Health of the Nation". I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a message that we should get across, particularly to our young people.
    Mrs. Lait: Are any studies being conducted into alternative crops to which tobacco farmers could move, so that we can bring an end to this unpleasant subsidy?
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend makes a characteristically helpful and constructive comment. It is clearly the case that fanners in all parts of the Community, especially in difficult areas, who are used to growing tobacco, will need alternatives. We need to look at the matter constructively. The danger is that those will simply add to the cost of other commodity regimes within the common agricultural policy.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on effort control functions in the CFP; and if he will make a statement. [31165]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Tony Baldry): My predecessor sent the hon. Member a copy of his reply of 19 June to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 15 June.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I welcome the Minister to his new berth looking after fisheries and I hope that he will not get too far out of his depth too quickly. Does he agree that encouraging skippers to pursue fisheries outside traditional United Kingdom waters could make a significant contribution to reducing pressure on North sea stocks? Is he aware that some skippers in Eyemouth in my constituency are finding it difficult to pick their way through the bureaucracy to get their hands on some of the grants that would enable them to transfer? Will he undertake as a matter of priority to make those grants available to skippers in the North sea fleet, as other European Union Ministers do? As he has now been in office for nearly four hours, is it not about time that he got something done about that?
    Mr. Baldry: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. I am well aware of the understandable

    503
    concerns of many fishing communities about their future. The hon. Gentleman's constituents are obviously trying to find out whether there are other opportunities out of traditional fishing waters. If he and some of the skippers from his constituency would like to discuss that with me, I would be interested to find out whether there are ways in which we can help further. It would be disingenuous to suggest that there are either undiscovered waters or undiscovered sources of funding in the European Union budget or our own funds which might give them substantial help, but I am certainly prepared to study every possible detail which might be of assistance to his constituents.
    Mr. Harris: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post and hope that he will not find it too painful a bed of nails. I also pay tribute to his predecessor. Has he had time to grasp the fundamental point that for any control mechanism to succeed it must be seen by our fishermen to be broadly fair in terms of the way they are treated compared with fishermen from other member states? In that respect, may I give him a little advice and suggest that he could make an excellent start by completely dropping any idea of implementing our unilateral days-at-sea restrictions, which the industry will never stand?
    Mr. Baldry: I think that the whole House would join my hon. Friend in his remarks about my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who did an enormous amount to assist the United Kingdom fishing industry. The House knows the considerable interest that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has in this matter. I hope that in the not too distant future I shall be able to visit his constituency and meet the fishermen with him to hear of their concerns at first hand. He can rest assured that we are taking enforcement of fisheries arrangements very seriously. Of course they have to be seen to be fair. Spanish fishing activity, for instance, will be monitored very closely when the new access arrangements take effect next year.
    On days at sea, as my hon. Friend knows, we have yet to hear from the European Court on that matter. When we do, we shall have to consider the judgment in the light of existing conditions—not least the fact that, since the idea was first mooted, the European Commission has introduced ceilings on effort in western waters. Clearly that has now to be taken into consideration.
    Mr. Macdonald: I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Minister. He mentioned Spanish access. Will he take an early look at the way in which the control regime on Spanish access will affect the inshore fleet around western waters? There is no Spanish access to the inshore fleet, so it would seem absurd to bring the inshore fleet into restrictions that are now being proposed to control both British and Spanish boats in western waters. I ask the Minister to take an early look at that and perhaps write to me about whether an exemption can be provided for boats which operate purely within the 12-mile limit, in inshore waters.
    Mr. Baldry: We must recognise that it was at the United Kingdom's insistence that both the coastal and flag states are to have a key role in monitoring the fishing activities of vessels permitted to fish in western waters. The European Commission has just published its proposals. We shall study those proposals carefully to
    504
    ensure that they are fully justified and that they are compatible with the commitment to minimise the burden falling on our industry, because obviously a balance must be struck between enforcement and minimising the burdens on industry.

    Animal Exports
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage the export of animals on the hook rather than on the hoof. [31167]
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts he is making to encourage the export of British meat rather than live farm animals. [31173]
    Mrs. Browning: I am glad to say that meat exports are well up in 1995 compared with 1994 and we are working with the Meat and Livestock Commission to open up new markets.
    Dr. Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Can she confirm that UK meat exports have almost doubled since 1991, and that that is the result of the very high quality of British beef? Can she also confirm that about 80 per cent. of exports today are on the hook, not on the hoof, and that we want to promote more exports on the hook? Will she avoid adopting the policies of the Labour party, which would bring about worse animal welfare for animals throughout Europe as a whole and would simply betray our farmers and our meat industry?
    Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Of the meat that is exported—£948 million worth per year—80 per cent. is on the hook. He is also right that if we had followed the advice of the Labour spokesmen and their Back-Bench colleagues—many of whom signed an early-day motion wanting to ban live animal exports completely—my right hon. Friend the then Minister would not have achieved the magnificent arrangement that he obtained in Brussels to ensure that animal welfare is improved throughout the Community.
    Mr. Congdon: Given the concern which exists in the country about the export of live animals, I very much welcome the previous Minister's endeavours in Brussels to obtain a good agreement which reduces journey times and improves the watering and feeding of animals. Can my hon. Friend assure me about the steps to be taken to ensure that the measures agreed will be properly enforced?
    Mrs. Browning: One of the strengths of the agreement achieved by my right hon. Friend was that those measures will be enforced throughout the Community and a licensing system will be introduced which will be policed throughout the Community. That can only benefit animals throughout the Community. That is what we sought to achieve; we were told by Labour Members that it was not possible, but it was and we did.
    Mr. Tyler: While welcoming the fact that the Minister is still there, I also welcome the fresh faces in the ministerial team. May I ask her to communicate to her colleagues the need for fresh priority to be given to the issue of animal welfare and animal disease? I invite her to comment on the changes that have taken place in the

    505
    European Community this week on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, which may threaten a significant sector of our livestock producers and pose an export problem generally.
    I also ask the Minister to consider the specific issue of bovine tuberculosis in which, as her answers to me this week show, there has been a deplorable increase in the past five years—a 481 per cent. increase in incidence in England as a whole and a 618 per cent. increase in the south-west. That is extremely damaging. Is that not a case of Ministry policy having failed, failed and failed again?
    Mrs. Browning: To deal with the last point first, I am very worried about the incidence of bovine tuberculosis. I only wish that hon. Members on both sides of the House would recognise that the cause of that is badgers. It is an emotive issue.
    I am very worried about the effect of bovine TB on the livelihoods of farmers, especially in the south-west. It is not only the costs of the animals that have to be slaughtered; it is the on-costs of maintaining the farm, with all that that implies. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he has my full attention on that matter and that I continue to look at it closely. On the first point that he raised, I assure him that I shall share with all new colleagues the concerns that he raised.
    Mr. Morley: I congratulate the Minister on his new post and welcome the new members of his team. We note that the Government have felt the need to reinforce their Front Bench against the Labour Front Bench on this issue. Nevertheless, we look forward to a full and frank exchange of views.
    On meat and live animal exports, the Minister will be aware of the opinion obtained by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the International Fund for Animal Welfare, (by Gerald Barling), QC, that the Government would be within their rights to stop the export of calves going into veal crates that are banned under our laws. Will the new team look again at that opinion, because although there have been some welcome small steps forward in animal welfare legislation, the new agreements will not stop even one calf leaving this country to go into a veal crate system which is banned in this country on the ground of cruelty?
    Mrs. Browning: My right hon. Friend the former Minister replied fully to the hon. Gentleman about the Barling advice on many occasions. Nothing has changed on that. As the hon. Gentleman was unable to support us on the animal transport issue, I ask him to support the substantial progress that we have made in seeking to ban veal crates throughout the Community. The argument is the same: it is not just what we do in this country, but the welfare of calves throughout the Community that matters. That is what we seek and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support it.
    Mr. Marland: Everybody wants as many animal exports to be on the hook as is humanly possible. Is the Minister aware, however, that there are three slaughterhouses in my constituency and that to my certain knowledge one of them has recently been inspected by the newly created Meat Hygiene Service? In that well-run business, the Meat Hygiene Service has apparently discovered more than 400 items for complaint, which has caused mayhem not only in the company but in the local community because the business employs nearly 100
    506
    people. That is no way to encourage home slaughtering. Will my hon. Friend undertake to keep a grip on the Meat Hygiene Service and to ensure that over-zealous inspections do not result in extra expense and difficulties for local businesses?
    Mrs. Browning: I am sure that my hon. Friend and all Members of the House support the need for high standards of hygiene in our slaughterhouses. However, I assure him that my grip on the Meat Hygiene Service is as tight as it possibly can be. If a business in my hon. Friend's constituency has a grievance, I invite him, with the owner's permission, to come along to MAFF and I will personally go through that list item by item.

    Torry Food Science Laboratory
    Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met trade union representatives from the Torry food science laboratory to discuss alternative proposals to closure. [31168]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Matters relating to staff management at the Central Science Laboratory are delegated to the chief executive, who has regular meetings with the trade union representatives. He informed the staff at Torry of my predecessor's intentions for the laboratory on 6 June 1995 and met staff and their representatives on 7 and 20 June.
    Mrs. Ewing: The Minister will be aware that his predecessor gave a clear commitment that the report from the task force headed by Professor Pennington was to be considered by all at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before a decision was reached. Will the Minister give us a clear assurance today that that commitment still stands? He will be well aware of the great concern in north-east Scotland about the future of the food science laboratory and its implications for the local economy as a whole.
    Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady is quite right. My right hon. Friend the then Minister, now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, did indeed give a commitment and I understand that the recommendations have come to the Ministry today, although I have not yet had an opportunity to read them. The proposals will be looked at before any final decision is taken.
    Mr. Hawkins: First, I join the congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend and his new Front-Bench colleagues. He is already aware of the importance of food science to the many food businesses in my constituency. Can he reassure me that there will be no reduction in the services provided by the Central Science Laboratory to the food industry right across the country?
    Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point to which the short answer is yes. I will expand slightly on that. When I was at the Department of Trade and Industry, I was often responsible for decisions which involved the co-location and relocation of specialist agencies. There are career enhancement advantages in building up quite large specialist facilities because that offers members of staff more assured career progress. While I understand why people are very reluctant to move, there are advantages to staff in terms of career enhancement.
    Dr. Strang: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment. It is a great challenge and I am sure that he will respond to it.

    507
    Is he aware that the Torry food science laboratory has an international reputation and that it would be an act of vandalism if the scientific teams responsible for that work were to be broken up? Undoubtedly, many of them will not move to York, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman fully accepts. Will he make a name for himself right at the start of his period of office by taking on board the alternative local plan to which he has referred and intervening to secure a long-term future for the research station?
    Mr. Hogg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and I look forward to exchanges across the Dispatch Box on many an occasion.
    The hon. Gentleman will keep in mind the reply that my predecessor gave on 6 June. I hope that it will be possible to transfer some of the jobs now at Torry to the Scottish Office marine laboratory. Whatever else happens, the science base, which is what matters, will be assured. That is really what the hon. Gentleman should address his attention to and I am able to give him an assurance on that point.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: I thank the Minister for confirming the promise given to me by his predecessor that the issue of the food science laboratory would be looked at again. Now that the task force report has been delivered to him, will he agree to meet Members of Parliament from the area and Professor Pennington and some members of the task force to review the report in detail, as it is most urgent that it receives proper consideration before any final decision is taken?
    Mr. Hogg: Certainly the report of the task force will be looked at before a final conclusion is reached. That commitment was given by my predecessor and it will be honoured. As to meeting hon. Members, perhaps I may say formally that it has always been my practice to respond quickly to requests from hon. Members for such meetings. That practice will be continued in the Ministry by me and by my ministerial colleagues.

    CAP Fraud
    Mr. Stevenson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of reported common agricultural policy fraud in the EU in 1994. [31169]
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of common agricultural policy fraud were identified in the United Kingdom in 1994. [31170]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: In 1994, there were 1,610 cases, valued at £313 million, of CAP irregularities, which include fraud, reported across the Community; 228 of these were United Kingdom cases with a value of £9 million.
    Mr. Stevenson: Does that answer not confirm that fraud is endemic in the CAP and increasing? Is the Minister aware that, despite Government protestations, the cost of reported fraud in the CAP for the first nine months of 1994 was £110 million more than for the whole of 1993? What specific proposals has the Minister to address this international scandal and will he at least ensure that CAP fraud gets on to the agenda of the 1996 intergovernmental conference?
    Mr. Hogg: I do not think, by the nature of things, that we can ever say how high the level of fraud is, but I accept that it is an important issue and needs to be tackled. The Government have been doing just that. The hon. Gentleman will know well the steps that we persuaded the Commission to take as a result of the Essen Council. The hon. Gentleman will know too that the policies that move support away from refunds on intervention and exports reduce the opportunities for fraud.
    The hon. Gentleman will also know the importance of pursuing a disallowance policy for Governments who do not have sufficiently tight enforcement regimes in place. All these things are part of this Government's policy and we have secured great agreement within the European Union on their implementation.
    Mr. Timms: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his new post. Given the alarming scale of CAP fraud, is it not remarkable that the Government do not use the full allocation made available to them through the CAP for tackling fraud? Is the Minister aware that the proportion of the available allocation that has been used by the Government fell from 81 per cent. in 1993 to 74 per cent. in 1994? Can the new Minister assure the House that he will give a high priority to tackling fraud and that he will ensure that the resources available are used to good effect?
    Mr. Hogg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. Yes, tackling fraud is important and I will certainly see how, within the Department, we can do that effectively. However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would wish to be fair to the British farming community by stressing that in all probability, the level of fraud within Britain is very much lower than the level of fraud elsewhere in the European Union.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his promotion. May I point out that what causes concern is not the level of reported fraud, but the level of unreported fraud? I welcome the emphasis that my right hon. and learned Friend put on the fact that the nation states in which most of the fraud occurs should be penalised. I also welcome his emphasis on getting rid of the policies that lead to fraud, such as export refunds.
    Mr. Hogg: It is always a pleasure to be congratulated by my hon. Friend. I am rather relieved that I am out of the reach of her handbag at this moment. My hon. Friend is correct and she has identified a number of the real points that we need to address. I can tell her that we will address them.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure not only that fraud is combated in this country, but that he will use his own offices and those of the European Union in Europe to ensure that national Governments enforce fraud observation in the other countries of the European Union?
    Mr. Hogg: Absolutely. Beneath my hon. and learned Friend's question is the important point that although we have a problem of fraud in the United Kingdom, it is—I would wager almost anything on this—infinitesimal in comparison with fraud elsewhere in the European Union.

    509
    That is why we have to work with the Governments of the other countries within the Union and in the Commission; and we will.
    Dr. Strang: The right hon. and learned Gentleman uses the word "infinitesimal". Is he aware that one of his predecessor's last acts was, in a written answer to me yesterday, to confirm that there have been serious irregularities involving the substitution and theft of beef going into United Kingdom intervention stores? Will he publicise all the information that his Ministry has on that? Will he tell us whether the United Kingdom taxpayer will have to pay a fine to Brussels and what sort of fine it might be? Does he accept that fraud is inherent in the market support mechanisms of the CAP? If we want to stop it, we need to end intervention buying and the subsidy of agricultural exports.
    Mr. Hogg: As to the latter point, the hon. Gentleman is simply reinforcing a point that I made in reply to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). As to the level of fraud in this country compared with the level of fraud elsewhere, the hon. Gentleman will know that throughout the European Union in 1994, there were 1,610 irregularities—I gave the figure earlier—which were worth £313.2 million. In the United Kingdom in the same period, there were 228 irregularities worth £8.5 million. That is why I said that it was a very small part of the whole.

    Fisheries Regulations
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if United Kingdom fishermen will be able to continue to fish as at present under the proposed regulations for the western waters applicable from 1 January 1996. [31171]
    Mr. Baldry: Her Majesty's Government have negotiated arrangements that will enable current fishing opportunities to continue to be exploited.
    Mr. Couchman: Given the importance of enforcement to our fishermen, can my hon. Friend say what resources have been made available for that purpose by the Government?
    Mr. Baldry: We spend a substantial amount on fisheries enforcement—some £25 million a year, including some £19 million a year on enforcement at sea and aerial surveillance. United Kingdom fisheries protection vessels spend more than 3,000 days a year on patrol and undertake some 5,000 inspections of vessels from all member states and third countries fishing in our waters, because we are determined to ensure that the fisheries regime is enforced firmly and fairly throughout our waters.
    Mr. Salmond: Will the new Fisheries Minister consult Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food files and see whether there is any evidence in any fishery internationally of a precedent for effective supervision and control of the Spanish deep-water fleet? If he finds no such precedent, will he then conclude that, as Fisheries Minister, it is his duty to recommend that there might well be some aspects of the common fisheries policy that would be suitable for revision at the intergovernmental conference?
    Mr. Baldry: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will ensure that every fleet is properly enforced,
    510
    whether it be Spanish or any other fleet. The fisheries regime around our waters will be firmly and fairly enforced.

    Arable Area Payments
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the minimum size of farm which can apply for an arable area payment under the common agricultural policy. [31174]
    Mr. Baldry: There is a minimum area on which the farmer can apply for arable area payments—0.3 hectares.
    Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that is under an acre of land, and that in some countries, such as Germany, because their normal farming methods differ from ours, a large number of people have plots that are really just weekend hobby plots, for which they draw subsidies paid for by our housewives in higher food prices—some £28 a week extra? Will he confirm that allotment holders in Britain would do better to apply for one of these subsidies rather than go on digging over their ground, and that it would be cheaper for them to buy their vegetables in Sainsbury's?
    Mr. Baldry: The Government succeeded in removing most of the discrimination against large, efficient farmers, which Ray MacSharry proposed, when the CAP was last reformed. I agree that the best way to prevent discrimination is to have a market-led CAP that is not dependent on distorting subsidies. That would enable the efficient farmers to flourish at the expense of the inefficient. Where particular rural areas need special treatment for social reasons, those reasons should be addressed by appropriate social policies, not farm policy.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that some farmers, particularly small fanners, whose applications for assistance are late can lose a substantial amount of ground? Will he consider some mechanism of appeal or some greater degree of flexibility so that their applications can be considered? There is a case in my constituency where the application was just one working day late, and the farmer lost some £4,000 or £5,000. Is that not unfair? Could we have some degree of flexibility when considering this?
    Mr. Baldry: There are very clear rules, and I think that farmers recognise that they have to abide by them. I suspect that what fanners are concerned about when it comes to the CAP is the suggestion by the Labour party that it will undermine the CAP regime. Opposition Members might pay attention to the former Scottish National Farmers Union president, John Cameron—Europe's biggest sheep farmer, with several hill units in Perthshire—who observed:
    "Without subsidies—
    which the Labour party is threatening to undermine—
    "there would be no farming and no farm workers in the hills … The present system maintains rural populations".
    That is what the Labour party would seek to undermine through its proposals.

    Animal Exports
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent meetings he has had with

    511
    other EU Ministers regarding animal exports; and if he will make a statement. [31176]
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: My predecessor reported the outcome of the latest meeting of the Agriculture Council in an oral statement to the House on 22 June. At that meeting the Council reached agreement on a comprehensive framework of law covering the welfare of animals transported throughout the European Community.
    Mr. Skinner: The Minister will not be surprised to learn that I will not be congratulating him on his—[Interruption.]—sideways move. I do not think that his father would have been all that impressed. In the Earl of Warwick's Government, the lion king—[Interruption.]Is the Minister aware that at that last meeting the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was whining and whingeing about the fact that he had been up all night, penned in, negotiating for several hours and that at the end of it, the Council decided to force sheep and cattle to travel for 31 hours? How would this Hogg like to be penned up for 31 hours?
    Mr. Hogg: Well, for the past five and a half years I have been answering questions of a fairly statesmanlike character. I now go back, I see, to the cockpit. I am bound to say that, with a name like Hogg, it is rather an apt appointment. As regards my right hon. Friend's statement in June, he secured an extraordinarily good agreement. Of course, it is only the first step and we will do more, but it is extraordinarily curmudgeonly of the hon. Gentleman not to give credit where credit is due.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 July. [31188]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. McGrady: After the Prime Minister's success in his little local difficulty, congratulations would normally be in order, if it were not for the very great disadvantage caused to the communities of Northern Ireland by the introduction of the Clegg factor and the damage that it has done to the peace process. However, in the aftermath of that, could I ask the Prime Minister now to devote himself wholly to the pursuit of the cause of peace in Ireland, in view of the increasingly volatile situation there? Will he consider the appointment of an independent international arbitrator or negotiator to break the current logjam, rather than rely on his Northern Ireland ministerial colleagues, who have many departmental and other ministerial duties to attend to? There is a precedent for that in the inter-party talks.
    The Prime Minister: I am looking at ways of breaking the logjam, but I do not think that it would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I were to discuss those this afternoon. I remain as committed to proceeding with the peace process in Northern Ireland as I have been since the moment I walked into Downing street. A great deal of
    512
    progress has been made. It is crucially important that that progress is sustained. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, and all hon. Members from Northern Ireland, will join me in that search. I know that it is what they wish for and I am absolutely certain that it is what their constituents most wish to see.
    Mr. Redwood: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his win? May I assure him that, like him, I wish to see a Conservative election victory? Would he agree with me that some of the ideas and policies that I set out in the past two weeks could make an important contribution to that victory?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words. I hope that he will agree with me that we had a fair contest last week. I am grateful both for the way in which he has spoken this afternoon and for the way in which he conceded the result of the election. Let me say to my right hon. Friend that there is a great deal that the Government will be doing in the months ahead which I know that he will wish to support enthusiastically. I will welcome his support, as will all my colleagues.
    Mr. Blair: I offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister on his re-election with, I suspect, rather more sincerity than the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and, of course, I also congratulate him on his new deputy.
    Last year, the Prime Minister gave what he called a cast-iron commitment to nursery education for all four-year-olds. Is that still the case?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I think that he congratulates me in the same spirit that Mr. Neil Kinnock did on one occasion. I am equally grateful and I look forward to the same result at the subsequent general election.
    I confirm that, on a phased basis, I look for the introduction of nursery education for all four-year-olds and my right hon. Friend will announce this afternoon our plans and the phasing.
    Madam Speaker: Mr. Peter Luff.
    Mr. Blair rose—
    Madam Speaker: I am sorry. Mr. Blair.
    Mr. Blair: I know, Madam Speaker, that rather a lot has been going on on the Government Benches recently, so it is perfectly understandable.
    If that is the Prime Minister's commitment, and we know that 90 per cent. of four-year-olds get pre-school education at present—indeed, the majority of those get it free in the public sector now—can he guarantee to make good his commitment, first, that he will provide the extra places that are necessary but, secondly, that nobody who now gets and qualifies for free public sector education will be forced to go private and top up the voucher?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find the answers to his questions very satisfactory and that he will find them very speedily. It is perfectly clear from events a moment or so ago that not

    513
    only is the right hon. Gentleman following most of our policies but it would seem that he may actually have joined the Conservative Benches.
    Mr. Blair: It is Labour local authorities that have provided nursery education.
    Never mind the Prime Minister telling us to wait for his right hon. Friend—this is his idea; his scheme. Can he give those guarantees or not? If not, many people will think that this is a con trick, not a genuine scheme for nursery education. Would not it at least be better to consider whether we could not obtain better value for money spending these hundreds of millions of pounds improving present provision for four-year-olds and bringing within the system three-year-olds who are shut out of the Prime Minister's scheme altogether?
    The Prime Minister: No, the right hon. Gentleman will see that what we are proposing this afternoon will meet the points that he has in mind and meet them better than he could. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of choice in education since he exercises it. We said that we would deliver pre-school education for all four-year-old children and this afternoon he will see that we will meet that policy. The parents of all four-year-olds will be given a voucher for pre-school education in the state, private or voluntary sectors, and we will put that purchasing power where it belongs. I had thought that the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of exercising rights of choice. We will see this afternoon whether that is true.
    Madam Speaker: Now we will have Mr. Peter Luff.
    Mr. Luff: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Everything comes to he who waits.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that a policy of withdrawal from the European Union, or a policy of immediate acquiescence in every idea that emerges from the Commission, no matter how damaging to the nation's interests, would both be acts of political and economic folly? Does it surprise my right hon. Friend in the slightest that the Leader of the Opposition has espoused both such policies?
    The Prime Minister: I shall spare the Leader of the Opposition the quotes that I have used often enough in the House to indicate his changing view on Europe, from espousing withdrawal behind closed doors in 1983, to announcing subsequently that he had changed his mind, and then to wholehearted support for everything that happens in Europe without any reference to the British national interest. It is fudge, mudge and split the difference on every aspect of that policy. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand the difference between competitiveness and the social chapter and between national interest and a national veto. He will learn if he stays as Leader of the Opposition—if he stays as Leader of the Opposition. I doubt that he will because after the election I look forward to addressing his successor while I stand here as Prime Minister.
    Mr. Ashdown: Why does the Prime Minister not realise that vouchers that only partly fund pre-school education are bound to be of more value to those who can pay the difference than to the poor whose children need help most? Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman put the
    514
    whole nation first, he would put universal access to high-quality pre-school education for all before Conservative tax cuts at the next election.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman really ought not to be so silly. We are placing a substantial sum in the hands of parents so that they can make a choice of nursery school education for their children. Now we know the Liberal party's position: no choice at all for parents. I do not know what happened to the Liberal party's old philosophy, but gone it completely has. If people want choice—if they want universal nursery education—they will get it from the Government, and from no one else.
    Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the appropriate tenure of a Conservative Prime Minister is not four and a half years involving one general election victory, but at least 11 years involving at least three general election victories?
    The Prime Minister: There is certainly an honourable precedent to that effect, and I shall seek to follow it.
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 July. [31189]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister welcome the strong support that Lord Justice Taylor gave Sir Richard Scott at the distinguished Lord Mayor's dinner last night? Will he, too, give his strong support to Sir Richard?
    The Prime Minister: I gave Sir Richard my support when I appointed him to head the inquiry.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware not only that the courageous decisions that he has made in the past week were wholly and absolutely justified, but that his Government are faced with the most inexperienced and fatuous Opposition whom I have seen in all the 31 years for which I have been in Parliament? Furthermore, I do not want a job.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has been examining Labour Oppositions for many years, and I have no doubt that what he says is entirely right. After the next election, he will have an opportunity to study another Labour Opposition.
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 July. [31190]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Prime Minister not appalled by the ungrateful treatment being handed out to the constituents of Basildon? Tory Members are reported to be seeking new seats and abandoning their loyal Tory voters in Eltham, Loughborough and, yes, even Basildon. Is the Prime Minister's advice to all his hon. Friends with majorities of less than 18,000, "Retreat now: abandon your voters, because it is 'No change, no chance'"?
    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall hearing rather arrogant remarks like that before the last general election.

    515
    I seem to recall hearing rather a lot of them. Yet those who behaved in such an arrogant fashion long before the election are still sitting on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern felt by so many of our constituents that the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights have a tendency to encroach far too much into areas that are properly within the sovereign authority of this Parliament and that if those institutions are to maintain the respect of the British people, they must exercise more self-restraint in future?
    The Prime Minister: As I indicated to the House when I reported on the Cannes summit a week or so ago, there are areas where the European Court of Justice ought not to tread, and it was on that basis that I refused to allow it to have any jurisdiction whatsoever over the Europol convention, which I agreed with our partners in Europe at the Cannes summit. I believe that because it touches on sensitive matters that are rightly the prerogative of the British courts and no other, and on that point the Government's policy will remain as it is.
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 6 July. [31191]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Ainger: Given the description by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) of the Prime Minister's leadership style as uncertainty based on indecision, is it the new job of the Deputy Prime Minister now to take the decisions, or has the Prime Minister not decided yet?
    The Prime Minister: In elections—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman invites me to quote what was said during the Labour leadership election. There is often rough invective during elections. As the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) said during the last Labour leadership election:
    "It would have been easier to pull out their teeth than to have received straight answers to my questions."
    The right hon. Gentleman the present leader
    "enclosed 30 copies of his 20-page leadership election statement, which he said would answer most of my questions. On the most generous assessment, he touched on only ten of the questions",
    and from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)
    "there was no reply whatsoever."

Pre-school Education
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about pre-school education.
In October last year, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a commitment to provide a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents want to take it up. The places would be of good quality, reflect parental preferences, and not crowd out the private and voluntary sectors. He said that the first places would become available in the lifetime of the present Parliament. I can now tell the House how all four-year-olds will be enabled to have a pre-school place for three terms before compulsory school age. Copies of this statement will be available from the Vote Office.
Many parents do excellent work with their children at home, but the United Kingdom also has a long history of pre-school education: in state schools, in private establishments, and in a lively and vigorous voluntary sector led by playgroups. We want to build on that strength in diversity.
My plans will extend the entitlement to pre-school education to three terms for all four-year-olds. Some children already have that. My intention is to give that choice to the parents of all four-year-olds.
Parents know that good-quality pre-school education yields dividends in later educational life, but parents and their children have widely varying needs. Parents—better than Governments or councils—can judge which type of place suits them and their children best. That is why the plans that I am announcing today put power where it best belongs—in the hands of parents.
I intend that the parents of all four-year-olds should be given a voucher worth around £1,100 that they can exchange for pre-school education. The voucher will be exchangeable for: a part-time place—five half days a week—in any independent, voluntary or state sector institution, whether grant-maintained or LEA, providing nursery education; or a full-time place in a reception class in a state school where this is on offer; or up to a full-time place in a playgroup; or a combination of those.
Parents will be free to top up the voucher in the private and voluntary sectors, but not in state schools, where all education will continue to be financed by the taxpayer. Local education authorities and grant-maintained schools will be able to spend more than the value of the voucher on four-year-olds in their schools if they wish.
I fully expect that giving parents purchasing power through a voucher will stimulate the private and voluntary sectors to provide new places. I am sure that innovative partnerships between the public and private sectors—perhaps led by the private sector—will emerge where none existed before, to satisfy the range of parental demand. This will add to choice and diversity in pre-school places.
I intend the issue and redemption of vouchers to be undertaken by a private sector company under contract.
I should emphasise that these plans relate to pre-school education for four-year-olds alone. There are no plans to alter the funding mechanisms for the compulsory years of school.
518
In England, the total cost of pre-school education vouchers for four-year-olds will be about £730 million. The vouchers will be funded by a combination of some £165 million of new money for places for those 150,000 or so four-year-olds not already in some form of place in the state sector in England, and recouping some of the money local authorities already spend on pre-school places. Local authorities will continue to be able to provide full-time nursery school and nursery class places.
To ensure that the places are of good quality, I shall require each institution which wants to exchange vouchers to make a commitment to offer education appropriate to a set of desirable achievements for children's learning—including, for example, the areas of language, mathematics, art, and working with others.
I have today asked the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority to consult and advise on the detail of what those achievements should be, and whether one can or should set out the activities likely to lead to such achievements. I do not wish to impose uniformity, but I must be satisfied that the vouchers—which are, of course, taxpayers' money—are being exchanged for education.
I also propose a light-touch inspection framework to ensure that standards are maintained. Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, I shall consult on the detail of an inspection framework which ensures as consistent an approach as possible across all establishments, taking account of the existing role of Ofsted, and of the local social services departments in establishments registered under the Children Act 1989.
We will also take into account existing registration and accreditation systems in the independent and voluntary sectors. In the spirit of the Government's commitment to deregulation, we shall also examine the case for revisiting existing requirements on child-adult ratios, premises and equipment and planning.
In the same spirit, I have it in mind to remove the requirement to publish statutory proposals to establish nursery places at grant-maintained and local authority schools. All those with an interest in pre-school education are being invited today to give their views. I shall produce a more detailed document in the autumn. Some of these changes will require legislation, and plans will be brought forward in due course after listening to views.
I intend that the policy should start in some areas in England as soon as April 1996. I estimate that about 150,000 four-year-olds in England do not have a pre-school place in the state sector. In the first phase, I intend to cover areas which account for up to 10 per cent. of those new places. Those areas will also cover a proportion of existing places.
I shall invite local councils to volunteer their areas for this first phase, and I aim to choose areas which are representative of the country as a whole. It will be for the independent, voluntary and state sectors in the chosen areas to offer new places to parents in exchange for their vouchers.
My right hon. Friends responsible for Scotland and Wales, and right hon. and learned Friend with responsibility for Northern Ireland and I intend that we shall have full kingdom-wide coverage a year later. My right hon. Friends and my right hon. and learned Friend will make separate announcements in due course.
The changes that I have just announced are a radical new departure. Giving parents vouchers that can be exchanged for three terms of good-quality pre-school

519
education for all four-year-olds is a significant step forward. My proposals demonstrate that what we promise, we deliver. They will widen opportunity for many families, without taking away anything that parents and their children enjoy now. More children will benefit from pre-school education. Purchasing power in the hands of parents will stimulate a market in the supply of places that parents want. Above all, parents will have real choice.
Mr. David Blunkett: My congratulations to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on holding and expanding her brief. After Prime Minister's questions, she will probably call for a recount.
This proposal is a con trick on children and on parents. It is an experiment in offering a paper promise without providing a single extra place in a nursery class in this country. In a single move, the Secretary of State has created a new bureaucracy—perhaps this afternoon, she will tell us how much the new quango will cost. How much will the administration of the scheme involve? Why is £545 million to be recycled from local authorities supposedly back to local authorities? We understand that the transaction costs are well over £10 million.
Does not the Secretary of State agree that such an internal market, reminiscent of what happened in the national health service, creates the same transaction costs that have bedevilled the provision of health service and will now bedevil the provision of nursery education and care for children under five? Does the right hon. Lady agree that her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has redefined nursery education so that it no longer has to include education?
This afternoon, the right hon. Lady announced that the voucher would be available for everyone, whether in a nursery class, a reception class or voluntary or private provision. [Interruption.] Given that Conservative Members are shouting, "No," will the Secretary of State tell me whether vouchers will be redeemable in private day nursery provision that does not provide education on the premises, and, where it does, which part of the provision will be eligible for the subsidy? How many people will be eligible for that public subsidy who are currently not receiving state education provision?
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that 500,000 children aged four are currently in either a nursery or a pre-school place in an infants school?
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): A very good record.
Mr. Blunkett: A very good record, by Labour authorities across the country. Until we wiped out Tory authorities in May, children stood three times the chance of getting a nursery place in a Labour authority as in a Tory authority.
Instead of spending money directly on meeting the needs of those children who do not currently have nursery places, has not the Secretary of State capitulated to an ideological experiment in creating an artificial market that would exist only in circumstances where private providers are prepared to come forward and compete with the public sector? Is not recycling £545 million the most disgraceful way imaginable of using public money?
Will the right hon. Lady confirm what she said on 19 October last year, when she showed that she understood and agreed with the point that I have just made? I ask her to agree or disagree. She said:
520
"The machinery must not be allowed to overshadow the policy. We are very conscious of the unwieldy nature of vouchers."
Has she not this afternoon revealed that she has been overruled and ruled out once again in her arguments with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office and with the right wing of her party, who have never been in favour of nursery education and are prepared to sacrifice the education of four-year-olds on the dogma of creating a new internal market?
Does not this statement also spell the end of quality standards? Did the right hon. Lady not say—perhaps she would clarify what she meant—that she was going to "revisit" the issue of pupil-teacher ratios for nursery education with a view to diluting them? Is this not an abandonment of years of struggle to get high-quality nursery education to provide standards, achievement and opportunity for all children for the future? Does that not contrast with our clear pledge to set targets for all three-year-olds as well as four-year-olds to have properly and appropriately provided nursery education, openly and freely provided without bureaucracy?
Is this not a disgraceful day, on which the Secretary of State has capitulated to her opponents, and her credentials as an Education Secretary who cares have been desperately tarnished in her desire to placate the right wing? Is it not a disgrace that the many have been sacrificed for the few—the few who will be subsidised at the expense of everyone else?
Mrs. Shephard: I thank the hon. Gentleman for beginning with congratulations. It is unfortunate that he did not listen to a word of the statement. He was obviously concentrating on something that he had prepared earlier. In answering some of his questions, I shall begin with those on quality.
He clearly did not hear me say that I am today asking the SCAA to consult and advise on the outcomes or achievements that we should expect from three terms of pre-school education. It will publish a draft consultation document early in September, with a view to publication in December. I have asked that particular attention be given to the development of early literacy and numeracy, and other abilities—social, physical, moral, spiritual, scientific and technological. Each provider will receive an early educationally related inspection visit in order to be given permission to be registered to receive vouchers.
This afternoon, the hon. Gentleman might like to know, I have discussed those quality proposals with representatives of the teachers' unions, who are well satisfied. I am sorry that he has shown yet again that he is fixated on providers and not consumers. He has also not taken in the fact that we shall examine the way in which the whole system works in phase 1.
It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has been so ungracious in his reception of what is a real extension of educational opportunity for all four-year-olds: an entitlement to three terms of pre-school education of good quality, with choice for parents, and with a substantial injection of new public money.
However, I know that the hon. Gentleman's attitude is time-limited. Let us not forget that he and his colleagues bitterly opposed the introduction of the national curriculum, testing for seven, 11 and 14-year-olds, the Ofsted inspection system and grant-maintained schools, only to perform U-turns on all of them, and latterly to try to claim credit for themselves.

521
We know that the hon. Gentleman's opposition today will melt away when he and his colleagues perceive that parents welcome this extension of choice for their children, that providers, including local authorities, will respond to the innovative challenge, and, most importantly of all, that children and their education will benefit. How long will the U-turn take to appear? Who can say—but appear it will.
Mr. James Pawsey: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on assuming new responsibilities for learning and training. Conservative Members certainly welcome her announcement? We believe that the idea of placing in the hands of parents an additional £1,100 that they can spend on their child's pre-school education will be widely welcomed, despite the carping and ill-informed criticism by the Opposition. We look forward to April next year when the first phase will begin.
Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations and for his welcome of the new policy. Parents will indeed widely welcome the new opportunity to exercise choice in respect of their children's education.
Mr. Don Foster: The Secretary of State talked about quality, but why did she say nothing about the qualifications of the people who will be responsible for delivering high-quality early years provision? Will she also confirm that the administration cost for each voucher will be about £16, and that there will be no new money for new buildings or new equipment, or for the training of the new teachers that will be required? Will she not admit that the proposal is a con trick perpetrated by the Conservative party to deliver votes for the next election, at the expense of pupils' education?
Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman raises the important question of qualifications. We shall not impose new rules at this stage, because a wide range of qualifications are currently held by those who work with the under-fives—nursery nurse qualifications, accreditation through playgroups and, importantly, a growing number of national vocational qualifications—[HON. MEMBERS: "Teachers?"]—and not forgetting teachers, either.
Level 2 and 3 child care and education NVQs will be reviewed this autumn, followed up by further work on a possible level 4. The Teacher Training Agency will have representatives on the steering group for the review, and full account will be taken of the new policy in the work on teacher training.
I am confident that a combination of inspection and parental preference will encourage high-quality provision, but it is important to note that each provider will be required to publish details of the number of staff, the qualifications they hold and the proposed activities, premises and equipment. Each provider will have to provide certain outcomes based on activities that will be defined by the SCAA, so I think that the question of qualifications can be left for the time being.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, provided we invest sufficiently and find effective means to insist on quality, her policy will prove of immense benefit to children and
522
parents—and, in due course, to employers and the taxpayer? Will the value of the vouchers be taxable, and will it be disregarded for the purposes of income support and family credit?
Mrs. Shephard: The voucher will not be taxable.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that, on 19 November 1993, I presented a petition signed by more than 106,000 people asking for genuine nursery education? Does she not agree that, unless she maintains the present statutory definitions of premises and of qualifications for teachers, she will give an equal subsidy to existing genuine nursery education and to playgroups of a lesser type?
Will that not destabilise and undermine our whole nursery school provision, which has been built up over 60 years, thus prejudicing 4,000 families in Newham who now depend upon it? Does she realise that her statement did not deliver on the promise made by one of her predecessors, Baroness Thatcher, who issued a White Paper in the 1970s?
Mrs. Shephard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. I believe, and I am certain that professionals will agree, that the safeguards put in place for quality, and what I have already said about qualifications, will certainly deliver an excellent standard of pre-school education.
Sir Alan Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many grant-maintained primary schools are flourishing in their new status and are seeking to expand into the field of nursery education? What impact will my right hon. Friend's statement today have on them?
Mrs. Shephard: Grant-maintained schools will have the same opportunities as LEA schools, and a grant-maintained school which does not at present cater for four-year-olds but which wants to attract voucher holders will no longer have to publish statutory proposals for a change in character to extend its age range. My hon. Friend will know that the grant-maintained sector was encouraged by the fact that we were recently able to approve eight proposals for nursery classes in grant-maintained schools.
Mr. Greville Janner: May I join in the congratulations to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment? Today is my 40th wedding anniversary, and I offer her my warm personal greetings.
Should not the Secretary of State also make a statement about the abolition of the sole Department that looks after the interests of unemployed people, which is now to be absorbed—at least in part—in her Department? Is she proposing to make such a statement? If so, when? If she is not proposing to make such a statement, who will—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman may have been married for 40 years, but he has been in the House for many years as well, and should know that he is not questioning the Secretary of State's statement. I understand his interest in the other matter, and if he saves himself, he might be lucky enough to catch my eye on his 40th wedding anniversary and put a question to the Leader of the House. But I cannot ask the Secretary of State to respond to his questions, as they do not deal with the statement.
Mr. Janner rose—
Madam Speaker: I am sorry, but the hon. and learned Gentleman is quite out of order.
Mr. Graham Riddick: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her new responsibilities, and also on introducing the voucher scheme to extend choice to parents and give new opportunities to children? Should she not pay tribute to the ideas of people on the right of the political spectrum for what she has described as a radical new departure? May I express the hope that the Government, who have enjoyed something of a renewal this week, will continue to embrace ideas from such people in future?
Mrs. Shephard: I wonder if it is my hon. Friend's wedding anniversary. I was sorry to be denied the opportunity to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who looks as if he has been celebrating his 40th wedding anniversary.
I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations, and I am glad that he is interested in and approves of the proposals. Many groups were involved in forming the proposals, and one of our principal concerns was to make sure that this innovative approach would work smoothly and well. That is the reason for introducing the scheme in two phases. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to be certain that the practical details, as well as the ideas underlying them, are all in order.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Presuming that the pilot scheme is the first phase and that the cost of that first phase amounts to some 10 per cent. of the total, as the Secretary of State has said, will the total net cost to the Exchequer of the proposal until the next general election be £16 million?
Mrs. Shephard: No. We think that the general election will be further away than that. The total cost of the scheme is £730 million, taking into account the money available from LEAs. The new money available in total is £185 million, and all stages will be in place by April 1997.
Lady Olga Maitland: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her promotion, which will undoubtedly be widely welcomed by parents? Does she agree that LEAs which do not take advantage of this excellent scheme and put in a bid for it will be denying parents choice and diversity? Should not questions be asked of such LEAs, as to whether they are putting politics before children's interests?
Mrs. Shephard: I hope that many local education authorities will offer to take part in phase 1. Indeed, judging from my discussions with education professionals this afternoon, I think that many will find themselves under pressure to do so.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: Will the Secretary of State admit that this statement merely amounts to an undermining of state provision in local authorities such as Knowsley, which has shown its commitment to pre-school education by spending scarce resources and building up an excellent system in the state schools? It is not a question of considering the interests of the provider.
524
The scheme penalises consumers in my constituency, who will not be able to top up the £1,000. Will she come clean and admit that it is a bribe in the back pockets of disgruntled ex-Tory voters, who are already spending their money on pre-school education in the private sector?
Mrs. Shephard: No, I do not accept that. Perhaps I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by telling him that all local authorities will continue to be funded for the under-fives whom they are educating. If they continue to educate the same number, they will receive the same amount of funding. If, as a result of parental choice being exercised—I imagine that the hon. Gentleman is inimical to that at the moment—they increase the numbers being educated, the places will be funded from vouchers. This will give more opportunity and choice to his constituents—what a pity that he is condemning it in advance.
Mr. David Lidington: As the father of two pre-school-age children, may I tell my right hon. Friend from the heart that her statement will be warmly welcomed by parents throughout the country? Will she confirm that, during the summer, she will consult all interested parties to ensure that any difficulties over implementation can be identified and ironed out in advance, so that, when phase 1 of the scheme comes into operation next year, it will deliver smoothly the good-quality pre-school education that she outlined to the House today?
Mrs. Shephard: The consultation starts today. In any case, the work that has resulted in this statement is based on a great deal of consultation and discussion with all the parties involved. There will be a very thorough examination of all the issues involved, and I can assure my hon. Friend that good-quality places will be available for his children when they are ready.
Ms Estelle Morris: The Secretary of State will be aware that, in some areas of our country—especially on new, large estates—there are insufficient nursery places for every four-year-old. Will she be providing any new capital money to secure more places? May I be the third Opposition Member to ask how much money she has allocated for administration of the voucher scheme, and can I be the first to get an answer?
Mrs. Shephard: I have given the answer. I said that we expect the administration costs to be 1.5 per cent. of the total, but that may well be pushed downwards by competitive tender.
On capital costs, local education authorities have access to capital, we expect grant-maintained schools to have access to private finance, and other providers will be able to borrow capital for premises against the value of voucher income, or, alternatively—certainly in the setting the hon. Lady described—interesting new partnerships between local education authority and independent, LEA and playgroups and so forth might well be created. I hope that the hon. Lady, who knows a lot about these matters, will welcome the formation of such partnerships in the interests of children and their parents.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that anyone who is genuinely interested in expanding nursery education provision will be thankful to her and the Prime Minister for carrying this plan forward? On both sides of the House, however, there is shared

525
concern about the quality of the educational content. I must ask my right hon. Friend for a reassurance on that matter, because of the mention in her opening statement of the availability of these vouchers for use in playschools, which do not have the educational content or the ability to deliver it.
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I repeat again that today I asked the SCAA to consult and advise on the activities and outcomes that we expect providers to put in place if they are to qualify for registration under the voucher scheme.
I have to tell my hon. Friend that the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which is what the playgroup organisation is now called, is extremely enthusiastic about the educational opportunities that the new scheme offers it. For several years, it has been gearing up the educational input in what is provided in playgroups. Indeed, many places provide all-day activity with an educational content.
I am sure that the Pre-School Learning Alliance will make proposals to provide a playgroup setting with the quality education content that it will have to include if those places are to qualify to receive vouchers under the scheme. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
Mr. John Fraser: May I assure the right hon. Lady that, in my constituency, the cost of a half-day nursery place is substantially in excess of £1,100 a year? Does not her announcement therefore open up the prospect that there will be parts of the country where people can take advantage of the scheme only where they can top up, and other parts of the country, where free school places are provided, where people can take full advantage of the scheme? Will not that divisiveness get worse as the right hon. Lady withdraws money from local education authorities, leaving more people to rely on top-ups?
Mrs. Shephard: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. There may indeed be a need to reflect in the value of the voucher regional variations in the cost of providing a place, and we shall examine that during phase 1.
Mr. Eric Pickles: When my right hon. Friend prepared her statement, did she consult the "Conservative Campaign Guide"? If she did, did she notice a figure of 90 per cent., so approvingly quoted by the Leader of the Opposition? Is she aware that, until this afternoon, that figure has always been hotly disputed by the Labour party? Does she agree that what the Leader of the Labour party quotes from the "Conservative Campaign Guide" today will be the Labour party's policy tomorrow?
Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. We did all notice that little inconsistency, but there is another little inconsistency—parental choice seems to be okay for some but not for others.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The right hon. Lady says that she would never extend a voucher system into the compulsory years of education—but then she comes, to use her own words, from the "hard centre" of Tory politics. What about Scotland and Wales, which were tossed aside as consolation prizes to the right wing
526
in the Prime Minister's reshuffle? Can the right hon. Lady guarantee that the new Secretary of State for Scotland will not extend the voucher scheme into the compulsory years of education, as that is one of the many barmpot ideas that he has espoused in the not-so-distant past?
Mrs. Shephard: What a customarily gracious contribution from the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will be interested in what is planned for Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is setting in motion immediately discussions with providers in the voluntary, private and public sectors about how best a voucher scheme might work in Scotland. His aim is to put in place arrangements that meet the distinctive needs and circumstances of Scotland's education system and to make a further announcement in the autumn.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on that admirable achievement? [HON. MEMBERS: "What achievement?"] Achieving the scheme. Will she accept from me that vouchers will give parents maximum opportunity to choose, and that education that is chosen by parents is the most effective, because they are behind the children wherever they take them or send them?
On costs, bearing in mind what my right hon. Friend has said about the possibility of nursery education costing much less to provide in, say, deepest Scotland or deepest Wales, than it does in Ealing or other parts of London, will the voucher that she provides start at £1,100 and be topped up, or will it be less than £1,100 in regions where nursery education is much cheaper than it is in London? May we have an answer for guidance for my constituents?
Mrs. Shephard: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the extension of parental choice. I repeat what I said to Opposition Members: that, because of regional differences in costs, we may need to look at a regional variation in the value of the voucher. We shall examine that matter in phase 1. I hope that that reply reassures my hon. Friend.
Mr. John McWilliam: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is now some confusion over her figures? She said that the cost will be about 1.5 per cent. Is that a percentage of the £730 million, which works out at about £100 million? [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] I am sorry—about £1.5 million. It is obvious that, given the number of figures that the Secretary of State has thrown around, it is difficult to get a grip on them.
Let us use some accurate figures. The right hon. Lady said that, of the £730 million, £165 million is new money. That is to be welcomed. However, that leaves £565 million. At the last count, two thirds of the money being spent was spent by Labour local authorities. Is that sum to be redistributed among all local authorities? If so, how can she assert that the net result in excellent councils like Gateshead, which makes good provision, will not be a reduction in the overall real money available for pre-school education?
Mrs. Shephard: I thought that I had already reassured hon. Members about the position of local authorities that currently provide pre-school education. They will not lose money, and may well gain it, if, as a result of parental choice, parents choose a place in an LEA setting. The figures are simple: £545 million is currently with LEAs;

527
£165 million will be new money for places; and £20 million will be for inspection and a little bit of administration. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes away and learns about percentages.
Mr. Richard Tracey: I applaud my right hon. Friend on this cost-efficient-sounding initiative. Does she agree with many people that there is even more scope for improvement in primary education? Will she underline her guarantee that no resources will be lost to primary education as a result of this initiative, and will she fight the Treasury for even more resources for that area?
Mrs. Shephard: I assure my hon. Friend that the sums that I spoke of are new money for this initiative. He will agree that good-quality pre-school education makes a good contribution to primary education.
Mr. Roy Beggs: I congratulate the Secretary of State, and welcome today's announcement of her commitment to provide nursery education for all four-year-olds throughout the United Kingdom, although I regret that we in Northern Ireland will have to wait for another year.
When discussing provision in Northern Ireland with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, will she draw his attention to the fact that the main provision in Northern Ireland is state provision, and that, for all four-year-olds to benefit equally, he would need to look at the possibility of providing capital funding to area boards to ensure that there was inclusive provision for all four-year-olds?
Mrs. Shephard: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will bring forward proposals in due course. Of course, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to his attention.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I warmly welcome what I am sure will be an increase in nursery education, which is presumably why the Opposition so vehemently oppose it. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principal benefit of competition is that it is likely to ratchet up standards in both the private and public sectors? Will she ensure that the system of inspection that she puts into place ensures that that happens?
Mrs. Shephard: Yes. The purpose of ensuring that everything is inspected before registration is granted is precisely to ensure high-quality provision. High quality is the key. We are spending a lot of money, and we must have good educational provision in return.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the £565 million to be taken away from local authorities come back to all local authorities for use, or will it go into a general pot for wide distribution in other areas? According to the Audit Commission's performance indicators for Derbyshire, for instance, 78 per cent. of three and four-year-olds are provided with nursery education. Will Derbyshire be in the same position to make that provision while being topped up from the voucher system? I doubt it.
Mrs. Shephard: I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that all local authorities will continue to be funded for the children under five whom they are educating. If they continue to educate the same number as at present, they will receive the same amount of funding as they do now.
528
Four-year-olds will be subject, of course, to the voucher system, and it will be up to LEAs whether they feel that they can afford, or wish, to continue to provide education for three-year-olds.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this most excellent statement. Does she agree that the public can draw two conclusions from today's exchanges? First, if people really want choice and diversity in education, this policy shows that the Government will deliver them. Secondly, if they think that new Labour would develop them, they could do worse than look at the way that the Labour Front-Bench spokesman contemptuously dismissed people's hopes and aspirations for nursery education for their children as nothing more than "pandering to an artificial market."
Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend puts the point well and strongly, as is his custom. I think that it will seem to the general public that extra new money totalling £185 million, and a total of some £730 million in all, is generous funding for this initiative. I believe that they will be delighted at the fact that spending power and choice are in the hands of parents, where they should be. I imagine that, in due course, and probably sooner rather than later, we shall see the normal U-turn by the Opposition parties.
Mr. Michael Connarty: On my calculations, £165 million has been made available for new provision for England and Wales. There should be, pro rata, £16.5 million available this year for nursery education in Scotland. While the consultation goes on, is the Secretary of State aware that, in Scotland, 95.4 per cent. of children are educated in schools run by local education authorities on the comprehensive system?
The last time that we were consulted, on water, 95 per cent. of people who replied rejected the proposals. If the Scottish people reject these proposals, will the Cabinet accept that the extra money for pre-school children should go to local education authority establishments in Scotland?
Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could not begin to be implying that Scottish parents should not have the same choices available to them as English parents have. If he is, all I can say is, good luck when he gets back to Scotland.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, as I made clear earlier, is setting in motion discussions with providers in the voluntary, private and public sectors about how best a voucher scheme might work in Scotland. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman does not want Scottish parents to have choice. I know that my right hon. Friend will wish them to have choice.
Mr. David Tredinnick: May I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on her extended responsibilities, and ask her to share in my happiness, as tomorrow will be my 12th wedding anniversary? She referred in her statement to the partnership between public and private sectors being very important, and the way that she hoped it would expand the number of places available. Does she have any specific initiatives in mind?
Mrs. Shephard: We seem to be having a lot of anniversaries and disclosures from all over the House. I note that my hon. Friend is not decorated for his wedding anniversary as the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is for his.

529
I expect interesting and innovative ideas for partnerships to develop out of the proposals that are put up for phase 1 of this scheme. I know from the discussions that I have already had that they will be of a kind to please my hon. Friend.
Dr. Lynne Jones: May I, as the parent of two children only one of whom had the benefit of nursery education, say that there is every difference between that and a place in a playgroup, the value of which, I acknowledge, was useful for one of my children? What consultations have taken place with parents and parents' representatives to ask them which they would prefer: this bureaucratic voucher scheme or simply more places in their local nursery schools, and nursery classes in local primary schools?
Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady will have heard, although not perhaps have absorbed, the points I have made about quality assurance in all this. My hon. Friend the Minister of State spoke to Margaret Morrissey of the National Council of Parent-Teacher Associations this morning, and she warmly welcomed the initiative.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: In joining in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on her wider responsibilities, may I say that, as someone who campaigned for the expansion of nursery education for many years before coming into the House, I especially welcome her announcement today?
Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the moves that the Pre-School Learning Alliance has made to introduce more educational content into its work? Will she commend the fact that many constituencies, of which mine is but one, already have a wide choice in the private sector, with private playgroups and private nursery schools? All those will benefit, and the parents and children will benefit most, from my right hon. Friend's welcome announcement today.
Mrs. Shephard: I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the diversity in pre-school provision that exists in many areas of England. That is a diversity we welcome, and wish to enhance by means of my announcement today. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Pre-School Learning Alliance on the magnificent contribution to early years learning and experience it has made for many decades. I hope that it will want to contribute to this initiative in its own inimitable way.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will private nursery schools be able to pick and choose the children they admit? If so, how can parents have equal choice in terms of where their children will go? Has the Secretary of State considered the possibility that there may develop an illicit trade in vouchers, whereby poorer parents sell their vouchers to others, who can then buy full-time rather than part-time nursery education? What does the Secretary of State intend to do to prevent the children of the poor from being yet more disadvantaged than they are already?
Mrs. Shephard: We envisage an audit system to combat fraud.
Mr. Peter Luff: Given that I expect there to be a great deal of competition for phase 1 of the
530
scheme, and bearing in mind Hereford and Worcester's relatively low level of education expenditure—and, indeed, of children of four years of age enjoying pre-school education at present—will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that, should she receive a bid from the county council for phase 1 of the scheme, she will look at it with the utmost possible sympathy?
Mrs. Shephard: I hope that there will be a lot of competition for phase 1. Hereford and Worcester represents an interesting mix of urban and rural areas, and we shall want to have a representative group in the first phase. I should say to Hereford and Worcester, "Hurry along."
Ms Glenda Jackson: As there are thousands of families who cannot and will never be able to top up the voucher system, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that their local authorities will not suffer if families who can afford to top up choose to place their children in alternative nursery education? Will she give an assurance that local authorities will not suffer either a reduction in funding or a lowering of standards and services?
Mrs. Shephard: I can give the hon. Lady an unequivocal assurance on that point. There will be no need for LEAs to suffer; they will continue to receive funding as they do now.
Mr. John Gunnell: The right hon. Lady has given a number of guarantees that local authorities will not lose through the scheme. Do those guarantees extend to the administrative costs, which will almost certainly fall on local authorities, in addition to the costs about which she has already spoken? Will the right hon. Lady guarantee that the same arrangement will be available for local authority social services day nurseries?
Mrs. Shephard: I will give an assurance that there need be no extra costs for LEAs as a result of my announcement. On the hon. Gentleman's point about day nurseries, an important distinction is involved. What we are talking about here is educational provision. If day nurseries wanted to become providers of education, they would have to satisfy the conditions for activities and outcomes, laid down by the SCAA after consultation, as purely educational settings.
I would have no objection to that being the case, provided that the conditions of quality, outcomes and activities were met in full. In some cases, it may be convenient for parents to have education provided in a setting that also has day care. The point of these provisions, however, is education.
Ms Margaret Hodge: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance, because Opposition Members are rather muddled on this, that local authorities will not have their grant cut as money is transferred from the grant to fund the voucher scheme? Will her current proposals do anything to ensure nursery provision in, for example, the London borough of Bromley, which has no local authority-provided nursery places in schools or classes?
If the right hon. Lady is interested in quality, why has she not used money more effectively to restore some of the grant for education and training funding that has been cut for people working in early years? Will she give an

531
undertaking to reintroduce better quality, including child development, for people who are undergoing teacher training, and ensure that we have more qualified nursery teachers?
Mrs. Shephard: As I have said many times, all local authorities will continue to be funded for the under-five children they are educating. If they continue to educate the same number as at present, they will receive the same amount of funding as they do now.
As for the London borough of Bromley, it would be up to it to provide education that was attractive to the holders of vouchers. That is entirely a matter for it.
On grant for education support and training funding, the hon. Lady should understand that I take very seriously the whole question of quality in education. She might be aware that we recently launched an initiative on improving schools. The important thing is that the activities and outcomes are inspected, as they will be, and that the quality is kept right up to the mark for this new pre-school provision.
Mr. George Mudie: I knew that I would be last, as my wedding anniversary is not until September.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in the first financial year in which the scheme operates, only 10 per cent. of the 150,000 children will be covered, at a new cost of £16.5 million, but that in the next financial year—the one that follows the general election—the full cost of £165 million will take effect? Will she reassure the House that that is not the first pre-election spending promise?
On a more serious point, however, why does the right hon. Lady regard it as a triumph to cover only 10 per cent. before the election? Why could she not have got more money to ensure better phasing than 10 per cent. of the children one year and 100 per cent. the next?
Mrs. Shephard: I think that the hon. Gentleman is missing the point a bit, but I will excuse him, given that it is not his wedding anniversary.
The 10 per cent. the hon. Gentlemen mentioned, whom we aim to cover with phase 1, will be piloting and testing the arrangements, ensuring that the practical arrangements
532
are in place. It is a question of viability and efficiency, and getting the whole thing effectively into place. That is the point. Equally, the point is that this represents a huge investment of public money in the education of that age group. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, wedding anniversary or not, will find it in him to welcome it.
Mr. Blunkett: I have three points of clarification for the Secretary of State. First, in her statement, she used the figure of £165 million, but in the press release it is £185 million. She has used the two figures interchangeably this afternoon.
Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) raised an issue that requires clarification—if four-year-olds are to be safeguarded, in terms of local authority spending not being withdrawn from those who have nursery places, is that not the case also for the 42 per cent. of three-year-olds who currently have a local authority nursery place? This is a crucial issue in terms of whether three-year-olds are to have their provision withdrawn at the expense of maintaining or expanding the provision for four-year-olds.
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State confirm that choice exists only where supply exceeds demand, and that the least new money will be directed to those areas which have the greatest provision? Is it not therefore a fact that the scheme and the vouchers fail to provide new choice, because, where choice was possible as a result of supply exceeding demand, those resources will not be available?
Mrs. Shephard: I can clarify the matter for the hon. Gentleman. The figures to which he refers are as follows: £165 million for the new places, plus £20 million, making a total of £185 million. The £20 million is for inspection costs and a little for administration. As I have made perfectly clear, the scheme is to cover four-year-olds. The position of three-year-olds will continue to be a matter for the individual choice of local education authorities.
The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated yet again that he and his party simply do not understand the purpose of choice in this respect. He does not understand, as he has made clear again, that choice will stimulate supply.

Business of the House
4.31 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 JULY—Opposition day (16th allotted day). There will be a debate entitled "Social Division and Economic Inefficiency" on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the Local Government Act 1988 (Competition) (Defined Activities) Order.
Motion on the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scope) (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY 11 JULY—Opposition day (17th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on the rail network, followed by a debate on out-of-hours patient care. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
Motion on the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure.
WEDNESDAY 12 JULY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on the economy on a Government motion.
THURSDAY 13 JULY—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). Debate on social security expenditure. Followed by a debate on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's operational expenditure and departmental administration and agencies, in so far as they relate to the prevention and control of animal diseases and import health controls on animals. Details will be given in the Official Report.
At 10 o'clock the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
FRIDAY 14 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 12 July to consider European Community document No. Com (95) 300 relating to the preliminary draft budget of the European Community for 1996.
MONDAY 17 JULY—Proceedings on the Appropriation (No. 1) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendment to the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments which may be received to the Child Support Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Appeal Bill.
Motion on the Local Government Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualification of Members) Regulations.
Motions relating to the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations and the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
I am not at present able to give details of the business later that week, although I reaffirm that there will be business later that week.
[Wednesday 12 July:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community document: COM (95) 300, 1996 budget. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee: HC 70-xix (1994–95).
Thursday 13 July:
Estimates day—Relevant reports: (i) in respect of the first group of estimates: Third Report from the Social Security Committee, Session 1994–95, HC 132 ("Review of Expenditure on Social Security"); (ii) in respect of the second group of estimates: Fifth Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 1994–95, HC 347-I ("Health Controls on the Importation of Live Animals").]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Will he confirm that there are still three Opposition days left in the pipeline, even after the two which are to be used next week? That is not counting the half day that I understand is owed to the Opposition deputy Chief Whip.
Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, as a consequence of the changes and events of the past few days, there will be a statement to the House on the Prime Minister's decision to demote science, engineering and technology and abolish the Office of Public Service and Science? What will be the implications for the Select Committee on Science and Technology? Will the Leader of the House also tell us what he proposes to do not only about that Select Committee but about the Select Committee on Employment? In addition, what will happen at Employment questions which are scheduled for next Tuesday?
With regard to business before the recess, will the Leader of the House guarantee that he will find time for a debate and for votes on the issues to be covered in the report due out tomorrow from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life?
Is the Leader of the House aware that there are at least three on-going inquiries into serious allegations of electoral registration fraud—and I am not talking about the Tory leadership question. They are serious matters. Many of us have long been worried about the inadequacies of our system of electoral registration, with many people at each election not being entitled to vote. May we have an early debate on the changes necessary to ensure that those who are entitled to a vote can do so, but also to ensure that those who are not entitled to vote do not do so?
We have just had a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on her proposals, such as she knows them at this stage, for vouchers for nursery education for four-year-olds. The right hon. Lady made a statement full of confusion and lacking in clarity—so much so that she had to promise that details would be available in the autumn. Will the Leader of the House therefore guarantee that there will be a debate on those proposals in the autumn in Government time so that parents can see clearly the con trick that is being proposed and contrast that with Labour's proposals for quality nursery education for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it?
Finally, I draw the attention of the Leader to the House to early-day motion 1223 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris).

535
[That this House notes the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendation of 1991, as endorsed by the Senior Salaries Review Body in 1995, that the existing accrual rate of fiftieths should be applied to all service for sitting honourable Members in respect of their future pension entitlement; and calls for speedy implementation of the Review Body's recommendation.]
That is an unusual early-day motion in that it has attracted 353 signatures. I hope that the Leader of the House is aware of the widespread concern on both sides of the House and that he personally has some responsibility and some power to make progress on that matter.
Mr. Newton: As I sometimes do, I shall take that rather long list of questions, to a degree at least, in reverse order.
First, with regard to the subject matter of early-day motion 1223, in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has a particular interest as chairman of the parliamentary pension fund, as he knows, I have made it clear that I will seek to bring that matter to the House for debate, although obviously once again this week I cannot give a date in this week's business statement.
With regard to vouchers, I reject the language that the hon. Lady used which I thought was a mixture of over-statement and mis-statement. Naturally enough, if part of the purpose of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is to listen to people's views in working up the details, it is appropriate—I know that this is perhaps an unfamiliar proposition for those on the Opposition Benches—to listen to the views before deciding on the details. Of course I shall consider whether a debate will be appropriate at the appropriate time.
I shall bring the hon. Lady's questions on electoral registration to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, I draw attention to the fact that the business that I announced for Monday 17 July included a motion, I accept in relation to local government elections, which referred to the franchise for those elections, so it is just possible that some of those points might be in order there.
With regard to any report from the Select Committee on the Nolan recommendations, I made it clear when the Committee was set up that one of the objectives of seeking a report from it by 7 July was to enable an appropriate debate to take place should that be required in the light of the report.
I come now to the mix of questions that the hon. Lady asked about the recent Government changes both in the machinery and in the personnel. First, our intention is that the Ministers responsible will be at the Dispatch Box to answer all the questions tabled to the Secretary of State for Employment for next Tuesday. As I understand that no questions have been tabled on health and safety matters, Ministers with employment responsibilities from what is now the Department for Education and Employment and Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry will answer questions on other appropriate matters.
We shall of course seek to make full details on some of the other questions that the hon. Lady asked available to the House in a proper fashion at the earliest opportunity. As for her question about Select Committees, she will know that the proper course is for us to consult the Chairman of the Liaison Committee and others
536
concerned before presenting any alterations to the House, in the light of the changes in the machinery of government that were announced yesterday.
The hon. Lady almost underplayed her hand on Opposition days. There are three left, and, as she said, a half day is owed to the Opposition deputy Chief Whip as a result of some delicate usual-channels negotiation earlier in the year. As always, we are mindful of the need to repay our debts to the Opposition deputy Chief Whip.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Following letters that I wrote earlier today to the Attorney-General, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration and the Audit Commission, will my right hon. Friend, as a matter of urgency, arrange a debate on probity in local government, to allow a full investigation of the concerns rightly raised by the former chief executive of Congleton borough council relating to financial irregularities and procedural abuses and cover-ups on that council? The truth could then be revealed, and the currently serving members and officers of the council who are implicated could either face appropriate criminal charges or be cleared of such charges.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will understand that, having not had the benefit of seeing the correspondence, I am cautious about commenting. As for the debate for which she asks, much as I might like to, I do not think that I can undertake to provide time. She may, however, wish to consider the opportunity that will be provided by the three-hour debate before the Adjournment which I expect to take place on Wednesday 19 July.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I pursue the question of arrangements for Employment questions on Tuesday 11 July? Do the Government intend to abolish Employment questions after that date, and are there any plans to provide a Dispatch Box questions slot for the Deputy Prime Minister under the new arrangements?
Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have suggested to the Liaison Committee that the Select Committee on Employment should be abolished, and did their consultations lead to the conclusion that a motion must be passed on the Floor of the House before any such action can be taken?
Mr. Newton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's final question is yes, of course. As it happens, I held my present responsibilities when the same question arose in relation to the former Select Committee on Energy soon after the election. I am therefore well aware that, were such a proposal made, it would have to be put to the House.
As for the hon. Gentleman's more general questions about arrangements for parliamentary questions, my present feeling is that the sensible course would be to maintain the current rota until the end of this bit of the term, as it were, and then consider revised arrangements reflecting the new position for the next Session. I include in that whatever might be appropriate arrangements for the First Secretary of State.
Sir John Cope: As the time for consultation on the Latham report on construction contracts has now been completed, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether we are likely—preferably next week—to hear something about what the Government will

537
do in response to the Latham recommendations and the consultation that has taken place? Will he also tell my right hon. Friend who is responsible for such matters that many of us hope that the whole Latham package will be introduced, particularly the aspects that the Government and the House must implement?
Mr. Newton: I have before me the usual carefully worded formulation, which I shall not read out again. I remind my right hon. Friend, however, that I have repeatedly made what I would describe as sympathetic and friendly noises about the proposals. He can take this as another sympathetic and friendly noise.
Mr. Alfred Morris: As the Leader of the House said, I chair the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. Further to the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) may we at least be assured that the Top Salaries Review Body's recommendations will be debated by the House before the summer recess? He will be aware, as I am, of the enormous pressure on the trustees to secure a debate—pressure that comes from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Newton: I have told the right hon. Gentleman before, both publicly and privately, that that is my aim, and it remains my aim.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on Britain's relations with Latin America? As my right hon. Friend will recall, we have had such debates for seven successive years using the mechanism of the Consolidated Fund debates that lasted all night. They were noted with considerable interest by Latin American ambassadors in London, and media and political circles throughout Latin America.
The only avenue available to us now is a one-and-a-half-hour Wednesday morning slot. We attempted that earlier in the year, without success. Can something be done about the mechanics in the future, so that a non-party political subject can be addressed with the seriousness that it requires, and could the Government this year find us one and a half hours in which to address it?
Mr. Newton: I cannot make a promise on the latter point. Indeed, I cannot make a promise on your behalf, Madam Speaker, that you will look more favourably on future Wednesday morning applications—although I am sure that you will always listen sympathetically to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Greville Janner: When can the House expect a statement on the blazing scandal of the abolition of the Department of Employment? The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) may laugh, but it is no joke to millions of unemployed people, and still less of one to those employed by the Department. Surely we must have a statement.
Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Greenbury committee is due to report on 17 July? If so, will he assure the House that there will be a debate on the report before the House rises?
Mr. Newton: The publication date of the Greenbury report is a matter for the Greenbury committee, not for
538
me; but I have heard suggestions that it will appear in mid-July. Obviously, any question of a debate can be considered only in relation to that.
I reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier suggestions out of hand, although I understand why, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment, he feels it necessary to make them. In my view, the recognition that education and training in the current world of employment should be brought together and examined on a basis that stretches right across people's working life constitutes a sensible acceptance of the realities.
Mr. Charles Hendry: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that European Standing Committee B will meet next Wednesday to discuss a preliminary draft budget for the European Commission for 1996. Can he confirm that the debate will be open to any hon. Member, rather than being restricted to members of the Committee?
Mr. Newton: Yes, of course. Debates in European Standing Committees are accessible to all hon. Members. Indeed, I understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House have suggested that the purposes of scrutiny may be better served by debate in a Committee, where they have an opportunity to question Ministers in detail.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Leader of the House should be aware of the deep unease in the science community about the apparent downgrading of science in the recent reshuffle. Will he give the House a commitment that hon. Members will have the same opportunities as they have now to table oral questions to the Cabinet Minister responsible for science, and that there will be a rota similar to the one that we enjoy at present?
Mr. Newton: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman—perhaps in a quieter tone, but in rather the same way as I resisted the suggestions of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)—that I entirely reject the idea that any downgrading is implied by the change that has been made. On the contrary, I think that that change recognises the importance of science, not least to the industrial life and future of the country, by relating it to the Department of Trade and Industry.
I am more than happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's point about questions, or to arrange for it to be considered, in the wider context of my earlier answer.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the Leader of the House find time in the spill-over period, because there seem to be plenty of days available then for debate, and it could stretch for several weeks if need be, to have a debate in Government time on the housing market? He will no doubt have noticed the report of the National and Provincial building society, followed by that of the Halifax building society, which showed that, this month, for the fourth month, house values had fallen by 2 per cent. Negative equities are therefore rising. As many people own their houses and many young couples need a home in this land, might it not be a useful use of parliamentary time to discuss that matter in some depth?
Mr. Newton: I simply make the point that house-building starts for the whole of last year were 13 per cent. higher than in the previous year. The position is

539
that the affordability of housing is reflected by the fact that house prices are now the lowest in relation to income since 1985.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On the demise of the Department of Employment, will the Leader of the House confirm that at least a negative statutory instrument must be tabled for a transfer of functions?
On the education statement that we have just heard, despite the notice in the Lobby that says "statement on nursery education", does not that statement, at best, threaten the whole future of nursery education in that there will be three forms of education in relation to finance and structure for three-year-olds, four-year-olds and five-year-olds? Will it not also destabilise training of four years for nursery school teachers and their assistants, and devalue the whole structure that has built up?
Mr. Newton: Of course there will be diversity and choice; that is part of the intention of the exercise. What is clear and was clear at Prime Minister's questions is that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats do not like diversity and choice and we are in the business of providing it.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Would it be possible for the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement to be made, if not tomorrow, certainly next week, in connection with the reports in The Guardian today in advance of the "True Stories: Deadly Experiments" programme, which is to be shown this evening on Channel 4 and which relates to possibility that women, especially pregnant women, were used as guinea pigs with radiation during the 1950s and 1960s? In view of the distress that that has caused, not least in my region, where 91 women were apparently involved, it is important that the Government make clear exactly what happened, and allay other fears that people may have as a result that programme.
Mr. Newton: Depending on what actually appears in the programme tonight, I am sure that my right hon. Friend with relevant responsibilities would want to consider carefully any such suggestion.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: When does the Leader of the House intend to move the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, which was on the Order Paper yesterday and was not moved? Why was courtesy not extended to myself, who had tabled amendments to the Bill, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who was sitting on the Opposition Front Bench? We were not told that it was not going to be moved. I understand that the Opposition Whips were also not so advised. A simple courtesy should have been extended to us to inform us that that was the intention last night. In any event, when will the right hon. Gentleman get around to arranging for hon. Members to discuss that important, albeit complicated measure?
Mr. Newton: It is well known that the usual channels always move in mysterious ways, and I will see if I can elucidate that mystery.
Mr. Max Madden: First, will the Deputy Prime Minister and the First Secretary of State be speaking on behalf of the Government in any of next week's debates? Secondly, will he be deputising for the Prime Minister at Prime Minister's questions when the
540
Prime Minister is absent? Lastly, will arrangements be made urgently to outline the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibilities so that we can address parliamentary questions to him?
Mr. Newton: On the three questions, I do not immediately see any debate that I have announced that would be likely to involve the participation of the First Secretary. Secondly, I would naturally anticipate that the First Secretary, as Deputy Prime Minister, would deputise for the Prime Minister. Thirdly, the First Secretary's responsibilities were outlined in a note on the press release yesterday.
Mr. George Stevenson: In view of the statement by the drinking water inspectorate that the households of some 10 million people receive drinking water with lead levels that could cause brain damage to two-year-olds, which shows that nothing has really changed under this Government, will the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Secretary of State at least to make a statement as soon as possible on that alarming report?
Mr. Newton: I will certainly bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. Edward O'Hara: May I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) for an urgent debate on the crisis in the housing market? I do not recognise the buoyant picture presented by the Leader of the House. According to the Department of Employment's own latest quarterly statistics, there is a 14 per cent. decline in private starts, a 31 per cent. decline in housing association starts in the past six months, a 15 per cent. fall in new applications, and a corresponding decline in the building merchants supplies trade. It is a picture of no change in housing depression under this Government, no chance for people in negative equity, no chance for people who want a house to rent, and no chance for people involved in the construction and building merchants industries. Cannot the House at least be given a chance to discuss urgently that crisis in the housing market?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier, but I would draw attention to the fact that what the hon. Gentleman is saying, even though I do not accept the implication of his comments, would appear to be in order during the debate on the economy next week. That is, however, a matter for the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate to discuss the corruption of our democratic system? In one country in these isles, the Conservative party can gain only 4 per cent. of the councillors in the last local government election, and only 4 per cent. of the vote in the Islwyn by-election, yet it rules Wales—the other 96 per cent. Why have the Government the cheek to appoint another Secretary of State for Wales, another Governor-General, who is alien to the people of Wales, who owes Wales no loyalty, and who has little understanding and little knowledge of that country? Is that not a slur on the few Tory Members representing Wales, who have been overlooked for the past eight years? Is not the appointment of the new Governor-General a calculated and contemptuous insult to the people of Wales?
Mr. Newton: No.
Mr. Harry Barnes: As we have had success already with early-day motion 1223, will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 1233?
[That this House warmly welcomes the publication, by the University of Sheffield and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough, of a new study, Confronting Industrial Demise: the Employment and Unemployment Experiences of Miners and their Families in South Yorkshire and North East Derbyshire; recognises that the survey's context is the dramatic and unprecedented dismantling of a major industry with severe implications for employment and communities in already economically deprived areas; welcomes the key conclusion of this authoritative survey that the key to successful re-employment is education; urges serious consideration of its policy recommendations for responding to major redundancies and mass unemployment, including the granting of equal status to education and training, the transformation of the current training for work scheme into an education and training for work scheme, with the same benefits, that the provision by the Further Education Funding Council of financial support for the unwaged and their dependants should also be provided by the Higher Education Funding Council, the establishment of a national fund for small grants for learning materials in support of an education and training for work scheme, collaboration between labour market adjustment services in order to improve delivery and reduce wasteful duplication and the decentralisation of these services to community level in order to focus on and be within the reach of the most acutely affected families; and welcomes the launch of this important document on 14th June in the Palace of Westminster.]
That is about confronting industrial demise and deals with a study undertaken by Sheffield university in association with Rotherham metropolitan council on what happened to miners when they were made redundant. It discovers that there is a link between education and re-employment. It might therefore be useful for us to discuss a matter that actually covers the responsibility of the new Department for Education and Employment. That report might be one of the few matters where those interests link so directly.
Mr. Newton: The report will be read with care. I am grateful, which is relatively unusual for me in relation to the hon. Gentleman, because his point, as he implied, underpins my argument about the importance of the links between education and employment, especially in respect of training, which does not appear to have penetrated to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West, who is sitting behind him. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might turn around and have a word with him.
Ms Glenda Jackson: The Leader of the House will be aware of the unanimous report published this week by the Select Committee on Social Security condemning as massively unfair the compensation recovery unit and calling for a root and branch examination of its procedures. As that has impacted on more than one occasion on my constituents, who have endured, in many instances, lengthy legal struggles before they were awarded damages for injury
542
and illness, only to be bemused at the compensation recovery unit dividing those benefits in many instances by more than half, would it be possible to have a debate? My constituents' concern is that, in this matter, the Government seem to be acting for the benefit of not the electorate, but the insurance companies.
Mr. Newton: I should perhaps make it clear that I do not think that anyone would seriously argue that the state should duplicate compensation awards and the Select Committee made it clear that it does not support that view. Beyond that, the Select Committee has raised some points which need consideration, and they will be given that consideration.
Mr. Andrew Miller: May I press the Leader of the House a little further about the Office of Public Service and Science? Will he consider urgently providing time for a debate, particularly so that we can examine the future of the foresight programme and the "forward look" exercise? Those are important exercises that have been well received on both sides of the House and by the science community. The science community will demand an early explanation about what is going on. It is no good leaving this until after the summer recess.
Mr. Newton: I will not add to what I said earlier. Ministers from the Department of Trade and Industry are due to answer questions next Wednesday.
Ms Margaret Hodge: In view of the alarming reports from the British Medical Association conference in Harrogate about what has happened to community care two years after its implementation, with its survey showing that three quarters of those doctors asked said that conditions for their patients had worsened and with four out of five doctors saying that bed blocking was a factor in that, will the Leader of the House make Government time available for an urgent debate on that worrying matter?
Mr. Newton: With the recess not far down the track, I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate. I will draw the hon. Lady's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for any Government to abolish a Department of State without giving the House an opportunity to discuss the matter, without the courtesy of a statement from the relevant Minister and with the Leader of the House treating our request for a statement with such contempt? Surely the House should consider this matter. It is for the Government to bring the matter before the House. It is a question of the order of the House, not merely a matter of Government business.
Madam Speaker: It is perfectly in order for the Government to make departmental and ministerial changes. The Leader of the House has answered in detail today the questions about such changes not only from the hon. and learned Gentleman but from the shadow Leader of the House as well as from other Back Benchers. We shall have to leave it at what the Leader of the House has said, which will be in Hansard tomorrow. I shall take no further points of order. We shall get on with our business.

Local Government
5.2 pm
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
That the draft Wiltshire (Borough of Thamesdown) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That the draft Staffordshire (City of Stoke-on-Trent) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
That the draft Durham (Borough of Darlington) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
That the draft Derbyshire (City of Derby) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
That the draft Bedfordshire (Borough of Luton) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
That the draft Buckinghamshire (Borough of Milton Keynes) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.
That the draft Dorset (Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.
That the draft East Sussex (Boroughs of Brighton and Hove) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.
That the draft Hampshire (Cities of Portsmouth and Southampton) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.
Mr. Curry: The nine orders that we shall debate today—
Mr. Andrew Miller rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members understand that I must safeguard the business of the House. There are a number of hon. Members who want to speak in the debate and who are directly involved in the subject of these nine orders. We cannot continue with points of order, many of which are often bogus. If the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) wishes to speak to me, I am now going to my office and I am prepared to see him there, in spite of the fact that I have been in the Chair since 2.30 pm. We will now get on with the business of the House.
Mr. Curry: The nine orders implement the recommendations of the Local Government Commission for the future structure of local government in Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Derbyshire, Dorset, County Durham, East Sussex, Hampshire, Staffordshire and Wiltshire.
When the orders are implemented, a substantial part of the review of the structure of shire England will have been completed. The end result of that review may not be what many of us expected, but we have always said that a diverse pattern of local government with unitary authorities in some places and a two-tier system remaining in others could be the right outcome overall. I stress that in reaching our decisions about whether to
544
accept, modify or reject the recommendations, we have always sought to provide a local government structure which reflected most accurately the different circumstances of differing areas. We believe that that will be achieved by these orders.
It may be helpful to the House if I take together the principal issues common to all these orders. I shall outline the details of the proposed new structure in all the areas. I shall then deal with the boundaries, the powers, the functions, the electoral arrangements, the staffing and planning and the proposed ceremonial arrangements. Where different arrangements are being proposed in specific areas, I shall outline how and why they differ.
From 1 April 1997, Bournemouth, Darlington, Derby, Durham, Luton, Milton Keynes, Poole, Portsmouth, Southampton and Thamesdown will be unitary authorities on their existing boundaries. The remainder of the counties within which they are located will remain two-tier, retaining both district and county councils. Similarly, the city of Stoke-on-Trent will become a unitary authority on its existing boundaries, except for a minor change to the boundary between Stoke and the borough of Stafford. Also, from 1 April 1997 there will be a new unitary authority of Brighton and Hove comprising the areas of the two existing districts of Brighton and Hove. The remainder of the county of East Sussex will remain two-tier.
The minor change to the boundary between the city of Stoke-on-Trent and the borough of Stafford gives effect to the commission's recommendation that the Josiah Wedgwood works at Barlaston should be transferred to Stoke in the interests of business efficiency. It also unites a sewage treatment works into Stoke.
Hon. Members will have noticed that these orders, with the exception of East Sussex, do not contain the powers and duties dealing with preparation and co-operation which were included in the orders that the House has debated before. Rather than repeat those in each order we decided to remove them and place them in general regulations. However, the powers and duties will be the same as in the orders that have already been made and, in addition, we have consulted on them twice; once in draft and once alongside each draft structural change order. We shall lay those regulations before Parliament in the next few days.
The East Sussex order is different because we have to make special provision placing powers and duties on the existing districts of Hove and Brighton. Therefore, the order provides that between the establishment date and the reorganisation date, the new council for Brighton and Hove will be a shadow authority with the function and the powers to enable it to prepare for taking on full local authority powers on the reorganisation date. The existing district councils will continue their functions over that period.
There is no need to create shadow authorities for the other unitary authorities because they will be continuing authorities and will be given additional powers to prepare for the transfer of functions. They continue with the existing district powers until the point at which they automatically assume the powers of a full unitary authority.
The role of staff in the reorganisation is crucial. Newly elected councils must pay close attention to staffing matters. It will be for them to decide on their staffing structures in the light of the new functions that they will

545
be taking on. We have taken a number of steps to help ensure that the transition to the new structures is as smooth and fair as possible and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has had a positive and constructive meeting with representatives of the local authority unions. We will, of course, continue to try to meet their concerns.
Although we expect the majority of staff to remain in local authority employment, we recognise that some may be redundant. For such cases, compensation provision will apply as set out in the regulations that we made last December. We have also announced our intention to provide for the compensation of those staff who wish to stay in local government employment but who may have to take a drop in salary in the new staffing structures. We will consult on those regulations soon.
We believe that authorities which are to be given unitary status should be given a fresh democratic mandate. Therefore, except in Brighton and Hove, all the current district councillors will retire in May 1996 and there will be whole council elections to the new unitary authorities at that time. In Brighton and Hove there will, at the same time, be elections to the shadow authority.
The orders provide transitional arrangements to return the authorities to the electoral cycles prescribed in the Local Government Act 1972. Derby, Stoke-on-Trent, Portsmouth, Southampton, Thamesdown and Milton Keynes will, therefore, be returned to their current arrangements of elections by thirds. In Brighton and Hove, Darlington, Poole, Luton and Bournemouth there will be elections in 1996 and 1999 and every four years after that. If any of those authorities wish to apply to the Secretary of State to change to a system of election by thirds, they can do so, provided that the council passes a resolution with a majority of not less than two thirds of the members. That system already exists.
The unitary authorities that we propose will be responsible for strategic as well as local land use planning in their areas. In Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset, East Sussex, Hampshire and Wiltshire we have concluded that it is desirable for strategic planning to continue across the existing county area. We are therefore asking the new unitary authorities, as structure planning authorities, to work together with the county council in each case to maintain a joint structure plan for their combined areas.
In the cases of Derbyshire and Staffordshire, the commission has proposed that the unitary authority and the county council should also accept joint responsibility for structure planning over their combined areas outside the Peak district national park. In the case of Durham, the commission has proposed that Darlington council should establish joint structure planning arrangements with the unitary authorities to be established in Cleveland. We agree with that recommendation and will give effect to it by transferring Durham county council's strategic planning responsibilities for the area of Darlington to Darlington council. That will enable Darlington to make voluntary arrangements with the Cleveland authorities to work on a joint structure plan for their combined areas. We are confident that voluntary arrangements for joint work in each of those groups will achieve the necessary results.
Each order provides for the relevant existing county police authority to continue to cover both the area of the unitary authority and the residual county area. Each order
546
makes provision for the members of the particular police authority to be appointed by both the county council and the new unitary authority.
There will be combined fire authorities covering the new unitary authorities and the remaining county councils so that the existing brigade areas may be preserved. In order that the Home Office can achieve that by making fire combination schemes under the Fire Services Act 1947, the orders each provide for the relevant unitary authority to become a fire authority so that they can subsequently be brought together.
Sir David Madel: When Luton's shadow authority is elected in May 1996, will it mean that the existing county councillors from Luton, who are elected to Bedfordshire county council at county hall, gradually cease to play any part in governing Bedfordshire?
Mr. Curry: They will play no further role from that date in the government of the unitary authority—from the county.
The orders do not provide for ceremonial arrangements, for which separate provision will be made in general regulations. However, it may be helpful if I briefly explain to the House—
Mr. Frank Dobson: I do not want to be contentious. From what the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) said, I believe that he was trying to find out when the Luton councillors will cease to have any say in the affairs of Bedfordshire. My understanding is that that would happen, not when the authority became a parallel authority, but when Luton took over full self-control.
Mr. Curry: I am sorry—I gave the right answer to the wrong date. [Laughter.] The correct answer with the correct date is that, in 1997, the unitary authority for Luton will assume full powers and, at that date, no county councillors will influence Luton and no councillors from Luton will influence the county council. There will not be a shadow authority, but in 1996 there will be an election for the new authority of Luton, which will have the task of carrying through the existing powers and preparing for the new unitary authority. I shall be happy to write to my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) with the specific details.
Mr. John Carlisle: I do not wish to push my hon. Friend too far on the matter, but it is relevant to the budget and whether Luton county councillors have any input into that budget. Are they shadow councillors? Is there any legislation preventing them from having any input into the budget, which will be very relevant for the county in 1997? I appreciate that my hon. Friend may have to write with clarification, but that is important to the representatives of my constituency of Luton and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel). Perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify the matter by writing to us if, quite understandably, he is unable to give us the information from the Dispatch Box this afternoon.
Mr. Curry: I think that I am able to provide that information from the Dispatch Box, but so that there should be no confusion, I shall ask my hon. Friend the

547
Minister of State to ensure that he can give the biblical text on the subject when he winds up the debate. I think that that will satisfy everyone.
The answer in relation to Luton will be the answer that is viable for all the authorities with which we are dealing, with the single exception of the combined Brighton and Hove authority. In that case, because we are combining authorities, not creating a unitary authority entirely on its existing boundaries, there will be a shadow authority. There will not be a shadow authority in the case of the other authorities because they retain their existing boundaries and will continue in the same way in territorial terms. There will be an election for councillors to prepare the transition and to carry on the responsibilities of existing authority. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will clarify that with mathematical precision and digital clarity.
Mr. David Atkinson: Could my hon. Friend clarify the position for my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and myself in relation to Bournemouth? We understood that, under the draft order, elections would take place in 1996 for the new authority to take over in 1997. But from what my hon. Friend the Minister has just said, it seems that the new authority will take over in 1996. Can he clarify that?
Mr. Curry: The distinction is that there will be elections for new authorities in 1996. Those new authorities will assume the powers of transition until they assume the role of unitary authorities the following year. But they will also discharge some of the functions of the existing authority in that time because they will have to prepare for the new authority. Once again, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be specific in his answers on that. We have had arguments in the House before about when a continuing authority is not a continuing authority—
Mr. Dobson: We do not want to get into that.
Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman says, we do not want to get into that again.
I was explaining that the orders do not provide for ceremonial arrangements, for which separate provision will be made in general regulations. However, I will explain the proposed arrangements. Each unitary authority created under the orders will be deemed to be part of the relevant county for ceremonial and related purposes, and will therefore remain within the jurisdiction of the existing lord lieutenant and high sheriff. The general regulations will achieve that by making provision for the amendment of the relevant primary legislation. Once those regulations have been made, we shall insert a related provision in each order.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: An important part of the ceremonial arrangements is the name of the borough. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the name Brighton and Hove—it should, of course, be Hove and Brighton, even if that is less euphonious—can be changed only with the authority of the House? My hon. Friend will be aware that the majority of the citizens of Hove were not altogether happy about being joined with Brighton.
Mr. Curry: Any authority can apply to change its name, but the authority is currently designated Brighton and Hove.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: That is a partial answer from my hon. Friend, but if the authority applies, does it apply to the Secretary of State? Does the matter have to come before the House or can the Secretary of State make the change by edict?
Mr. Curry: I shall inquire about the precise procedure, but just as a local authority can, with a qualified majority of its members, apply to change its electoral arrangements, I envisage that similar arrangements will be used if an authority wants to change its name. As my right hon. Friend will know, a large number of places in this country are now called by a curious hybrid name that none of us recognises. I hope that some of them may revert to names that are more familiar to us, but that is entirely a matter for their own appreciation, not mine.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Perhaps he will write to me to clarify the situation. If such an application is made, who approves or disapproves it, and how?
Mr. Curry: I shall certainly do that for my right hon. Friend because I am conscious of Hove's identity and its clear anxiety to avoid the assumption that it will be taken over by Brighton. The purpose of the regulations is not that Hove should be taken over.
The changes for which the orders provide will create more accountable local government in the areas affected. That creation of individual and independent unitary authorities will be welcomed. I therefore commend the orders to the House.
5.18 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Since the House last debated the product of the local government review, it is fair to say that the situation has changed, and changed considerably for the better—not least because the Local Government Commission itself has been reviewed, also for the better.
The propositions before us are part of an arrangement which is still not ideal, but certainly a great improvement on what we faced at the beginning of the year. As a result of all the changes, a substantial number of cities and towns which used to be self-governing either have been or are likely to be granted self-governing status again, and a number of others which have grown over the past few years will be granted that status and deserve it. That includes those for which the commission has already recommended what one might call county borough status again and where the Secretary of State has accepted the commission's recommendation, and those which, with all-party agreement, have been referred back to the commission with a view to them being considered as county boroughs inside counties, the remaining parts of which are not changed.
Clearly we cannot anticipate the commission's ultimate decision, but it seems likely in the circumstances that most, if not all of those referred back, will be given their independence. The point that needs to be made to them is that now that there is a reasonably well-run, orderly and logical group of people on the commission, they can be reasonably assured of receiving the independence that they deserve, if they make their case reasonably well.
We have already given independence to Hull, Hartlepool, Bristol, Middlesbrough, Stockton, Grimsby, Scunthorpe, Bath and Redcar—some of them, as the Minister has pointed out, with names that I can neither remember nor wish to remember.

549
In addition, it is likely that most, if not all, of the following towns and cities will, as a result of the review and the changes agreed between the Secretary of State and myself earlier in the year, become independent. Blackburn, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Brighton and Hove, Basildon and Thurrock, Darlington, Dartford and Gravesham, Derby, Exeter, Gloucester, Leicester, Luton, Medway Towns, Nottingham, Norwich, Milton Keynes, Peterborough, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Reading, Slough, Southampton, Stoke-on-Trent, Thamesdown—which most people think of as Swindon—Warrington and The Wrekin, should all end up independent and having full control over all the services in their areas.
Most of those towns and cities had such an independent role in the past and it was sadly taken away from them in the misguided Conservative reforms of 1974.I am glad to say that, with all-party agreement, the House is putting that right. A limited number, including Thamesdown, alias Swindon, and The Wrekin, alias Telford, will achieve that status for the first time.
Taken as a whole, this is a big step forward. There is now some consistency of approach across the country, although there are still some oddities. I regret the fact that places such as Chester, Carlisle, Lincoln, Oxford and Ipswich are not numbered among those which have referred back to the commission. It would have been better if they had had the opportunity to make their case to the commission.
I thank the Secretary of State—even in his absence. When he last made a statement on this matter, he promised me that he would agree to meet the trade unions to discuss the problems facing staff because of the transfer. That meeting took place. Both the Secretary of State and the unions represented felt that it was a very worthwhile meeting and that some improvements were secured. But there is a danger of the entire process still being marred by the general attitude that worse arrangements, compensation and terms are being offered to the staff who, through no fault of their own, have lost their jobs or their status or had their jobs changed for the worse. Indeed, they are expecting to face worse terms and conditions than when the metropolitan counties were abolished by Mrs. Thatcher.
It is worth reminding the House that many of those people have devoted all their lives to serving the residents of their area, yet their lives are being disrupted and their careers ended through no fault of theirs. Those people, and those who know them, will compare that with the rather generous treatment which the Government have afforded themselves over the past few days. The Foreign Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who after all have another job to go to—they are still Members of Parliament, setting aside any other jobs that they might get outside this place while they continue to be Members of Parliament—are entitled to a compensation payment of £8,658, for losing ministerial office.
It may come as an even bigger surprise to discover that the former Welsh Secretary who resigned in order to challenge the Prime Minister also entitled himself, by that resignation, to the compensation payment of £8,658. When those outside this place see that people who have worked hard for a local authority in trying to provide a good local service for perhaps 20 or 30 years, are losing
550
their jobs, status or income as a result of the changes, they will think that it is a little as though the Government are rather more generous in looking after their friends than others.
The Minister referred to the detriment regulations being brought forward. We look forward to seeing those. I hope that they turn out to be more generous than the original draft. When the metropolitan counties were abolished, detriment was calculated over seven years. Under the draft that has been circulated this time, the period for calculating detriment would be but three years, so I hope that there will be some adjustment.
That brings me to the orders before us today, which will return freedom and independence to Derby and grant it to a combined Brighton and Hove, Bournemouth, Poole, Luton, Milton Keynes for the first time, Southampton, Portsmouth, Stoke-on-Trent, Darlington and Thamesdown. We welcome all those proposals to give full self-government to those areas and we believe that those who had that status before should never have lost it in the first place. There is a proud tradition in those places of being able to maintain good-quality services which satisfied the people of those areas, and under councils of all political persuasions.
Originally, during earlier debates, we asked the Government to make the position clear right across the board on all the proposals covering all authorities. They have now just about done that, which is also very welcome as it gives us an opportunity to check whether there is a consistent approach across the country.
Mr. John Carlisle: We greatly welcome the hon. Gentleman's enthusiastic support for the orders, especially of course for that applying to Luton. Would he perhaps extend his rather generous remarks to those members of his party who are outside the unitary authorities and who have carped and criticised the decisions that have been made? Support from him to them especially his trade union friends, would be most welcome. The House—I hope—will approve orders which will be of enormous benefit to so many constituents of varied hon. Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to stop some of his trade union friends who are outside those unitary authorities from carping about what has happened.
Mr. Dobson: There are two points: first, not only Labour people dislike the idea of unitary authorities, of counties being broken up and of county boroughs being created out of counties. Large numbers of people of all political persuasions hold that point of view, which is perfectly legitimate and does not really divide people along party lines. One can believe absolutely profoundly, decently and sincerely in two-tier local government just as easily as one can in single-tier local government. We should not criticise people who are in any position to influence the debate for making their views clear.
Secondly, I utterly reject the idea that it is illegitimate for the people who are elected to represent the staff concerned, be they in the unitary authorities or in the counties—none of them is abolished today, but Berkshire will be abolished eventually—to be concerned about those staff whose jobs will be affected. As a result of the creation of unitary authorities, some people now working for counties may no longer have jobs. Other people who may now have positions with high status and high pay

551
may lose that status and some of that pay. Many others will find that much insecurity is brought into their lives as a result of the process of change.
It is perfectly legitimate for those people not to like that, and it is equally legitimate for their elected trade union representatives to make a case on their behalf. That is the way the world is, and that is the way the world should be. We do not want somebody who works for a county council not to be able to have someone to speak up on his behalf. Indeed, as a result of the representations that have been made, several improvements in the terms and conditions affecting the transfers have been achieved. That is a legitimate thing to do.
One advantage of the orders is that new compulsory competitive tendering will not be introduced in the authorities concerned during the process of change. The Government sensibly recognise that that would add complexity and might make matters worse.
It is important that where national conditions are laid down either by order or by national agreements negotiated between the trade unions and the employers, all authorities either honour those agreements to the letter, or exceed them. I would expect all local authorities of all political persuasions—most of them are now Labour, because that is the situation in local government—to honour national agreements or to do even better. I say in advance from the Dispatch Box that I will condemn any authority of whatever political persuasion that fails to stick to the national agreements, and I hope and understand that the Government will not seek to interfere in any of those agreements to the detriment of any of the work force.
I believe that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) has already pointed out that great care will have to be taken by people from the counties and from the newly created unitary authorities to ensure that when the split takes place there is a genuinely fair allocation of resources. I hope that no one of any political persuasion will pursue a scorched-earth policy and either try to spend a vast amount of what they have now, or try to hog future resources in the share-out.
Equally the Government will recognise, as all "conservatives" should, that the process of change is costly. As I understand it, one of the conservative philosophical objections to change is its cost. That is why we should not go in for change without being sure that at the end of it there will be enormous gains that will greatly exceed the costs of the process of change itself. Anyone subscribing to a conservative philosophical viewpoint will clearly recognise that the process of change will be costly, so I hope that the Government will ensure that some additional resources are made available to ease that process. If they do not, the process could be quite damaging both to the unitary authorities and to the counties left behind. It would be a pity to spoil the ship for a hap'orth of tar.
When the new standard spending assessments are disaggregated from the counties, the distribution will need fairly to reflect the needs both of the counties and of the new unitary authorities. Unless that happens, the world being what it is, full of cock-ups, both the counties and the new unitary authorities could end up suffering from the new SSAs.
The change will be a difficult and painful process for many people, and we must try to ensure that everybody—existing elected councillors and newly elected councillors,
552
the Government and the staff—acts in good faith for the benefit of the people of the areas concerned. We hope that the arrangements will go forward smoothly, and that the future orders that we can reasonably predict will do the same, as will the whole process of change.
Finally, I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for their co-operative efforts with my colleagues and myself over what could be described as the review of the review commission, and also for honouring to the letter all the undertakings that they gave me during that process.
5.34 pm
Sir David Madel: I shall talk about the fifth order, which refers to Bedfordshire, but first I congratulate the new Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), on his elevation. He is my parliamentary next-door neighbour, and I am delighted. All Conservative Members will congratulate him.
I believe that the changes for Bedfordshire can work, not least because we had virtually the same set-up in 1974, before the earlier changes. At that time, Luton had had almost 12 years of governing itself as a unitary authority. The big difference between 1974 and now is that the population in the county has grown considerably, as is reflected by the fact that in 94 weeks' time, when I gather the general election will take place, we shall return six Members of Parliament rather than the four whom we returned in June 1970. The growth in population brings with it challenges, which I shall talk about later.
I am glad that the unacceptable plan for a north-south split in Bedfordshire has been buried—for ever, I hope. We need at least 100 years of stability in the county, and we never want the horrible monster of a north-south split to be resurrected. The order for Bedfordshire paves the way for much closer co-operation between Luton and Dunstable and the rest of south Bedfordshire—co-operation that is needed to deal with our main economic problem, which I shall describe later.
The Government are now actively considering the level of state spending for the next financial year, which will include the revenue support grant. I believe that it is essential that they ease the caps on local authority spending, particularly capital projects, for next year. The most obvious projects that we want to accelerate in Bedfordshire are those that would involve modernising many of our existing schools and building new ones, not least because of our ever increasing population. We would welcome a dramatic and clear easing of the caps for 1996–97.
When my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration opened the debate, he said that the new Minister of State would answer in precise mathematical detail a question that I asked about who had what power. As I understand it, as a result of a Government circular, in February 1997, when Bedfordshire county council fixes its budget for 1997–98, the present county councillors for Luton will have no power to participate in the budget decisions.
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I confirm that my hon. Friend's understanding is correct.
Sir David Madel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That means that Bedfordshire county council will have

553
49 councillors deciding its budget for 1997–98. Meanwhile, the shadow authority elected for Luton next year will decide its budget. I am grateful for that assurance.
I want to raise one or two more detailed points, the first of which concerns education. The whole local management of schools system for Luton will have to go ahead before there is any administration to look after it. By the time the elections for the unitary authority take place, LMS will have had to have been prepared and a consultation draft approved. By the time the chief education officer has been appointed, the whole scheme will have had to have been submitted to the Department for Education and Employment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can say who will prepare and approve the scheme, and which body will give it political approval.
The present system of funding changes means that shire counties such as Bedfordshire have to find the set-up costs for unitary authorities such as Luton. That means cuts in the services provided by the remaining two-tier authorities. At the same time, the counties' resource bases are reduced disproportionately with the removal of big towns and cities. Reducing the scale of operations is costly, and redundancy payments alone could add considerably to county council budgets. Bedfordshire county council has one library computer system, based in Luton. The cost implications of providing a second system are considerable. Many other complications will follow the transfer and downsizing of services.
In future, the structure plan for Bedfordshire will be prepared jointly by Bedfordshire county council and Luton borough council, but no guidance has been given on how the joint working will be established. Waste and mineral planning will not be considered jointly. That is a mistake, as Luton has nowhere to put its waste and will rely on Bedfordshire's landfill sites and waste transfer stations. That needs to be organised jointly.
The make-up of the police authority does not appear to be clear. A total of nine members will be appointed by Bedfordshire county council and Luton borough council. Should not the membership be determined by population, as that would be truly representative and democratic? The county would then have six members and Luton three. A system based on the number of councillors would favour Luton, whose councillors represent fewer electors per division. Luton, with 48 councillors, would have at least four members on the authority while the county, with 49 councillors, would have five.
In the case of the combined fire authority, the membership will be based on population. It would be helpful if the same arrangements could apply to the police authority.
My final point on costs deals with the supplementary credit approvals to implement the reorganisation. Can my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that restructured county councils such as Bedfordshire will be treated in the same way as new unitary authorities in the allocation of supplementary credit approvals to cover the costs of the reorganisation?
Mr. John Carlisle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and neighbour, for giving way. While I appreciate that what he has said has come to a certain extent from the county council, I am concerned that the impression might
554
go out from Bedfordshire that the unitary authority of Luton will not, in the longer run, make great savings following the split from Bedfordshire. I know that my hon. Friend will not want to give the House that impression, or suggest that the authority will go to the Government with a begging bowl to ask for more cash. We are happy with the arrangements, which could in the long term result in a substantial saving for the council tax payers of the county.
Sir David Madel: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend, but the interim costs of the reorganisation are uncertain. I felt that I should raise some of the uncertainties now, because it will be some time before the new authorities settle down. My hon. Friend is right to say that we must always keep costs in the county down so that council tax payers have value for money.
The big change that has occurred between 1974 and now is the economic problem in the south of the county and the rate of unemployment. The latest unemployment figures provided by Bedfordshire county council show that the rate of unemployment in Houghton Central and Houghton East is more than 10 per cent., while in Northfields it is 8.3 per cent. Across the border in Luton, the rate of unemployment in Biscot is 20 per cent., while in Dallow it is 20.1 per cent.
A great deal of unemployment was caused by the shattering loss of truck manufacturing in Dunstable. As yet, we do not have a replacement manufacturer for the Bedford truck site. I cannot emphasise too strongly the huge pall of despair that still hangs over Dunstable and Houghton Regis about the loss of the truck manufacturing jobs. When the two new authorities have settled down, they will want to work closely together to bring about an improvement in the infrastructure in the south of the county to get those jobs back.
Fortunately, there is one bright light on the horizon to help us—the launch this autumn of the new Vauxhall Vectra in Luton. Vauxhall employs a large number of my constituents, and everyone in Bedfordshire is willing the new car to be a stunning success. Would not it be a wonderful tonic if the rumours going around were true—that Vauxhall is considering building the highly successful Corsa at Luton as well? The jobs created if two types of car were to be produced at Luton would be a colossal boost to the area. I appeal to General Motors, the parent company of Vauxhall, to remember the intense loyalty shown for years by hundreds of truck employees who used to work at the Bedford truck plant and who now, alas, are unemployed.
We want to make every effort to assist in the economic regeneration of the Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis area. The population has gone up greatly, and there will be co-operation between the two authorities.
Mr. Dobson: I understand that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) are trying to find out what will be the status of county councillors from Luton following the election in May next year of the new Luton council. Unless there is some provision which is not in this order, it would appear to me that councillors from Luton will be able to take a full part in the activities of the county council for a further year.
Sir David Madel: I have dealt with that matter.
Mr. Robert B. Jones: It might be helpful if I intervene. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras

555
(Mr. Dobson) is correct—that matter is not dealt with in this order. We are consulting on the regulations to which my hon. Friend referred, which would mean that county councillors would not be able to take part in the budget process for a year after the formation of the county council in that area. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras.
Sir David Madel: You probably want me to conclude my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The main difference between the economic situation now and that of 20 years ago is the rate of unemployment. I wish the two authorities well, and I hope that they will succeed in working together successfully. Their main priority must be to do everything they can to drive the unemployment rate down in the south of the county and to get new manufacturing businesses into the area. We are desperate for that, and I am certain that we can succeed.
5.47 pm
Mr. Alan Milburn: The order that brings into being a single-tier Darlington council is long overdue, but none the less very welcome news for the town. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I urged Ministers to give the people of Darlington what they have long wanted—a return to self-government. Many hon. Members who represent former county boroughs will realise that places such as Darlington have a sturdy reputation for independence.
The town first became a borough in 1867, with the grant of a royal charter, but when the Local Government Act 1888 authorised the establishment of both county councils and county borough councils, a conflict of responsibilities grew between Darlington borough and Durham county councils. Happily, the matter was resolved expeditiously—following a six-day Government inquiry—with the granting of county borough status for Darlington in 1915.
It is particularly appropriate then that self-government is finally being restored to the town this year—the 80th anniversary of Darlington's becoming a county borough. It is a pity that what could be achieved in six days in the early part of the century has taken almost three years at the end of it.
After all, there can have been few more clear-cut cases in what has sometimes become a chaotic and shambolic local government review than Darlington's bid to run all its own local services. It must from the outset have been clear to all and sundry, particularly to Ministers, that whatever the outcome of the review in the rest of the county, Darlington had a good case for going it alone.
I say that for a number of reasons, not least because Darlington has a history of self-government. As a county borough, the town ran all local services until 1974, when the last Conservative local government review stripped local people of that right. That decision inflicted wounds that are felt to this day in a town in which traditions of civic pride and community identity are held strongly. Darlington had run local schools, libraries and other services with aplomb until 1974.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, Darlington and other towns that had county borough status should never have lost control over their services in the first place. Local people want their town's local government services run locally. That is certainly the case in Darlington.
556
According to the MORI poll undertaken by the Local Government Commission, 74 per cent. of Darlington respondents supported the unitary principle. While residents from elsewhere in the county favoured no change for their local council structure, two thirds of Darlington people wanted a single-tier Darlington authority. In other words, there was and is clear and overwhelming popular support for self-government in the town.
Apart from a slight hiccup—a slight split in the local Conservative party, which is I suppose a fact of life nowadays for Conservative politicians, whether local or national—on the boundaries of any new authority, local public consensus was reflected politically and there was genuine all-party support for a single-tier local authority in the town. That in itself is a reflection of the recognised differences between Darlington and the rest of County Durham. It is distinct from the rest of the county in its patterns of employment, housing tenure, size and history.
To this day, Darlington retains a market town character. It has more people working in service industries and a higher proportion of people who own their own homes than the rest of the county. It is the biggest centre of population in the county and economically the growth pole for future development. Thankfully, Darlington has managed to avoid some of the economic blight that has been visited upon other parts of the county, which has been decimated by the decline of industries such as coal mining.
Inevitably, many people in the town feel that, in a two-tier system of local government, Darlington's differences and needs have sometimes played second fiddle to county-wide objectives when it comes to determining resource allocation by the county council. Despite that, Durham county council has played a positive role in Darlington. As we go forward to a single-tier Darlington authority, I am sure that that positive relationship will be a very real asset. The county council has certainly managed recent changes in local services—not least in the town's schools—with much skill and sensitivity.
None the less, the confusions caused by the two-tier structure of local government in County Durham are a pressing reason for progress towards a single-tier Darlington council. For example, in services such as planning, leisure, arts, museums, economic development and transport, there is an overlap in the functions between the existing county and borough councils. There is also confusion in the public mind about who does what and whether local services are the responsibility of the town hall or the county hall. In Darlington, the public would certainly prefer their services to be run locally rather than from a county hall some 20 miles away from the centre of the town.
Those are the reasons why there is such strong support for the unitary principle in Darlington. I believe that it is a principle that has much to commend it throughout local government. On grounds of efficiency, public understanding, accessibility and sensible decision making, single-tier councils seem to make much sense. In Darlington's case, the unitary principle was always particularly applicable.
Given all of that, why has it taken so long for the Government to get around to agreeing this logical change to the structure of local government in the town? After all, as the Minister is well aware, in County Durham the

557
review began in September 1992. The delay in reaching a final decision for Darlington and the rest of the county was caused by one simple fact—we have had not one, but two reviews.
In May 1993, the Local Government Commission first recommended a single-tier Darlington council, outside a two-tier County Durham. In November of that year, after extensive local consultation involving about 28,000 responses from the county's residents, the same recommendation was made—so far, so good. The public had responded and the commission had done its job. It had come up with a commonsense solution for Darlington and there was a clear consensus behind that outcome.
Then things started to go badly wrong because Ministers started to meddle. The Secretary of State for the Environment issued new guidance to the commission. Whatever view one takes of the wisdom of the guidance or the decision, because of the clear-cut position in Darlington, the obvious thing to do was to exempt the town from a further review. Indeed, I led an all-party delegation to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration to argue that case in December 1993.
Instead, Ministers decided to ride roughshod over local views by forcing Darlington to go through a second review. Exactly the same organisations and people were consulted the second time round, with just two exceptions—the lord lieutenant of the county and the county's magistrates. Whatever those people and organisations have to commend them, frankly, they were never going to make a substantial difference to the original recommendations, so it was no surprise that, when the commission published its second set of recommendations in July 1994 and its final, final set last December, the outcome was as before—Darlington would go it alone, with the remainder of County Durham staying two-tier. In the process, however, precious time and resources have been lost and wasted.
The farce that I have described threw Darlington's future back into the melting pot. It left the future of thousands of local authority staff members hanging in the air and, crucially, ministerial chopping and changing cost Darlington vital time in preparing its future. When the Minister opened the debate, he spoke warmly of the Tees Valley Development Company, which has great potential. The future of Darlington's strategic planning and economic development functions lies eastwards—rather than northwards—with the four new single-tier Cleveland authorities. Darlington council is eager to play a full part in that emerging Tees Valley Development Company but, unlike the other four local authority founding members, it cannot commit any resources until next year. That is holding the project back.
Those unnecessary delays are especially galling because so many of the pieces of the jigsaw are in place to make Darlington an economic success. The town has everything going for it. It has green-field sites, an attractive location, a proud industrial tradition, major international firms that call Darlington their home and excellent communications.
Darlington also has another ingredient which, in my opinion, nowhere else in Britain can match—local people and local organisations who are committed to the town and want it to succeed. Darlington is blessed with people
558
willing to work together in partnership for the benefit of the whole community. It has more than 700 voluntary organisations, many of them bearing the name Darlington in their title. It has almost more charity shops than anywhere else in the country.
That spirit of community, which is so evident in the town, has been given expression by new organisations such as the Darlington employers forum. I am proud to chair that organisation, which brings together the town's largest employers, whether they be in the public or the private sector, and training bodies and community organisations, behind a single economic plan for the area.
The forum's plan, called "Creating New Opportunity", aims to create about 5,000 new jobs by the turn of the century by means of public and private sector partnership initiatives. As long as two local authority decision makers, not one, decide the town's future, however, that plan risks being compromised. That is why the order is so important. It is a matter of regret that Darlington will not have a single decision maker until 1997. That position should, and could, have been avoided.
None the less, the order gives Darlington a chance to shape its own future. It will offer coherent, co-ordinated and efficient decision making. Above all, it will restore to local people power that should never have been taken from them in the first place.
6.1 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: First, may I add my congratulations to those of colleagues on the promotion of my hon. Friend the Minister?
I wish to speak against the East Sussex (Boroughs of Brighton and Hove) (Structural Change) Order. I shall try to be as constructive as I can, because we must learn lessons for the future from the process that has taken place in the past couple of years or so. We need to evolve a system whereby the hopes of local people are not raised only to be dashed, councils are not set against one another in a kind of propaganda war, and real weight is given to strong feelings of local identity in a community.
We in Eastbourne have emerged from that process bruised and bewildered. If anyone had told me, at the start of all that, that when we came out of it we would continue to have a two-tier system in East Sussex, but with about 30 per cent. of the population stripped out of it into a separate unitary authority, I simply should not have believed them.
I should say a word about my constituents in Polegate and Willingdon, who will remain part of Wealden. I know that they feel greatly relieved about that, and Wealden is a very well-run council. I am pleased for my constituents in those parts of my constituency. My speech is directed to my constituents in the borough of Eastbourne.
I appreciate that there is always an element of special pleading in such cases, but I make no apology for what I say this evening. Few cases for a unitary authority can have been as strong as that of Eastbourne, a town which had had a long and proud tradition as a county borough from 1910 to 1974.
On that issue there was an outstanding amount of unity in the community, in all political parties, throughout the council, business organisations, voluntary organisations and so on. My hon. Friend the then Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration was good

559
enough to say that the delegation that I led to meet him from Eastbourne was one of the most impressive he had seen.
Our brush with the Local Government Commission was an unfortunate experience. I felt that it had placed far too much emphasis on a single, deeply flawed MORI poll. It applied abstract notions which were irrelevant to our real needs. It recognised a strong sense of local identity, but proceeded to ignore it.
In its interim recommendations, the commission produced two options. The first option was the so-called "south downs authority", effectively merging Eastbourne with Lewes and south Wealden. That would have merged communities with different needs and aspirations—a predominantly rural community with a coastal and tourism-oriented community.
The second option, which I dubbed during the process "the option from hell", is basically the position we have now, except that Brighton would have been on its own according to that proposal, and Hove would have joined Adur and Worthing. However, deaf to all entreaties, the commission's final recommendation was basically option 2. The commission never got fully to grips with the special sense of identity in Eastbourne, and its implications.
As I have said, the commission did recognise that identity. I quote from its report:
"The town has a strong sense of place, being a Victorian model town and a former county borough. It is also a significant shopping, business and commercial centre, with good infrastructure to support service delivery which in part reflects its former status as a county borough."
The other evidence is overwhelming. A National Opinion Polls poll showed 74 per cent. support for a unitary authority. A household survey conducted by the council showed 94.6 per cent. support. Even on the commission's green form exercise—in which 14 per cent. of the electorate replied, which is a comparatively large proportion—nearly 70 per cent. of those who replied rejected both of the commission's options and wrote in their preference for the Eastbourne option.
That was the highest percentage vote in England for an option not sponsored by the commission. It equalled the total votes for unitary status in Leicester, Nottingham and Northampton combined. There was ample evidence of that strong feeling in my mailbag.
Eastbourne was a county borough and proud of it, a self-contained town encircled by the downland and the sea, a model town, laid out by the then Duke of Devonshire, described as being built by a gentleman for gentlemen at that time. It was the first town to have its own electric light company, police force and water company, and it had the first municipal bus company in the whole country. It has always been a town that knows where it is going. A more modern example is the £500 million Sovereign harbour development. The town has a tradition of self-governance. [Interruption.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) reminds me that the House once voted through the night, under the persuasion of my predecessor, the late Ian Gow, for that very project.
The population of Eastbourne has increased rapidly. It is now 88,000—not, technically, enough for the rather unimaginative limits imposed by the commission, but we add about 10,000 every 10 years. In the next decade,
560
admissions to secondary education are projected to increase by 37 per cent. It is the south-east's major tourist town, with revenues of £110 million a year, 2.8 million visitor nights and 2.6 million day visitors a year. For four months of the year, the population swells to about 150,000. Even in the so-called "shoulder" seasons, it is rarely less than 100,000.
There are also arguments relating to economic regeneration. I am pleased to say that we were recently beneficiaries of £1.5 million from the single regeneration budget. Eastbourne is a town with a long tradition of close co-operation between private and public sectors, especially by means of organisations such as the Eastbourne Business Partnership and the Eastbourne Marketing Group.
There is a major fear that, under those new arrangements, Brighton and Hove and the county will make strategic decisions over the heads of those of us in Eastbourne. Brighton is our closest—and one of our biggest—rivals for tourism, conferences and funding of all types.
We also had strong arguments about the viability of the rump that would be left if Eastbourne also were to be stripped out of the county council. We have provided clear evidence that services such as education and social services would not suffer. We felt that our residual population of about 390,000—nearly equal in size to Shropshire, and more than Northumberland—was more than enough to make the remaining county council absolutely viable.
I make no complaint about my right hon. and hon. Friends who have been wrestling with the contents of this Pandora's box for some time, but I do criticise the role of the county council. Even after the decision to set up Brighton and Hove and to retain a slimmed-down county, the county council has been lobbying hard against Eastbourne achieving unitary status. I publicly described that attitude as "dog in the manger", and I do not resile from one bit of it.
I share the sense of unease left after that process at the failure of the Local Government Commission to appreciate the strength of our case. We felt disappointed about the doubts that emerged later in the process about the Secretary of State's power to modify the proposals emerging from the commission. There was major disappointment that we were not on the list to be referred back to the reconstituted commission.
For all those reasons, it is with real regret that I say that I shall be unable to join my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Division Lobby this evening.
6.10 pm
Mr. David Rendel: It is a great privilege to have a chance to follow such strong criticism of the Local Government Commission with a slightly different speech from that given by the main spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who now seems to be in the Government's pocket on this issue.
The whole process of the review of the structure of local government has been a shambles. I have said that before and shall not hesitate to say it again. It has been a tale of incompetence on the part of the Government from start to finish, with guidelines which have shifted radically

561
from time to time, an attempt to manipulate the commission to suit the Government's intended outcomes, and a wholly inconsistent process of consultation.
The starting point for the review should have been not the structure of local government but the effective delivery of services to local communities. Yet, as we have seen today, the Labour party has now been dragged into the Government's shoddy game of stitching up county after county for their purposes, despite the fact that Labour Members had previously seemed determined, on behalf of their union friends, to oppose every order as it came before the House.
First, I emphasise that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues wholeheartedly support decentralising power, not just to unitary authorities but down to town, village and parish councils. But we do that in a way that is informed at all stages by public opinion, and that is how it should be done. It is vital that all the structures of government carry the support and confidence of the people whom they are meant to serve. The fact that the structures set up in 1973 did not do that has caused so many difficulties since.
Mr. John Butterfill: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says about the Liberal Democrats being sensitive to public opinion. Does that explain why the Liberal Democrat administration in Dorset so vehemently opposed public opinion in Bournemouth and Poole, and tried its best to deny them unitary status?
Mr. Rendel: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that what is best in terms of public opinion in Bournemouth and Poole may not be best in the rest of Dorset. There are all sorts of views, as I shall show in a moment, and sometimes public opinion in a whole county is not the same as in individual towns and cities. We shall do our best to listen to public opinion throughout.
Many of the boroughs proposed as unitary authorities in the orders before us have not been properly consulted on the specific proposals. I know that the Government have a peculiar view of consultation, but even they must acknowledge that, in many of those cases, local people have not expressed conclusive support for the proposed changes.
Even where reasonable consultation has taken place, there is a huge divergence between the preferences expressed in the NOP and MORI opinion polls. So only some of the orders before us tonight can be said to have the undoubted support of local people, which is why I intend to treat them one by one rather than en masse, as the Labour party seems to wish to do. That is no basis on which to restructure local government.
I have a few comments to make about the practical considerations of implementing and financing the restructuring. The arguments about the provision of strategic services are now well rehearsed, but many people still fear for education and the emergency services, for instance, and for the basic coherence of policy in a number of other areas. It will clearly be up to local authorities to co-operate in various joint arrangements to make those matters work. Unfortunately, the Government give the impression that that is simply not their problem, and that they have no role to play in finding the solution.
562
There are also real concerns about finance. The meagre finance support mechanism that is intended to underpin the structural reform is borrowing via the mechanism of supplementary credit approvals. That was to be made available chiefly to the unitary authorities, as the counties were all expected to be abolished. Now that the review is being scaled down, however, it represents a major problem.
In each county, the borough or district that will become a unitary authority will take priority for supplementary credit approval, yet the remaining county will have to foot a large slice of the bill, with only limited access to additional borrowing facilities. That is likely to be a particular problem in Hampshire, and the Government will no doubt have had representations from that county especially.
If capping is to remain in place, it will inevitably mean cuts to services, specifically—almost certainly—to education. But if capping is relaxed, it could mean much higher council tax bills in the coming years for people who have had no say on the matter.
The review has been inspired and instituted by central Government. It is therefore central Government who must ensure that local authorities have sufficient funds to carry the reforms through, even if only through re-prioritising and rescheduling supplementary credit approvals. It would be especially ironic if people who opted for the status quo in their areas on the ground of thrift were now given higher council tax bills because their neighbouring authority had been restructured into a unitary authority.
A related problem could also arise in councillors' representation on police authorities. If councillors from a new unitary authority are to be added to the pool of county councillors on a one-to-one basis for the purpose of selecting the right balance of political representation on a police authority, those unitary councillors will slant the political representation in favour of that existing in their area.
That is clearly not democratic, and will do nothing to improve the workings of police authorities. I know that that matter is a particular concern of the Association of County Councils, and I seek the Government's assurance that that concern will be taken on board and a solution found.
I wish briefly to consider the level of local support for each of the nine counties that we are considering today. I shall take them in the order of the Order Paper. The MORI poll conducted in Thamesdown made it clear that about 50 per cent. of local people were in favour of a change to unitary status and only 11 per cent. wanted to maintain the status quo. In Wiltshire as a whole, the figures were 57 per cent. in favour of unitary status and only 15 per cent. in favour of the status quo. Moreover, the county of Thamesdown and the neighbouring districts were both in favour of that change.
There is undoubtedly a worry about the costs. Annual costs are expected to rise by £2 million and transitional costs by up to 7 million. In that area, however, local support is clear and I shall therefore support that order.
In Staffordshire, the MORI poll showed that, in Stoke, some 39 per cent. of people were in favour of some sort of change, but as many as 35 per cent. were in favour of no change. In Staffordshire as a whole, 39 per cent. were in favour of some change, but 36 per cent. were in favour of no change—very evenly balanced. Moreover, many of

563
those, particularly in Stoke city, who favoured change would have preferred an enlarged Stoke city. There has been no real consultation about a unitary Stoke council, so in this case there is not sufficient evidence of local support to support the proposed change.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman consider for a moment that, by giving the incantation of evidence that he has from MORI polls, he makes a mockery of his protestations that he is in favour of listening to people? He knows nothing about the communities he is talking about, and I doubt whether he has even visited Stoke-on-Trent.
What on earth is the hon. Gentleman doing pontificating about the views of people in Stoke-on-Trent? Will he reconsider his speech, make it considerably shorter, and have more respect for the views of people who live in the communities that he is pontificating about?
Mr. Rendel: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not think that views expressed in MORI polls, and other polls, are worth listening to.
Mr. Fisher: Real people's views are more important.
Mr. Rendel: I should have thought that the real people who respond to those polls are worth listening to, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not. In Darlington—
Mr. Robert B. Jones: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves Staffordshire and Stoke, he seemed to place a great deal of emphasis on the view that he ascribed to the people of Stoke that the city should be extended. Does he not think that the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme or neighbouring areas may have views which might be in conflict with the views of the people of Stoke, and which must also be taken into account?
Mr. Rendel: Of course the views of surrounding towns need to be taken into account. It is because there has been no proper consultation that there is insufficient evidence to go ahead with the Government's proposal. We do not know what would have emerged had there been consultation on the order.
In Durham and Darlington, the MORI poll showed clear support in Darlington for the unitary principle. It is a pity that there was no consultation on having Darlington as the sole unitary authority, with the rest of the county remaining two-tier, especially because there are worries about the cost of the proposed changes—possibly up to £3 million annually. That will affect Durham county as well as Darlington itself. The people of Darlington clearly wish for unitary status, and that wish deserves to be supported.
In Derbyshire, the MORI poll in Derby showed that 50 per cent. supported some form of unitary solution, with only 19 per cent. against it. In Derby city, the majority was even greater, with up to 66 per cent. supporting it. In Derbyshire as a whole, the figure was 50 per cent. Derby's population of 227,000 makes it one of the largest non-metropolitan districts, and thus a suitable case for a unitary authority.
In the county of Derbyshire, all districts except Chesterfield supported the case for a unitary Derby, and the NOP analysis gave a figure of approval as high as 91 per cent. in Derby. There is still a worry about the annual
564
cost of up to £3 million and transitional costs of £5 million, but it seems that local opinion is generally in favour, and the order should therefore be supported.
In Bedfordshire, the MORI poll showed 62 per cent. in favour of a unitary Luton, and only 8 per cent. in favour of no change. In Bedfordshire as a whole, 55 per cent. favoured change and only 13 per cent. were against. Therefore, there is clear support for change, and that is another of the orders that deserves to be supported.
In Buckinghamshire, a unitary Milton Keynes, with the rest of the county remaining two-tier, was the least preferred option in the county, and in Milton Keynes itself. The districts preferred four unitary authorities, and the county preferred a two-tier system to remain. There are considerable extra costs involved—between £1 million and £4 million in increased annual costs and transitional costs of between £2 million and £5 million.
The Government's option for structural change in Buckinghamshire was rejected by the Local Government Commission, which found:
"there has been a lack of general support for this proposal."
I do not believe that there is sufficient local backing for me to support that order tonight.
Mr. David Lidington: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether he supports the option, which was advocated by the districts, of four unitary authorities, which the Local Government Commission said would be a great deal more expensive than that which the Government have brought forward?
Mr. Rendel: I have not attempted to decide which other option is preferable. That would need further consultation with the local people. I have taken what I could of the evidence of what people think about that order, and based my decision on that.
In Bournemouth and Poole, there is considerable support for change, especially in Bournemouth, where the figures are 54 per cent. in favour and 18 per cent. against, according to the MORI poll. That is a much larger proportion than favoured a unitary authority in Poole, where the figures were only 40 per cent. in favour and 35 per cent. against.
However, in the direct representations to the commission, especially from the local councillors concerned, there has been heavy support in both areas for a change. That is not in itself conclusive, but, together with the support shown in the MORI poll, I believe that the order should certainly be supported, particularly because of the high support in Bournemouth.
In East Sussex, which has already caused some controversy tonight, the solution of a unitary Brighton and Hove, with the rest of the county two-tier, was not offered in the consultation process. There was substantial support for no change or for other options, especially in Hove. There is a clear need to re-consult the people in Brighton and Hove on the new proposal for a joint unitary authority. I do not believe that there has been public support sufficient to show that that order should go through.
Finally, in Hampshire, there is much evidence from the direct representations made to the commission of a clear case for both Southampton and Portsmouth to be made into unitary authorities, although the evidence is also

565
strong in the case of New Forest. There is great disappointment there that the Government have not gone ahead with a unitary authority for New Forest.
There is concern in Hampshire about the speed with which the Government will move to ensure that ceremonial functions in Hampshire will not be affected by the setting up of new unitary authorities in Southampton and Portsmouth. I hope that the Minister will give Hampshire further assurances on that. There is also a worry about the cost of the change. The annual cost will be up to £3 million, and transitional costs may be as high as £9 million. The MORI poll was somewhat inconclusive, although generally in favour of some change. I therefore believe that there is a marginal case to be made in favour of the unitary authorities.
All in all, this is something of a dog's breakfast. The review of the local authority structure has done considerable damage to local democracy. A review was needed, and local government needs to be brought closer to the people and made more accessible, relevant and responsive. However, very few people of independent judgment would question the view that the Government have made a pig's ear of the job.
Perhaps, in future, Ministers will take more time to listen to local councillors and spend less time pandering to the Tory right. If they do not, they can look forward to ever deeper defeats in local elections—defeats which, so far, have been richly deserved.
6.28 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: On behalf of the 178,000 residents of Luton, and some 500,000 residents of Bedfordshire, I must say that we breathe the most enormous sigh of relief that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) approved the order that affects us. We were on tenterhooks. We were desperately worried about our future because of the importance of the hon. Member's speech. People would not have slept soundly in their beds tonight had he come down against that order, and others.
The hon. Gentleman's speech was government by opinion poll. So long as the MORI opinion poll said that a particular local populace approved the orders, that was all right with the Liberal Democrats. Never mind the personal opinions that people expressed or the deep historical factors. They were dismissed as pig's ears, dog's dinners or dog's breakfasts.
In the many years that I have been in this place, I have heard some pompous speeches from Liberal Members but that took the biscuit. The hon. Gentlemen had the audacity to go through orders affecting places that he has never, I suggest, seen, visited or even heard of until the orders were published today. To give the House his personal opinion, with no support whatever from other members of his party, and to say magnanimously to hon. Members, who have fought for years for their patches and who have gone through the discussions and deliberations, that he—possibly representing his party—finally approves the orders is almost an insult to the intelligence of hon. Members.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Newbury has sat down because I do not think that many of us could have stood much more. If the Liberal Democrats really mean
566
what they say, will they please say that people do matter? The hon. Gentleman and his party have, on many occasions, dismissed opinion polls as irrelevant because they find themselves at the bottom of those polls. They say that opinion polls do not matter and that what matters is people. It is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman or his party for him to give such a pious and pompous speech.
I can speak with some clarity and a great deal of enthusiasm on behalf of the people of Luton and the people of Bedfordshire. We in Luton and Bedfordshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) has said, welcome the order that affects us. We pay tribute, which the hon. Member for Newbury failed to do, to the members of the Local Government Commission for England. They worked extremely hard and spoke not only to residents in the areas concerned, but to Members of Parliament. Perhaps they missed out the hon. Gentleman; I do not know. There were tortuous proceedings and historical discussions, which were absolutely necessary. I pay tribute to the commission for coming up with an extremely satisfactory answer for Bedfordshire.I am sorry that this debate coincides with a speech being made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. I am sure that my hon. Friends who are present share my disappointment. I know that my right hon. Friend welcomes the orders. If the hon. Member for Newbury presses his rather bizarre thoughts to a vote, we shall ensure that he is defeated.
The order is welcome for Luton. Many of us look back to the pre-1974 days; I speak as a son of the county, having been born and educated there. Before 1974, Luton was a unitary authority, with county borough status, and ran its own affairs. That is why the campaign, admirably led by the citizens of Luton, has been successful. People understand that local authorities must represent the local people; local people have a say and they identify with their area.
People often ask me which constituency I represent. When I say that I proudly represent the town of Luton, they say, "I have been through it," and their face falls. If those people stopped off in Luton, they would find citizens of the highest order—people who are proud of their traditions and of the facilities that the town offers. To return, as I hope we now shall, to unitary status and to be able to look after our own affairs are matters of great pride to us in Luton, and I think that the people of Bedfordshire feel the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West rightly expressed to the House and to the Minister certain concerns that are still felt by the county. I appreciate them, but I shall not bore the House by repeating them. There will, of course, be difficult times ahead in the discussions between the Department of the Environment, elected councillors, council officers and the citizens of Luton. As my hon. Friend said, we are worried about the budget and about the decisions that may be made when the shadow council comes into being. I believe, however, that those matters can easily be put on one side. A new spirit of co-operation between the two areas is already apparent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West rightly mentioned the economic welfare of the south of the county and he was right to point out that we have suffered, as have other areas, from the demise of

567
manufacturing, especially in the truck-building industry. My hon. Friend is also right to say that we hope that the unitary authority for Luton will try to restore Luton as a manufacturing base and that it will create some form of employment. There is enormous enthusiasm for regeneration in that part of the county. I congratulate the county council and Luton borough council on their recent success in obtaining £5 million in regeneration grant. We all enjoy the success of Vauxhall and, like my hon. Friend, I hope that the launch of the new car will bring new prosperity for my constituents and for the town of Luton generally. With unitary status, we should go forward on the basis that Luton people are proud of what they have and of what they have done.
There will, of course, be problems in certain areas in the next couple of years, and I shall outline them briefly " to my hon. Friend the Minister. One problem concerns the roads structure. As I hinted earlier, people say that they have been through Luton. They have been through Luton because they have been travelling on one of the main arterial roads of this country—the Ml. In the county of Bedfordshire, we have been lucky in obtaining substantial sums of taxpayers' money to improve our road structure, particularly through bypassing villages and within the borough.
There is, however, a certain concern that, because of the forthcoming unitary status, some of the road projects that are dealt with by the county, especially those within the borough of Luton—I am thinking especially of the Luton east circular road—could be put on one side, even at this stage, by the county council. The road scheme is on the list, but it may not be scheduled for some years yet. Luton will be hived off and there is concern that, because we shall be on our own, grants from the taxpayer may not be forthcoming. There is also concern that the county council may be tempted to say that if a project concerns Luton, it will be left on one side. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that if projects come before him, especially if money is made available from the Department of Transport, Luton is not forgotten. I ask that there should be no bias against the town because of its future unitary status.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) talked about a scorched-earth policy and I think that he is right to alert all of us to the difficulties that may occur within the next few years when a county sees part of its area becoming a unitary authority. It would be sad and unnecessary for county councils, whether Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, or whatever, to pursue such a policy towards areas that were becoming unitary authorities.
Education is very much a county responsibility at the moment. Some potential problems will be relieved as more schools become grant-maintained; I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not mention that point. If more educational establishments move towards grant-maintained status—I hope that schools in my constituency will do so—the transition period will be so much easier. Not all schools, of course, will go in that direction. For that reason, it is right that the transition should take place as quickly and as smoothly as possible.
In Luton, we have retained an education system in which schools do not have a sixth form. I make this plea to those who may be elected on to the unitary authority, either as shadow councillors or as proper councillors in
568
1997. We should perhaps consider bringing back the sixth form to some of our schools. We have a superb sixth form college which I am proud to have in my constituency. I believe, however, that many schools are being held back because they do not have a sixth form. If there is any spin-off advantage from unitary status, I hope that sixth forms may come about.
The other two major activities in the town are the airport and the university. I hope that the airport will go from strength to strength, especially when we have sense enough to ensure that it is put fully into private hands. It is rather sad that there is still some resistance from the Labour council and that there was some cowardice on the part of the former Tory council.
The other plus for our area is the university, which has provided for many students, from my constituency and from many others, an enormous benefit. It is a place where students can get an excellent education. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Sir G. Bright)—I am sorry that he cannot be here with us this afternoon—made an excellent speech on the subject just a few weeks ago.
Overall, on behalf of my constituents and the people of Luton, I welcome the order. We have been wanting for a long time to return to managing our own affairs and to be rulers in our own fiefdom. It has been welcomed by the people of the county, who, in effect, are staying where they are. The commission's recommendation is right. Luton very much looks forward to unitary status. We can go from strength to strength. On behalf of my constituents, I support this excellent order.
6.40 pm
Mr. John Denham: I welcome the decision to return powers to the city of Southampton and, as the only Hampshire Member present in the Chamber, the decision to return powers to Portsmouth, which I know will be equally welcomed there. It will put both the major cities in Hampshire in a strong position to make the most of their strengths as they move into the 21st century.
I pay tribute to all the people in Southampton who have pressed consistently for this change for the past 20 years, and, if I can strike a partisan note, particularly to the Southampton Labour party and its councillors, who have been unwavering under the Labour Government up until 1979 and the present Administration in pressing for the return of powers to the historic city of Southampton. I believe that the change reflects unambiguously what the vast majority of people in Southampton want to see.
I listened with some amazement to the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). He provided some explanation for a question that had puzzled me: why the Liberal Democrat members on Southampton city council had voted consistently for a return of powers, whereas their councillors, who represent the same people in the same wards, had reflected, they said, the views of the people by voting against the change, and, on the occasions when those councillors were one and the same person, managed to support both policies on two different councils. Despite the finesse of the analysis of the MORI poll, I suspect that what we heard earlier will lend itself more to numerous ambiguous statements in numerous Focus leaflets in different parts of the country than any serious analysis of what local people in different parts of the country want to happen.

569
It is a matter of regret in Southampton that, unlike many other places—I acknowledge what other hon. Members have said—the Conservative party has not supported the return of powers for most of the past 20 years. It has taken a rather curmudgeonly attitude on this issue, which, no doubt, is why it is now in third place in the city that it once controlled. None the less, half the Conservative Members supported the change when it was recently discussed, and I welcome that.
Over recent years, the Labour leadership of the councils of many of the towns and cities that will now enjoy renewed powers has established public confidence in the idea that powerful unitary authorities can play a leading role in making those towns and cities successful. I believe that that is the case in Southampton. The case for a return of powers is based not simply on sentiment and historic identity, although historic identity and pride in it are important to us, but on a confidence that good local government with a clear-cut set of responsibilities, which is close to the people, can be most effective in shaping the future of the city.
The period between 1975 and 1984 was stagnant for Southampton. The Conservative-controlled council did little or nothing as jobs in traditional industries slipped away. The election of a Labour council in 1984 coincided with, and, I believe, helped to lead, a real revival and transformation in the city. I say "helped" to lead, because I am under no illusions that the role of councils is not just in the direct services that they provide, but in the quality of the partnerships that they build with other organisations and with other parts of the community, which constitutes real leadership of a city.
That has certainly characterised my city over the past 10 or 11 years. In that time, the old docks have been opened up for leisure and housing. We have seen significant new retail, office and industrial developments. New hotels have been established. New arts centres, the Mayflower theatre, the Gantry and the Harbour Lights film theatre have been built. The city has come alive with film, music and other festivals. There has been a significant expansion of community and sports facilities. The city council has worked closely and consistently with the private sector and the business community to build strong links with the European Union and the Russian federation. The council has worked particularly closely with neighbouring authorities, such as Bournemouth, Poole and Portsmouth in the south coast area, which will be important in developing our regional economy and its links with other parts of Europe. It has worked closely in partnership with housing associations to build new social housing, and with the private sector to open up flats above shops. It has one of the most successful records of any authority in the country.
We also have much to look forward to: a £250 million retail development in the city centre; I hope very much a new stadium for the Saints; a major expansion of the marine science and engineering industry, based, I hope, on the existing skills in the local economy and the new department of oceanography, which will move into its new building in the docks in the autumn; and, of course, the continued expansion of higher education at the university, at the Southampton Institute and the La Sainte Union college, which, as they have expanded, have played such an important part in the life of the city in the past five years.
570
What is important is not only the partnerships that have been formed but the style of local government, which has built public confidence in the future of the city. In particular, there is a deep commitment to decentralisation and devolution of power. Over the past few years, there has been a major expansion in the role of tenants organisations, so that they are not only consulted but are key players—for example, in determining matters as basic as the level of rents in the local council housing service, and in many of the issues on the local estates. Every area of the city is covered by community forums, which give local people direct access to council officers and the right to work with them without having to go cap in hand or with the leave of the local councillor to change and shape local services. I believe that that is the style of local government that will be appropriate to Southampton in the future.
It would be wrong to suggest that the relationship between Southampton and Hampshire has been poisonous, or one based on a total lack of co-operation. There have been many issues on which there has been good co-operation between the two authorities. I recognise that entirely. There have, however, been tensions, which I hope will diminish in the future. As the majority of members of the county are from rural and suburban areas, there has often been a difficulty for the county in recognising exactly what needs to be done in the major cities if they are to play a powerful and central role as regional centres for the local economy. There has been a failure to understand, most recently in the discussions about the Saints football stadium—the community stadium—the importance of such a development for the identity of a city: it is not just a place in which a premier league football team can play.
Problems have been caused simply by remoteness. Hampshire has 1.5 million people, and in an elected authority that means that the elected members are too far away from the people whose interests they are supposed to serve to have a real hands-on feel for what is happening in local decisions. The reality is that many of the decisions in Hampshire have been taken by local government officers who are quite removed from the local communities that they serve and from the members to whom they are nominally accountable. Although many of them are excellent professional officers, I believe that working under the guidance of a local authority that is much closer to the people will improve the quality of the services.
Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his local council is fully supportive of the move of Southampton football club to the site that it envisages?
Mr. Denham: If the hon. Gentleman means 100 per cent. of the members, that would be wrong, but an overwhelming majority of the city council is supportive, including all of the Labour group—the ruling administration—and two thirds of the Liberal Democrat group. Between them, that constitutes something like 36 out of 45 councillors. The proposal has had overwhelming support from the city council, and we have been very grateful for the firm affirmation by the Secretary of State for the Environment that the site chosen is the best site available in the local area.
The final problem in the relationship between the city and the county is one with which all Members whose councils have a two-tier structure will be familiar: the

571
sheer duplication. It is extremely difficult to explain to a local community why it takes two councils to paint a yellow line on a road, and often two to repair a pavement and to introduce a traffic calming scheme. The city looks forward to having new powers over education and social services and delivering those services in partnership with schools, voluntary organisations and the social services structure.
I should like to make a few comments about the problems that could be faced in the next two years. The arguments on the finances of the transition can go both ways. It is difficult to establish whether there will be a cash saving or a cash cost. The differences are at the margins of local government expenditure. In my view, the value for money that we shall seek from the change is not so much cash savings as the spending of funds more efficiently and more closely to the priorities of local people than happens under the existing two-tier structure. That will be the challenge for the new authority. Southampton city council will have to show that, working with the resources that it has, it can deliver services that are closer to what the people of the city want.
I am worried about what will happen in the next 18 months. The county council is desperately short of finance. I do not have fears, certainly on the present evidence, of the scorched-earth policy in Hampshire county council of which some hon. Members have spoken. However, this year it had to make cuts of some £20 million. Although the Minister may say that there is no budget settlement for next year, on current trends the council will have to make cuts of about £38 million.
Serious reductions in services, such as the abolition of the school meals service, are being contemplated by the county council. It would be a serious problem for the residual county council and for Southampton and Portsmouth if such damage was done to the quality of county services in the next year, that the new authorities were perceived as starting out with a lower level of services in 1997. I urge the Minister to examine those issues carefully when the budget settlement for local government is made next year.
It is important that the transition can take place in a way that ensures that there is a straightforward handover of services to the new authorities. Declining services and low staff morale should not be inherited by the new unitary authorities because that would make the job of establishing them much more difficult than needs to be the case. I hope that those issues will be taken on board seriously in the autumn when the budget settlement is reached.
6.52 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: My constituency of Bournemouth, West comprises almost half the borough of Bournemouth and a significant part of the borough of Poole. I know from my consultations with people in both boroughs that an overwhelming majority of the residents warmly welcome the orders before us this evening.
There has been considerable tension for many years between the urban area which comprises the south-east conurbation—primarily Bournemouth and Poole—and the rural county that surrounds it. There has been for some time a feeling that many of those elected to serve in the rural county have little understanding of the needs and
572
problems of an urban area and vice versa. That inevitably has created a certain tension. That tension has probably been more acute in Bournemouth than anywhere else.
Bournemouth previously had a proud tradition as a county borough. It ruled itself successfully and became a prosperous leading resort in the United Kingdom while it was a county borough. Therefore, there was considerable resentment when in 1974 it was plucked out of Hampshire and thrust into the rural county of Dorset, largely to provide rate product for an impoverished rural county. From then on, Bournemouth felt that its needs and concerns were not met within the county of Dorset.
However, a modus vivendi was established. It was always rather tense, but never more tense than it has become in the past couple of years since the county administration has been controlled by the Liberal Democrats. It says something for the strength of local feeling against the incompetent and insensitive administration that we now have in county hall that councillors of all parties—Conservative, Labour, independent and even the Liberals—in the boroughs of both Bournemouth and Poole are unanimous in their wish to escape from the grasp of the county administration run by the Liberal Democrats. It is hardly surprising that that should be so when one considers the record of incompetence that we have had to suffer in Dorset under their rather malign administration.
Mr. Rendel: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that the results of the local elections this year demonstrate that people have turned against the Liberal Democrats in Dorset?
Mr. Butterfill: I can only speak for the results in my constituency of Bournemouth, West, where we won a seat back from the Liberal Democrats. That fairly conclusively shows what the feeling is in my constituency.
It is true that the councils are united in their wish to escape from the grasp of the Liberal Democrats in county hall. It is true that the administration is incompetent. It is true that it is cutting services throughout the county and claiming that the cuts are the result of Government cuts. I have here a leaflet which says that reductions in library hours are due to Government expenditure restrictions. That is despite the fact that the Government grant to Dorset has been increased by almost £12 million or 4.7 per cent. in the current year. That is almost double the average for county councils.
The reality is that Dorset county council is spending more than £24 million above Government recommended levels on capital expenditure to build new schools to fulfil its election pledges, which were mind-boggling. They were simply bribes to the electorate. In order to fulfil those pledges, the council has had to cut all the other services. For example, it has cut the social services budget dramatically even though it has had a substantial increase of 12.6 per cent.—£8.8 million last year and £8 million again this year. It is blaming that on the Government.
Dorset county council has even cut the education revenue budget, the library budget and the fire service budget. It is spending huge sums of money that it has gained from the sale of assets. It has just agreed to sell—thank goodness—our local airport. The receipts from the sale will be about £7 million. When challenged to say whether it would use some of that money to restore the cuts that it made in social services, it declined to do so simply because it wants to keep its irresponsible election

573
pledges on the building of new schools. Of course we all agree that we want to build new schools, but not all at once or all in one year.
Therefore, we shall be very pleased to escape from the grasp of Dorset county council. It claims to be a competent and responsible administration, but, in education spending it spent £660 per pupil per annum on central bureaucracy, which is more than most other shire counties, even though Dorset is assessed by the Department for Education as having one of the lowest needs to spend.
The root of the problem is that Dorset county council is incompetent. That is why we in Bournemouth and Poole will be glad tonight to escape from its grasp. We warmly applaud the orders.
6.58 pm
Mr. George Stevenson: Someone said—the name escapes me for the moment—that a week is a long time in politics. [Interruption.] I hear one of my hon. Friends saying that it was Lord Wilson, who has sadly died. So 23 years can qualify as a long time. That is the period during which the people of Stoke-on-Trent have been campaigning for a return to their former status as a county borough. Therefore, the order covering Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent is extremely welcome.
One reason—by no means the only reason—why the people of Stoke-on-Trent have been campaigning for a return to their former status since 1974 is that that reorganisation has never been understood or accepted. If a local government structure is not accepted after all this time by the people whom it purports to represent, it is fatally flawed. We welcome the fact that after 23 years, albeit a long time, the Government have brought forward the order this evening.
The order is also welcome because the former county borough of Stoke-on-Trent had an excellent record in the provision of services. For example, nursery school provision in Stoke-on-Trent is by far the best in the county of Staffordshire. That is not because of developments that have taken place since 1974, because there have not been any. It is because the former county borough of Stoke-on-Trent placed nursery education at the top of its agenda and spent its resources accordingly. Stoke-on-Trent has excellent nursery services because of the actions of the previous county borough.
Despite the best efforts of Staffordshire county council and Stoke-on-Trent city council during the past 23 years, the present system simply has not worked. Therefore, we welcome and support the order. However, I have one or two points of concern to put to the Minister.
Before I do so, I refer briefly to the forensic analysis of the situation in Stoke-on-Trent by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). The swathe of knowledge displayed by the hon. Gentleman about Stoke-on-Trent was staggering. It was exceeded only by what must be the most arrogant speech that I have ever heard in all my time in politics.
For the record, Staffordshire county council supports the change, Stoke-on-Trent city council supports the change, and business, industry, voluntary organisations and the people of Stoke-on-Trent support the change. The
574
management of the Wedgwood factory, which is just outside Stoke-on-Trent, is so impressed with the unitary authority that it fought hard for the factory to be included in the unitary authority of Stoke-on-Trent and I am pleased that the Government accepted that.
All the political parties in Stoke-on-Trent support the change. In year after year of fighting elections in Stoke-on-Trent, the election addresses of all Labour candidates have included a pledge to continue to campaign for the restoration of powers in Stoke-on-Trent and the creation of a unitary authority.
Yet the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to suggest that the people of Stoke-on-Trent have not been consulted. Where does he think that we have been for the past 20 or 30 years? Does he really think that when we go back to our constituencies we sit in a little corner and make up our own minds? Will he at least have the good grace to accept the possibility that, as constituency Members of Parliament, we talk to the people whom we represent, or has that thought not occurred to the hon. Gentleman?
In the May elections this year, a continued commitment to and welcome for unitary status in Stoke-on-Trent was put on every Labour party election address and we won all the 20 seats available. That shows that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the people of Stoke-on-Trent have not been properly consulted and do not want the change is not only misplaced but arrogant in the extreme.
If the changes are to work—we all want them to work—there must be the maximum co-operation between the county council, the city council and the Government during the period of transition. The maximum amount of flexibility is needed to ensure that the change is made as smoothly as possible in everyone's interest so that the new authority can begin to work as effectively as possible from the day of the change.
Stoke-on-Trent already has in place a system of consultation and liaison between Staffordshire county council and the city. Progressive plans have been laid for the future which show the determination of Stoke-on-Trent city council to carve out a successful future for the area, and that despite the fact that the area has suffered enormous job losses as a result of pit closures, the halving of employment in the pottery industry, and so on. There is a need for considerable investment in the area.
The Government have an important role to play in the provision of such investment. The city has plans for private and public investment, but we desperately need the Government to be as flexible as possible in the provision of resources so that the great challenges that Stoke-on-Trent will face now and as a unitary authority can be effectively addressed.
There are two particular matters concerning resources that I wish to put to the Minister. The first reiterates a plea that has already been made by a Conservative Member for the relaxation of capping levels. If the Government simply transfer the present capping regime to the new unitary authority, not only will that show how damaging the capping regime has been previously, but it will be catastrophic. I hope that the capping regime will go, but that may be asking too much of the Government. At the very least, the capping regime should be examined and some flexibility shown.
The second matter relates to standard spending assessments. There is particular concern in Staffordshire, and certainly in Stoke-on-Trent, about the area cost

575
adjustment element of the SSAs. Representations on that have been made to the Government and I think that they have accepted that the area cost adjustment element is discriminatory and has to be reviewed. I make the plea this evening that if the new unitary authority in Stoke-on-Trent goes ahead with the same discrimination built into the SSAs on education and other services, it will remain at a distinct disadvantage compared with many other areas. We need assurances that the Government will take action on the area cost adjustment element of SSAs as they affect the new unitary authorities and as they will continue to affect the remaining county council.
I was a little worried when the Minister, in response to questions from two of his hon. Friends earlier, said that the Government intend to bring forward orders that will debar county councillors who retire at the end of April 1997 from having any input into the budgetary process before their retirement. I did not know of those plans, but they highlight a number of important issues.
I appreciate the Government's concern about budgetary considerations affecting the residual county council in the year following the transition; but such arrangements should not prejudice a fair distribution of resources from the county to the unitary authorities. We need an assurance from the Government that any move to deprive Stoke-on-Trent city councillors of an input into budgetary provision will not compromise a fair transfer of resources from county to city.
I assume that, during the transition period, the Government will be prepared to consider representations from the "shadow" authority, through its Members of Parliament, just as they would consider representations and delegations from the previous authorities.
The orders are warmly welcomed in Stoke-on-Trent, and I am sure that—despite the Liberal Democrats—they will be strongly supported this evening.
7.10 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), on his promotion. I also thank him and the rest of the ministerial team for the patience and courtesy that they have shown throughout a controversial debate in Buckinghamshire about the future structure of local government in the county.
Many different opinions have been strongly expressed in the debates that have taken place over the past couple of years. I confess that, at times—representing, as I do, a constituency that not only falls within the county council area but includes parts of three district councils—I felt as though I was in the line of crossfire between opposing trenches. Despite the strictures levelled at the order by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), I believe that we are now discussing the reasonable outcome of that debate.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newbury may not have had time to study in detail the many Local Government Commission reports and orders on which he has commented. I think it fair to add, however, that the surveys conducted by or on behalf of the commission show a consistent theme: the majority of residents of the borough of Milton Keynes—between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.—wanted an outcome that would give the borough unitary status. The controversy within Buckinghamshire centred on whether the area outside Milton Keynes should retain a two-tier system, as is now
576
proposed, or should be divided into different unitary authorities. In my constituency, which includes the county town and nearby areas, there was a strong surge of opinion in favour of the status quo, but I should acknowledge that strong contrary views were expressed in other parts of the county—for instance, in High Wycombe and Beaconsfield.
A number of practical issues need to be tackled if the new structure is to be introduced smoothly. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel), I am concerned about the future allocation of standard spending assessments and about supplementary credit approvals. I also share his anxiety, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), about the position of members of the existing county council who represent wards which, after 1997, will form part of a new unitary authority.
My understanding of the order was that elected county councillors would continue to sit on the county council and enjoy full voting and policy-making rights until the next county council elections in 1997. That would imply that those councillors—in the case of Buckinghamshire, those representing wards in Milton Keynes—would be able to participate in the setting of the budget for the financial year 1997–98, and hence in the determination of council tax levels for that year. Moreover, if—as I personally hope—the Government relax the present capping limits significantly, the potential difficulties created by that arrangement may well be aggravated. The position of Milton Keynes county councillors would not affect overall political control within Buckinghamshire, but I suspect that the circumstances would be different in other county councils where part of the county is being hived off as a separate unitary authority.
The Government have not yet been able to come up with a decision on the parishing of unparished areas, which was the subject of recommendations from the Local Government Commission. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. Butler) has asked me to remind the ministerial team that parts of his constituency—and parts of the new unitary authority of Milton Keynes—would, under the current arrangements, remain unparished, while most of the area would be subject to parish councils; and that that distinction would appear, in his case, to be based less on strict logic than on the historic pattern of the development of the new city of Milton Keynes.
The Local Government Commission firmly recommended that Aylesbury, my constituency, should be parished, and that the proposed new town council should take over the civic responsibilities currently exercised by the charter trustees—and also act as a voice for the town, playing a role comparable to that played by parish and town councils representing the smaller towns and villages in my constituency.
I accept that Ministers must strike a balance. On the one hand, however, we need to find a way to allow the view of an authentic local civic community to be expressed in debates about planning, housing allocations and other matters discussed in the context of a particular district or county, while on the other hand we wish to avoid inventing a new system in which people are unnecessarily over-governed.
Those who responded to the commission's consultation exercise in Aylesbury said that they wanted a town council as a focus for civic identity, for ceremony and to

577
give the town of Aylesbury a voice that it lacks at present, but which is enjoyed by such places as Wendover and Princes Risborough through the town and parish councils that represent those smaller communities.
Although the debate in Buckinghamshire has been intense and, at times, bitter, it is now of the utmost importance that all local authorities accept the decision that has been reached, and work together for the smoothest possible introduction of the new arrangements and the best possible system of local government. I know that Buckinghamshire county council intends to hold firmly to its promises to the commission and to the Government that it would try to enhance the local relationships between county hall and individual town and village communities in Buckinghamshire.
The county has much to be proud of in its history and in its record on the delivery of services. Each district council in Buckinghamshire has also sought to establish a tradition of providing efficient and cost-effective service. I hope that, despite the disappointment that the district councils in Buckinghamshire have felt at the Government's eventual decision, those councils will work to make a success of the new system.
If there is a Division tonight, I shall support the order, and look to the elected representatives of all parts of my county and of all political parties to ensure that the new system works well on behalf of the people whom we all seek to serve.
7.20 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: This is an important, indeed, historic day for Stoke-on-Trent. Ever since it lost powers in 1973, the return of those powers, especially those over education, social services and public libraries, has been the dominant political and social issue in that city and, I suspect, in most of the authorities that will regain their powers with these orders tonight.
Like people in other regions and cities, we have campaigned, lobbied and argued for 23 years. When I say we, I mean industry, the voluntary sector and all political parties. There has been complete unanimity in Stoke-on-Trent, as, I think, the Minister and other Ministers in the Department of the Environment know from their visits to the city. That campaign has been ably, articulately and passionately led by the present leader of the city council, Councillor Ted Smith, and by its new chief executive, Bryan Smith. It has been an articulate campaign. All those people and everyone in Stoke-on-Trent is grateful to the Minister, to the commissioners and to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for having got us to this position.
The reasons why we, like others, are anxious to regain our powers do not simply involve regaining control and grandiose ideas of running our own affairs. There are good practical reasons why a unitary authority offers benefits to a community. It brings government much closer to the people. That is especially important for education and social services, which involve personal service. Singular unitary authorities give a coherence of integrated services. Up to now, the interaction, particularly between housing and social services, has been separated in all these authorities. That has been a permanent source of grievance.
578
I would have thought that every hon. Member has constituents who come to them and say that they want a housing transfer so that they can be near their elderly parents, look after them in their parents' home, maintain their independence and not have them go to an old people's home. Potentially, that saves the local authority a great deal of money and makes a much better life for such people. When housing and social services are in two different authorities, however, often that is not possible. Indeed, no economic or other incentive exists for the two authorities to co-operate. The frustration that every hon. Member faces with such cases is nothing compared with the misery unnecessarily caused to people. There is an inability to bring together those two crucial services to make a difference to elderly people's lives because those responsibilities are split between two different authorities. There are therefore economic as well as human gains.
In almost all these cases, certainly in Stoke-on-Trent, by having a unitary authority, we are able in that authority to reflect a cultural identity and integrity of a region. In Stoke-on-Trent, the health authority, the travel-to-work area, the local radio stations and the local press all serve a coherent community, the responsibility for which up to now has been split between a county council and a city council. That just simply does not make sense and does not make for good government. There are therefore good practical, pragmatic reasons.
When faced by the scale of social problems that 16 years of this Government's neglect and hostility towards local authority education, housing and social services have caused, and the poverty and unemployment that we are experiencing in Stoke-on-Trent, we need all the coherence and efficiency in running our services to deal with those problems.
Of course, a unitary status is a cure-all for none of those communities. Good government or bad government is possible in any structure but at least unitary status and unitary authorities offer an opportunity to use money better, to get better value for money and to get closer and more personal local government. At least it gives the chance of eliminating one cause of inefficiency in local government, which occurs when two authorities follow strategies and policies that pull in opposite directions.
One or two wider points affect Stoke-on-Trent and probably go wider into national policies. For most of this century, there has been an anti-city trend in the urban policy, especially in relation to planning, of Governments of both political parties and of industry. There has been at best a scepticism about the viability of living in inner cities and often great hostility. It is reflected in the work of people such as Ebenezer Howard, and in the move to suburban living, garden suburbs, urban sprawl, ribbon development, depopulation of inner cities and the deindustrialisation of inner cities.
That trend has been going on throughout this century. Such trends are both reflected in and aggravated by responsibility for Stoke-on-Trent and for the big 11, as they were called—including Cardiff, Swansea, Southampton, Bristol, Hull and Portsmouth—being split between authorities that were rightly concerned about their rural populations, and authorities that had joint responsibility for cities.
It was impossible to deal coherently with that anti-city bias which has existed in both political parties for most of this century. While we have reflected that, Europe has been going in the other direction. Especially in the past

579
10 or 15 years, European cities such as Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Barcelona and Frankfurt have had a pro-city policy and strong coherent local government. They have rebuilt their inner areas, trying to attract people back to live there and to attract jobs back.
The difference between our attitude historically towards cities and European attitudes is especially important as cities are such a competitive business these days. All cities are competing desperately, both with cities in this country and cities in Europe, for the same pool of inward investment from the private sector, from Governments, and from the European Community. All are competing for visitors and tourists and fighting desperately for their economic future and their economic lives. Our cities have not had coherent, unified planning authorities. We simply have not been able to compete on an equal footing with other European cities, and it shows.
Hon. Members will know about this matter from visiting places such as Barcelona. The coherence of its city authorities is one of the reasons why it has been able to deliver high-quality living standards and a sense of purpose and profile that the non-metropolitan cities in this country—important European cities such as Nottingham, Cardiff, Swansea and Bristol—have had great difficulty in achieving. They have not been able to compete because they have been living a split life under local authorities. Non-unitary status has therefore held us back.
There is a knock-on benefit from the orders. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will have read the Council for the Protection of Rural England's report last week about urban sprawl. If we have strong local authorities which attract people back to live in the cities, it will help to preserve the countryside. It will be good for the environment; it will reduce the need for commuting and will reduce energy consumption through travel. That is the only way that the country can go. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, by providing the opportunity for much more coherent, positive and strategic planning of major cities such as Stoke-on-Trent and Southampton, the orders have enabled us to correct the balance and bring about a generation of pro-city policies which will be a big historic change for this country.
It is ironic that these orders now leave London in an extraordinary position. It is the only capital in Europe without a democratically elected strategic planning authority and it is the only city of any size in England that does not have single unitary authority status. It should be of concern to everybody in this country, regardless of whether one lives in London, that our capital city is held back from competing with Rome, Paris and the other world cities with which it should rightfully compete because it does not have the unitary status that we are, rightly, giving to the other major cities.
Those of us in Stoke-on-Trent are delighted by the orders and by the work that the commission and the Government have undertaken over the past few years. We know that there will be transitional problems and other hon. Members have already referred to them. I hope that the Government will look at the funding arrangements. This transition is not cheap and the Government have underestimated the costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) said, the Government should at least look at relaxing the capping mechanisms and should look again at the area cost adjustments and the standard spending assessments. The
580
transition is taking place in difficult times and I hope that the Government will be as constructive about that as they have been about other matters.
I hope that the Minister will look again at the barring plans for consideration of budgetary matters by councillors in city areas of the old county councils. If the Minister's edict is passed, he knows that Staffordshire would be put in an invidious position. The longest serving leader of a county council, Councillor Bill Austin, is a Stoke councillor and, in the last year of the old county council, we will be in an extraordinary position in that Councillor Austin will be unable to participate in the budgetary considerations of the local authority that he leads. I am sure that that will not be unique. The Government should look at that.
I think that we all understand that there should be transparency and openness, but I am not sure that barring is the only way to achieve that. The Audit Commission and the Government will need to ensure that the division of reserves and other matters is fairly and properly done. All authorities are aware of that, but there will be an important ring-holding role for the Government.
We know that as well as the technical problems there will be social problems surrounding the transition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has already said, our city council has made an early start and is anticipating the policy developments and initiatives that will be necessary. The city council is doing a good job talking to head teachers and those involved in social services in trying to get strategies up to speed.
As I have said, Stoke-on-Trent is enthusiastic about the orders and we are grateful to the commissioners and the Government for them. We cannot wait for April 1997, not least because that will almost certainly coincide with a Labour Government. The combination of a Labour Government and unitary status for Stoke-on-Trent in the annus mirabilis of 1997 will mean a positive future for the city.
7.33 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), I want to record an unreserved welcome on behalf of my constituents for the Dorset order, in so far as it relates to Bournemouth. It puts right the injustice that was done to us in 1972 when the House decided to abolish the county borough councils. Until then, Bournemouth county borough council had proved to be one of the most efficient, low-cost, value-for-money unitary authorities anywhere, as was Southend-on-Sea county borough council on which I was serving at the time.
We jointly and fiercely resisted the Government's proposals at that time. We could not see how the remote control of all the major local government services could possibly be improved from county hall, even though those elected to represent us from Bournemouth undertook leading roles to make it work. I should like to pay tribute to Alderman Derek Scott, Michael Green and Jeanne Curtis who did so much in that respect for Bournemouth and Dorset at Dorchester.
Sadly, much of what was feared has been proved right. The county has failed strategically to plan for the explosion in demand for school places in Bournemouth, especially in our primary schools, and the problem facing those schools will be transferred to the secondary schools

581
before the end of the decade. Despite that, the county closed the Beaufort school complex at Southbourne in my constituency just a decade ago. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, it is now having to find sites for new schools.
There is growing concern about the provision of community care, especially for the elderly and disabled. The Liberal Democrat-controlled county council proposes to raise domiciliary charges by a massive 700 per cent. Recently, the county council irresponsibly abandoned plans to complete our inner urban highway which would link Wessex way to Dorset way and which had been planned by the former county borough council.
During this period under the control of the county council no service in Bournemouth has suffered more than the library service. During that time, no new libraries have been built in Bournemouth whereas Weymouth, Gillingham, Crossways, Lytchett Minster, Corfe Mullen, Ferndown, Littlemoor, and Creekmoor have all seen the erection of new libraries. Whenever the county wanted to save money it tried to close libraries in Bournemouth. For example, it tried to close Ensbury park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West as well as Springbourne and Strouden park in my constituency. Fortunately, the plans were thwarted, mainly through local protest. Plans for the desperately needed new central library in Bournemouth have twice been cancelled at the last minute by the county council—once in 1974 and most recently in 1993. Among Bournemouth libraries, only Westbourne has seen any significant improvements.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, the opening hours of the libraries have just been cut and most are to see a further reduction of three hours a week in the current year. The council is seeking to blame the Government for that when it is entirely its decision and responsibility.
It was clear to all of us that Bournemouth had no future in Dorset. That is why the Local Government Commission found such widespread support for what is proposed in the order. I congratulate this Conservative Government on providing us with an opportunity to make a case for the return to a unitary authority. I want to record my thanks to the commission for accepting Bournemouth's case in full. I believe that Sir John Banham undertook a difficult job and that we should give him credit for the way in which he carried it out. I congratulate my hon. Friend the new Minister of State on his promotion and I thank him and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration for accepting without compromise the commission's recommendations for Bournemouth.
We are now actively planning for a successful transition in 1997 with the full co-operation of the county council. I very much hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister of State sums up the debate, he will use the opportunity to confirm what my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration said in answer to my question to him earlier about the election timetable in Bournemouth. Are we to understand that elections to the new authority which takes over in 1997—elections to the shadow authority—will take place in May 1996 and that the present authority, which was re-elected this year, will continue to serve until the new authority takes over in 1997?
582
Whatever the outcome of those elections next year, I hope that men and women of calibre and experience, not least in managing multi-million pound budgets and in the purchasing of services, will be elected. Further thought should be given by my hon. Friends the Ministers about how to attract and encourage such people to offer themselves as candidates in those elections next year. We must seek to reduce further the amount of time that they will have to commit to local government service and the almost inevitable loss of income and career prospects that many of them will experience should they be prepared to stand for the new unitary authorities.
In conclusion, I am sure of one thing: the conduct of all local services from under one roof over the town hall will lead to their more efficient provision for my constituents. That will be to the eternal credit of the Conservative Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
7.41 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: It was, perhaps, natural—a Pavlovian response—that, when the Government Whip saw me in the Chamber, he assumed that I was here to force a Division on the order that relates to Derbyshire, even though it is supported by the Labour Front Bench. It would not be unusual for me to act in that way, but I can assure him that I am content with the order. I am not a zealot who has come to the Chamber to argue against it. The order is entirely in line with my initial submission to the boundary commission when it began its investigations into Derbyshire.
The hon. Members who strongly dislike the order are the Conservative Members of Parliament who represent Derbyshire—and they are not present tonight. They dislike it because one of its consequences is that Derbyshire county council, less Derby, remains. They fundamentally and unreasonably oppose many of the actions taken by Derbyshire county council. They often argue in the House against the work that it does.
The Government are in an odd position in relation to the order. They are presenting it to the House now but, for three years, and until recently, they worked against what is now being proposed. They did not work against the proposal for a separate unitary authority of Derby, but they were against allowing Derbyshire county council to remain intact.
The first sign that action was being taken against Derbyshire was when it was revealed that it was to be examined by the boundary commission under the first tranche of proposals. Although the commission had to go back to the Government to obtain agreement, we had to consider the matter carefully and try to protect Derbyshire's external boundaries.
The parliamentary and local government boundary commissions were operating at the same time, and they were sending submissions to each other—partly to keep each other informed and partly to influence each other. The parliamentary constituencies in Derbyshire could have been changed and overlapped into other areas, which would have affected the shape of Derbyshire. My initial approach was to seek to defend Derbyshire's external skin and to argue that, whatever the structures inside it, Derbyshire had to be retained.
The boundary commission adopted three positions on Derbyshire. First, there was a report and recommendation known as the doughnut; The proposal was for two unitary

583
authorities in Derbyshire—one for Derby and the other for Derbyshire. The suggestion made local Conservative Members of Parliament blow their tops because they did not want Derbyshire county council to take authority throughout the area except Derby.
The second proposal was for unitary authorities in the north-east corner of Derbyshire—in the Chesterfield area—and in Derby and for the rest to consist of a strange two-tier structure that had no great cohesive qualities and wandered throughout Derbyshire. We finished up with a sensible system that anyone in Derbyshire could have said, right from the start, was reasonable.
During that process, the Government interfered, stage by stage. Sir John Banham admitted that there had been strong ministerial pressure to offer up Derbyshire for review after the commission recommended that there should be a Derby unitary authority, another unitary authority in the Chesterfield area, and the status quo in the rest of the county.
It took the High Court to prevent the Secretary of State from gerrymandering the Derbyshire result. Revised policy guidance issued by the Secretary of State sought to direct the commission to recommend unitary structures. Justice Jowitt in the High Court, presiding over a challenge brought by Derbyshire and Lancashire, ruled that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully in trying to influence and constrict the commission. The High Court ruling was the turning point in the review, and enabled the commission to act independently.
The Secretary of State had made key mistakes. He tried to fiddle the political guidance and was caught out. That allowed the commission the freedom to make two other recommendations that had to be pursued. First, it recommended that the views of local people on the structure of their local councils were of paramount importance. Secondly, it suggested that the review of local government should deliver more effective and cost-effective structures.
MORI surveys conducted in connection with two of the reviews showed that local opinion was solidly behind the sort of structure that we now have. Only for Derby was it thought that the district should have its own unitary authority. Everywhere else, the overwhelming view was that the status quo should prevail. The areas in which there was the strongest feeling that things should be left as they were were those which, in the second review, it was considered should be changed to a unitary authority. The areas were Chesterfield, Bolsover and north-east Derbyshire, which were to be placed together in one area. That was not what was required—the view of local people was that the structure that had existed and served them well should continue.
Any greater unitary split had no local support, even from the then Tory-controlled district councils, and it would have cost millions of pounds to run. It is a shame that it has taken three years of utter disruption and £2.5 million of wasted resources to reach the conclusion that most local people would have come up with in five minutes.
There are problems about the future, many of which have been raised tonight. The transitional stage of a reorganisation requires carefully thought out provisions. We must ensure that there is proper assistance from Government Departments as well as from the local bodies.
The cost of transition must also be taken into account. In the case of Derby and Derbyshire, it was estimated at between £3 million and £5 million. On top of that, the
584
state of the standard spending assessment has to considered, as many hon. Members have stressed. I endorse that view. Derby, as an area of great social deprivation, scores higher than the surrounding areas in what used to be termed the all-ages social index. That means that, without Derby, Derbyshire will receive less SSA per head.
I do not deny that a great deal of the extra SSA intended for Derby was spent where it should not have been, but that money was in a general pot, which helped to achieve economies of scale in Derbyshire county council. That factor must be added to other points about how SSAs are determined, such as the change in provision due to the area cost adjustment and the assessment of grants for fire services on the basis of the length of an area's coastline. There are not any coastlines in Derbyshire—it is in the middle of the country and cannot score on that count, yet moneys are initially ripped out of that area of funding.
I hope above all that, by recognising that it is sensible for Derby to have its own authority and for the rest of Derbyshire to be kept together in a two-tier authority, the Government will at last stop directing disgraceful and persistent attacks toward Derbyshire county council. The Secretary of State has attacked it time and again, but I shall cite only one example. On 15 June, when discussing council tax orders that had nothing whatever to do with Derbyshire, the Secretary of State said:
"The performance indicators"—those of the Audit Commission—
"are simple to understand, and one of the facts that emerges clearly is the incompetence of Derbyshire county council, which, as I have said in the past, is and has been for many years one of the worst councils in Britain."—[Official Report, 15 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 910.]
When one looks at the performance indicators, they tell us nothing of the sort. On average, Derbyshire county council finishes 18th out of 47 shire counties when assessed by the 10 performance indicators. The 10th indicator records the total expenditure per head of population—Derbyshire county council comes 27th. It is 27th in the list because it does not receive a reasonable SSA or Government grant. That 10th indicator should therefore be seen in terms of the services that the council provides.
For three of the performance indicators, Derbyshire county council comes first, second and third among shire counties. Today there has been a statement on nursery education. For nursery education provision for three and four-year-old children, Derbyshire is seventh out of 47 authorities, achieving 78 per cent. as opposed to a national average of 53 per cent.
The council is strapped for cash. The Government have directed the most horrendous policies towards it through the structure of the SSA and yet it provides good and decent services for its people. That is why it is re-elected time and time again. Conservative Members of Parliament who represent Derbyshire, and the Secretary of State and the people around him, should end their persistent attacks on Derbyshire county council. Derbyshire's problems are massive because of the standard spending assessment. For instance, 370 teaching jobs have been cut recently. Indeed, I could produce a list of difficulties that it has had to face recently.
In terms of structure, the order represents what the people of Derbyshire want and therefore it should be supported, but what will those councils be allowed to do?

585
What will Derby county borough, the district councils and Derbyshire county council be able to act on and provide? Honest, decent people are working away producing the best work that they can in very awkward circumstances. It is time that the Government moved in to assist them.
7.55 pm
Mr. Simon Coombs: I am grateful for an opportunity to contribute to a debate which, by its nature, has been wide ranging—it involves a variety of orders that affect many parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that all hon. Members will tolerate the fact that what I have to say—I know that others have found themselves in the same position—relates to my own area of the country, which was referred to earlier as Thamesdown alias Swindon. I want, essentially, to speak in favour of the order. Certainly I want to speak in favour of the principle of the order although, as I shall explain, I have some reservations about its likely impact.
I should begin by explaining that I was a councillor in a county borough—Reading, in Berkshire—which ceased to exist in 1973 as a result of the previous local government reforms. In the three years during which I was a county borough councillor, it seemed that the principle of a unitary authority representing the people of its area and looking after all their needs was good. I thought that there might come a time when that principle could be extended.
Reading county borough council ran its affairs well. It avoided the confusion that derives from two-tier authorities and people not knowing which authority to turn to for different services. Not surprisingly, when Reading county borough council was abolished and became Reading district council for the first time—one of the six districts of Berkshire under Berkshire county council—services were duplicated in several areas and important schemes were delayed.
For example, once traffic schemes were approved by the district council, they had to go before the county council. After one set of professional officers prepared proposals, a second set would evaluate them. Sometimes, the second set of officers agreed with the first set, but sometimes they disagreed and sometimes they could not quite make up their minds, so they simply sat on the idea until it was too late to carry out the scheme. That was my first experience of two-tier local government.
As early as 1968, the Redcliffe-Maud report gave unitary authorities a very strong feeling of respectability. It was, perhaps, the first time that they had been given a true voice. I supported that idea at that time—a year before I became a county borough councillor—with enthusiasm. I prepared a report for my local Conservative party on the idea of unitary authorities in Berkshire. What an irony. Now, Berkshire is the only county in the country for which the idea of a unitary authority has been put forward, but it is inevitably subject to judicial review. Perhaps on that basis I should steer clear of the subject. I would say only that, at the end of such a long exercise undertaken by the Local Government Commission, it is strange that only one county has emerged with that old idea. To my way of thinking, that is a shame.
As I do not wish to bore the House with the history of my local government career, I shall come back to the present—at least to two years ago when we began the
586
process of evaluating what might be the appropriate form of local government for the county of Wiltshire. The Government announced their intentions and that they were willing to listen to all strands of opinion. Indeed, the Government have heard all strands of opinion over the past two or three years. The cacophony of disagreement from all round the country has been sad to listen to.
In my innocence, I thought that unitary authorities were the way forward. My hon. Friend the Minister will notice a certain consistency in my views in 1968 and 1993. Bearing in mind the Government's desire to move towards enabling authorities and smaller local government, it seemed appropriate to conclude that, in the county of Wiltshire, with slightly more than half a million electors, two unitary authorities would be appropriate.
There could be one unitary authority for the north of the county, which is drawn together by the M4 motorway, has good links to London via the great western railway and has a community of interest among towns such as Swindon and Chippenham, which have grown tremendously during the past 20 or 30 years, and a second unitary authority for the south and west of the county, which is still essentially rural and based on beautiful towns such as Salisbury, Westbury and Warminster, but no—I had reckoned without the conservatism of so many people in the county of Wiltshire.
Hon. Members will recognise that my experience was by no means unique. Such conservatism meant that the county councillors said, "Let us keep the county council. It has served Wiltshire well." Indeed it has. In the districts, the view was the same but different. There, people said, "The districts are more than capable of providing local government services. Why not get rid of the county council and keep the districts?" Already the disagreements were mounting.
Needless to say, party politics played a part. No doubt the Liberal and Labour parties came to conclusions in their cabals and caucuses, and I make no secret of the fact that, on my side of the political divide, we looked at what might be desirable.
What emerged, in the traditional British manner, was compromise. Thamesdown, alias Swindon, had always had ambitions to go it alone. The town did not have unitary status in the arrangements before 1973, but it has grown so substantially since then that it saw itself as more than capable of handling its own affairs. Its population of 175,000 made that a serious possibility.
In Thamesdown, alias Swindon, there was a move for independence and, in the event, for whatever reason, the rest of the county was happy to say goodbye to it. Some people felt that, as the most rapidly growing part of the county, it had been given too much of the resources made available to local government by central Government. Others felt that the great town of Swindon was somehow not quite in keeping with the rest of the county. Many reasons were advanced, some privately and some publicly. The rest of the county said, "Let us soldier on together. Let us say goodbye to that great industrial city. After all, it has sometimes been described as a piece of the west midlands on the Wiltshire plain. Let us say goodbye to Swindon, alias Thamesdown."
So much for single-tier local government as a principle. Expediency triumphed, and the voice that emerged clearly from the county of Wiltshire in the end produced the hybrid principle enshrined in the Thamesdown order.

587
I do not want to give too grudging a welcome to the new arrangements. They look too much like the pre-1973 set-up, which I remember with affection and pride, for them to be all bad. I suspect, however, that the order will not constitute the last word on the topic. It would not surprise me if the House found it necessary to revisit the structure of local government in years to come. There will be problems in the transition, and I shall say a word or two about those in a moment, but I have little doubt that the subject will have to be revisited.
I shall raise two specific matters with the Minister. The first is the name that has been given to the area two thirds of which I have the honour to represent in the House. Since 1973, the name Thamesdown was given to what was previously the municipal borough of Swindon and the rural district of Highworth when the two were amalgamated under the 1973 reforms and became a new district council.
At that time, members from the rural parts of the new district—the Highworth rural district council area—insisted that they did not wish to be known as Swindon. It is for them, if they are ever to be allowed to speak again on that subject, to say why, but rumour has it that Swindon was not a place of which they could feel proud. They felt threatened by it, and therefore sought a name to distinguish the future from the past.
The mellifluous but rather vague name of Thamesdown was chosen because the new district ran from the river Thames at Lechlade in the north to the Marlborough downs in the south. From that day to this, it has been difficult for people who come from Thamesdown to explain to others where they come from. There was no move to rename the football team, for example. Most hon. Members will recognise the name of Swindon Town football club because of its heroic efforts in the premiership two years ago, including the double over Queens Park Rangers. Swindon is the name that has survived on the lips of virtually everybody who comes from the area, and I suspect that this is a good opportunity to suggest to the Minister that we revert to the old and trusted name of Swindon.
I believe that there is now a new feeling of pride in the town. It has changed enormously over the past 22 years and developed rapidly to become a modern high-tech town of which its citizens can be justly proud. You will not need to be reminded, Madam Deputy Speaker, that only this week the new cashless society started in Swindon with the Mondex pilot scheme. In that respect, Swindon has led the world into the 21st century.
Swindon continues to be proud of what it has to offer to television journalists who seek the vox pop there. Only last week they came to Swindon—where else—to ask for its views on the Conservative party leadership election. I am happy to say that the voice of Swindon was raised firmly in support of the Prime Minister, whose re-election I very much welcome.
Polls conducted in the local newspaper showed a massive majority in favour of the change of name to Swindon. Even a poll attached to the council tax demand produced a massive majority in favour of the change of name. If the people of Swindon can face an increase in the council tax perpetrated by their Labour-controlled council and still vote for the change of name, clearly that is what they want.
588
There is massive support for that change, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer the question asked by some of my hon. Friends about the process by which he thinks it appropriate for towns such as Swindon to achieve that happy outcome.
My hon. Friend will do me a kindness if he agrees to reconsider the ward boundaries in Thamesdown—or perhaps I could now call it Swindon. At present, Wiltshire county council is elected on boundaries that came into effect in 1993, but Thamesdown borough council's boundaries date back almost unchanged to 1976.
My constituency covers two thirds of the borough, and the effect of population changes in the town means that Toothill, the largest ward in my constituency, has more than twice as many electors as the smallest, Whitworth. The new county council wards address that imbalance, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address it too, recognising that equality between the electorates in different wards is a desirable end, which could be achieved by insisting that the new unitary authority, Thamesdown—or Swindon—will be elected as soon as may be on the revised updated boundaries, not the old ones.
I must address a point about the difficulties of transition. I make no apologies for quoting a letter that was sent to me in March by the chairman of governors of a secondary school which lies just outside the borough, but which takes 45 per cent. of its students from within the borough of Thamesdown. The letter refers to a meeting between the head teacher, Ian Perkins, and the chairman of the governors and writer of the letter, Francis Young, with the then leader of the Labour group, and therefore the leader of Thamesdown borough council, Tony Mayer.
The letter stated that Bradon Forest school wishes to maintain the status quo, and that 45 per cent. of students come from west Swindon by choice. Wiltshire county council pays for transport to the school, and the school buys into the administration of entrants through Sandford house, the county council's administration centre.
The letter continues:
"These students mean that the school can maintain a roll of approximately 1000 enabling it to be able to offer a wide curriculum and excellent special needs arrangements."
At the meeting, Mr. Mayer said that it was likely that
"a new authority would continue to provide transport for students already on roll, but new students—possibly from September 1997—would have to pay. Free transport would be provided to schools with space in other parts of the authority regardless of the standard of the school and distance.
He also mentioned the construction of a new Secondary School in the northern sector"—
a new development of 10,000 houses in the northern part of the borough—
"to 'absorb' the students from Bradon Forest. Again the distance would be far greater."
Mr. Mayer obviously did not like the fact that the school is grant-maintained, and said so. The letter continues:
"We were greeted with 'you made your bed now you will have to lie in it' and 'we would certainly have viewed you differently if you had been an LEA school'.
As far as we are concerned going Grant Maintained was, and is, the right thing for the school. We are again oversubscribed this year.
The effect on our school if Mr. Mayer's plans go ahead would be devastating. The school would halve in size—probably more so, given the fact that the reduction in size would also reduce our curriculum range which would in turn make us less attractive to parents. The effect on teachers jobs would be appalling.

589
Bradon Forest is a good school and achieves excellent results in all areas. (As I write this 14 year old Jenna Arrowsmith, one of our students, is competing for England in the senior women's figure skating world championships in Birmingham).
Above all, the proposed changes remove the choice for parents of where to educate their children—this I think is a key issue.
Simon, I cannot think that the devastation of an excellent comprehensive school for the sake of local politics is in anyone's best interest, least of all the children it educates and their parents.
I apologise for the length of this letter but do not apologise for the passion behind it."
I apologise to the House for reading such a long extract, but my hon. Friends will understand why I felt it right to do so. I took the matter up with Ministers, and received an assurance that section 55 of the Education Act 1944 guarantees free transport in such a way as to make the suggestion put forward by Mr. Mayer outwith the law.
Similarly, I was able to reassure Mr. Young and Mr. Perkins that any attempt to force a secondary school out of existence purely out of malice and without regard to the viability of other secondary schools in the area would be subject to appeal—ultimately to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Mr. Mayer is no longer a councillor, as he retired at the local elections, but he has announced his intention to seek a parliamentary seat. So much for new Labour. If that is what we have to look forward to from new Labour, people in Swindon and the rest of the country will be much better off without it.
I support the order because it will be right for the people of my constituency to find themselves with a single point of contact for local government services, but I fear that we shall return to these matters, and I shall have no hesitation in doing so if Labour councillors and those who support them seek to harm the interests of my constituents or their children in the future.
8.15 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: This has been an interesting and good-humoured debate on the subject of the new unitary authorities. The Opposition welcome the orders, which arise out of the local government review which established 11 new unitary authorities. Most hon. Members have welcomed the orders, and have spoken for their individual constituencies.
The two dissenting voices were the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), who did not oppose the idea of unitary authorities but perhaps wished that the Local Government Commission had looked at Eastbourne as a case for a unitary authority. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) opposed some of the orders, but not others. He misjudged the mood of the House by basing his opposition to the orders on the contents of MORI polls, rather than on the feelings of hon. Members who had judged the views of their constituents.
The hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel) welcomed the order which relates to Luton, and the latter called for an end to the capping to enable the new Luton authority to get a good start and address itself to measures to regenerate the Luton area. Speaking as a Member who represents a former mining area and whose local authority has been a metropolitan, and therefore unitary, authority for the past few years, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that
590
the new local authority faces some difficult tasks ahead if the experience of Barnsley and other mining areas is anything to go by.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) gave a warm welcome to the Darlington order, while the hon. Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) welcomed the order which relates to their area. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) gave gushing welcomes to the order in respect of Stoke-on-Trent.
The Opposition believe that the 11 new authorities meet the criteria that we have maintained are necessary for the creation of unitary authorities. The authorities need to be viable, and the Local Government Commission supported that principle. The average population size of all the new authorities is about 187,000, and the authorities will be large enough to provide a full range of local government functions and services. Many of the authorities fulfilled exactly that function before 1974. They also have to be able to carry out their functions without recourse to contracting out.
One other criterion that we put forward was that of all-out elections before the establishment of the authorities, and the orders also meet that criterion. The authorities which are born out of the orders are based on the consistent principles for which the Opposition have argued and are in accordance with the legislation and the policy guidance that was restated in the Local Government Commission report that was published in March this year. I shall not refer to the guidance at any length, but I shall simply mention the fact that the Government and the commission attached great importance to local consensus. It would appear from the contributions this evening that there is much consensus for local unitary authorities in the areas under consideration.
One of the commission's assumptions and criteria was that unitary authorities and the review of local government would strengthen local government in England and not weaken it. That should be the case, but local democracy should be strengthened as well. We want a return to accountable local government without central control and without local authority powers being hived off to quangos. In that respect, I support the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West in his call to end capping which other hon. Members repeated.
We hope that staff transfers will be available to all staff who want to transfer from an old authority to a new one. I understand that a voluntary agreement is already in place between the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils, which includes a 100 per cent. staff transfer. We hope that that can be honoured and implemented as far as possible, although we realise that there is bound to be some duplication in the services provided by the county authorities and the new unitaries. We also hope that the Government will ensure that adequate compensation and redundancy packages are available to those who face redundancy.
There are a number of arguments in favour of unitary authorities and most hon. Members who spoke were in favour of unitaries. They are more accountable, as it means one council tax, far easier to understand and far more accountable than a confusing two-tier structure. People will realise which level of government provides

591
their service. The system is also more democratic. Local communities will have a greater say about the functions that were determined by county councils some distance away and unitary authorities will be more responsive, with local elected councillors better placed than the more remote county councillors. The authorities will be more efficient and, perhaps, more stable.
We are discussing large, urban, focused authorities, which all have a strong local identity and an average population of more than 187,000. Five are major cities—my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made a strong case for their cities. Eight of the 11 authorities that will be created once had county borough status and, therefore, will have powers and responsibilities restored to them. Nine of the 11 are larger than the smallest unitary authorities in London and the smallest metropolitan authorities. Most have different characteristics from the remainder of the county area. We heard, for example, from my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen about the difference between that city and the structure of the county in which it is based.
All the authorities are urban, which will allow the remaining county authorities to concentrate on the rural needs of the county. Each authority will have self-governance restored and, as I said, each is capable of providing a full range of services.
All the authorities have public support. Hon. Members made that clear and the local knowledge of hon. Members is better evidence than MORI polls, to which the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) referred at some length. There is strong support for both the principle of unitary authorities and the specific proposals.
On costs and savings, the Local Government Commission estimated that the changes will be cost neutral, but there will be transitional costs of between £3 million and £5 million per authority, which will be funded through borrowing.
One matter on which I can agree with the hon. Member for Newbury is the concern expressed, especially by the ACC, about the continuing costs to county authorities where services are transferred to unitary authorities. For example, the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West mentioned the county-wide library service, which is based in Luton. Bedfordshire believes that the service will involve it in some costs.
The ACC also believes that counties will be restricted when applying for supplementary credit approvals. Perhaps the Minister will comment on whether it will be difficult for the counties to obtain such finance.
There are also concerns that the commission's estimates might be on the low side, judging from the experience of the other newly created authorities in Avon, Cleveland and Humberside.
I share the concerns that have been expressed on standard spending assessments. I have always believed them to be unrepresentative and unrealistic and they are badly in need of reform. The Government should ensure that the SSAs for the new unitary authorities are calculated properly and assess their needs, to enable them to get a fair start.
We believe that the orders should be passed tonight and we will not divide the House on any of them. We hope that the new authorities will prosper and be successful. For many, it is a return to the situation before 1974, when they were county boroughs, and we wish them every success.
8.25 pm
The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert B. Jones): First, I must thank my hon. Friends for their kind comments of congratulation, which I very much appreciated, particularly those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Sir D. Madel), because he is my constituent and I always like it when my constituents are pleased about something that their Member of Parliament does.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said, this has been a good-humoured debate and there has been much to unite both sides of the House. I welcome that fact. Hon. Members had matters that they wanted to raise in response to the situations in their areas, and some common themes ran through the debate, with which I hope to deal in my response.
In some ways, the debate reminded me of a series of maiden speeches. Pretty well every hon. Member took the opportunity to describe the glories of the areas that they represent and good for them, because that is one of the great joys of our electoral system. We are there to take a pride in our constituencies and not simply to be numbers in a manipulative game, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) would like. We would not then have such a relationship with our constituents.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) made the first general point, which concerned names, in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration. Central Government do not have powers to determine what the names should be and I do not believe that we should. The names in the orders reflect the commission's recommendations. In the case of my right hon. Friend, the recommendation was for Brighton and Hove and it is up to the elected members of that authority to decide whether they are content with that name or want another. Plenty of authorities have changed their names since the reorganisation in 1973–74, but a change requires a two-thirds majority of council members and I do not know the figures in Brighton and Hove. My strong suspicion is that Brighton alone would not have sufficient weight to dump the name Hove and I think that politicians from the Brighton end would be well advised to bear in mind the fact that a balance in an authority's name is as appropriate as it is in any other aspect of the authority. If I were my right hon. Friend, I would not worry.
Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) asked about the position in Thamesdown. For the same reason, we could not declare the name to be Swindon, but if the newly elected authority votes by the right majority, it will be able to change it. I rather suspect that that might be the pattern. Having described the appropriateness of naming the football team Swindon and having said that there was no Thamesdown football team, he spoke about Queens Park Rangers. We do not propose, in the orders before us or any future orders, to name any local authority Queens Park Rangers. The name must be what the local authority wants.
A second general argument that was made was a ceremonial one by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). We want to resolve that matter so that everything works smoothly. There are some issues to be tackled. Hampshire is unlikely to be a problem, as the two cities there have historically been in the Hampshire area, but that is not always the case. We have had a tricky

593
position in Cleveland, where one of the districts comprises parts of the former Durham and parts of the former North Yorkshire.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) will acknowledge, there is also an issue about the boundary, in ceremonial terms, between Dorset and Hampshire. We shall try to resolve that as speedily as possible, and I hope with common sense. Obviously, that depends on the representations that we receive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) mentioned parishes. The policy of the Government until now has been as described in a circular, the number of which I cannot remember, which relates to populations and so on. We feel that that was too rigid an approach. Obviously, it is difficult to have a parish council in a local authority area where that parish council might, for example, cover 80 per cent. or 90 per cent. of the population, as is the case in one district where that has been considered. At the other end of the scale, it is a bit silly to rule out an area having a parish council simply because it has 21,000 residents as opposed to 20,000. Therefore we are considering in some detail the policy and the way in which it will apply, but we shall obviously consider all the areas on their merits.
There is, however, another rub to that, in that the commission has not recommended, or even considered, the parishes in every area. Therefore we need to decide at some stage whether it would be appropriate to ask the commission to consider a specific area in the parish context. We shall bear all that in mind before announcing our decisions, although I hope that that will be soon because I know that the issue rouses considerable interest in the places affected.
My hon. Friend's focus on parishes reminded us how easy it is for us to speak about the two-tier system. We should be aware of the fact that it is a three-tier system, and that parish councils and town councils are very important organisations.
It is hardly surprising that finance was an important theme running throughout the debate. We shall consider all types of matters. We want to have a careful look at the transitional costs, and at the supplementary credit approvals for which local authorities apply. We must achieve the right balance between ensuring that the transition runs smoothly and not fuelling an expansionist mode by some local authorities, which was associated to some degree with the reforms of the early 1970s. It is not easy to get that right, and we must judge the SCA applications of each authority on the merits of the case that it makes. That will relate to things such as software, hardware and offices as well as other issues.
On SSAs, hon. Members have made two sets of arguments, one relating to the SSA system in general and the other relating to the way in which SSAs would be affected by reorganisation. On SSAs in general, we try to ride the two horses, which have two ends, like most animals. [Interruption.] I shall tell the hon. Member for Itchen what I mean, because they are very different from one another.
Local authorities want to have both a fair system, which implies complexity, and a simple system. They want to have a system that changes in response to different circumstances and they want continuity and no
594
turbulence. It is very difficult to ride both those horses at the same time. It means that we must steadily overhaul the system to ensure that we take into account the representations that are made, but we must not keep shaking the system up to such an extent that it becomes difficult for local authorities to live in it.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) made a specific argument about the area cost adjustment. Another hon. Member mentioned that, and it is being considered. It is not discriminatory in the sense that the hon. Gentleman means it. It is certainly distinctive, but it reflects real evidence that costs are different in the places that receive it. I do not know of anyone who has suggested that that is not the case. However, people may believe that the costs are not as great or that they are greater, and we must consider that before making any changes.
On the effect of reorganisation on SSAs, there will have to be disaggregation. We shall speak to the individual local authorities about the way in which we envisage that occurring, to try to resolve the difficulties. If necessary, we shall have to consider whether some transitional scheme should be put in place. We shall do that on the basis of the evidence submitted to us as we go along, which is the only fair way to go about it because there is not a great deal of evidence at the moment. We have done some preliminary studies with different local authorities, but I do not claim that those are perfect, and we must await what emerges from further work.
Budget setting was mentioned from opposite points of view by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. It would be wrong, for reasons of accountability, for members who represent an area that will not be in the residual county to have a strong say in the setting of budgets after it has disappeared, but there are problems. Therefore we have formulated a consultative document about that. We shall make a decision, taking into account the representations that are made by local authorities and the arguments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and others during the debate.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) made an argument about city versus country. It is not as simple as that, because authorities do not simply consist of big cities and rural counties. Those rural counties often consist of suburban areas or largish towns in their own right, or mining villages, which are not necessarily the same as agricultural areas because they are different economically.
It is inevitable that there will be a debate in individual authorities about the balance of expenditure in one part or another. For goodness sake, we were reminded of that recently in the Monklands context, in what Professor Black said about Coatbridge and Airdrie. There is nothing that central Government could or should do to determine the way in which an authority spreads its spending across its area. That is rightly a matter of local accountability. However, we wish to ensure that in the reorganisation there is a fair balance between the authorities that come about as a result of those orders, and no doubt others to come.
Co-operation is much more important than conflict in that regard, and I welcome what several hon. Members have said about the way in which local authorities are getting on with the job. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) made that argument in respect of Durham county council. He fairly paid tribute to the council for

595
the work that it has done over the years. There have always been tensions in the system, as we all know, but that does not mean that those tensions must be all-enveloping. I hope very much that there will not be big rows about that and that all will be resolved satisfactorily, but we must wait and see.
Staff are one of the most important elements of local government. They provide the service and, by and large, they do a pretty good job. We believe that we have achieved the right balance in what we have done, but we must monitor the way in which it works out in practice—such as whether local authorities are fair in their interview procedures—and we stand by to take appropriate action if necessary.
That brings me to the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury. I thought that he was pretty well sunk by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West, but he was wallowing in the water when there was another broadside from the hon. Member from Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I never like to interfere in spats between old Etonians; as a player, I would rather let the gentlemen get on with it. But both my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central made a vital point about how we reach our conclusions: it is real people and weighing opinions that count, not opinion polls.
I have no desire to end up in the position of my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) in being asked about the films that he likes or dislikes, but I shall recommend one film to the hon. Member for Newbury. It is a Peter Cook film called "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer", about the ruthless way in which that gentleman sought to get to the top in politics using opinion polls. In that film, the opinion poll system of working out what people thought and did not think was completely shipwrecked by employing large numbers of people to go to the city of Coventry and say when asked that they were Buddhists. The opinion poll then came up with the result that 95 per cent. of the citizens were Buddhists, which wrecked the credibility of the opinion poll.
Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister suggesting that the Local Government Commission, which his party set up, was so foolish as to use opinion polls, the results of which were fraudulent on the ground that somebody, presumably the Local Government Commission, set people up to give the right answers?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman takes himself too seriously. I simply point out that opinion polls are not the be-all and end-all and that I prefer to make decisions on the basis of evidence submitted and the balance of opinion. It is not a black or white issue. We all know that there are splits in political parties on this matter. We all know that county councillors and district councillors in the same area will express different views and adduce evidence to support views that they consider overwhelming. In many cases, however, it is a balance of argument and not an easy matter.
I am only pleased that, ultimately, we have succeeded in presenting orders to the House this evening which have commanded the general approval of hon. Members who have spoken. My hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth, East and for Bournemouth, West welcomed what was being done in their area. My hon. Friends the Members for Swindon, for Aylesbury, for Bedfordshire, South-West and for Luton, North (Mr.
596
Carlisle) did likewise. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) was disappointed, that was inevitable unless we are to look at every area again. On the other side of the House, the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, for Stoke-on-Trent, South, for Darlington, for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) and for Itchen spoke for their areas.
On that basis, I think that this is a pretty good package and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Wiltshire (Borough of Thamesdown) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Staffordshire (City of Stoke-on-Trent) (Structural and Boundary Changes) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
Resolved,
That the draft Durham (Borough of Darlington) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
Resolved,
That the draft Derbyshire (City of Derby) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
Resolved,
That the draft Bedfordshire (Borough of Luton) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 15th June, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
Resolved,
That the draft Buckinghamshire (Borough of Milton Keynes) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
Resolved,
That the draft Dorset (Boroughs of Poole and Bournemouth) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
Resolved,
That the draft East Sussex (Boroughs of Brighton and Hove) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]
Resolved,
That the draft Hampshire (Cities of Portsmouth and Southampton) (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.—[Mr. Bates.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  CINEMA AND TELEVISION FILMS
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6398/94, the Commission's Green Paper on strategy options to strengthen the European programme industry in the context of the audiovisual policy of the European Union, and supports the Government's overall approach towards fostering a competitive and healthy audiovisual sector; and of European Community Document No. COM (94) 523, relating to two draft Council decisions on the implementation of the MEDIA II programme on training for audiovisual professionals and on the development and distribution of audiovisual works; takes note of the outcome of the negotiations in the Culture/Audiovisual Council of 21st June, at which a common position was reached on both decisions; and supports the Government's approach to these and subsequent negotiations.—[Mr. Bates.]
  Question agreed to.

  Motor Industry Block Exemption Scheme
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
  8.43 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: The relationship between motor manufacturers and their dealer networks is determined by an arrangement called the block exemption scheme. The scheme is defined by the European Commission under procedures that result in the European Parliament having limited opportunities to intervene and influence. Although the Commission has just produced a new version of the block exemption scheme, which comes into operation in October, the principles on which it is based remain the same. That means that there is no free market in the operation of the relationship between manufacturers and dealers. On the contrary, the block exemption scheme is skewed very much in favour of manufacturers, which gives them considerable powers over dealers.
  My main reason for initiating this debate tonight is to present to the House and the public details of the abuse of those powers by certain car manufacturers, particularly Fiat UK Ltd. Fiat has been attempting to rationalise its dealer network, which seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. After all, it is in the business of making cars and must make a profit. So nobody would argue with that. What is unacceptable, however, are the unscrupulous and highly discriminatory methods that it uses to control its dealer network.
  Fiat has terminated franchise agreements with some of its smaller dealers just because they are small. The fact that they have been loyal dealers for 20 or 30 years and have performed excellently is not relevant to Fiat. When Fiat decides to terminate a franchise, it generally does so in a way that results in the total destruction of the dealership concerned. The businesses often go into liquidation and the owners, who may have spent their lives building up the businesses, are often ruined. The result is also the loss of jobs and livelihoods for employees. All that adds up to an abuse of power by manufacturers through the block exemption scheme. Because no free market is in operation, dealers do not have freedom of action to protect their interests.
  Before I became a Member of Parliament, I spent 25 years in business, including a spell in the motor industry for three and a half years. As a result, I strongly believe that when an organisation such as a big multinational car manufacturer is given powers via the block exemption scheme, it should take on certain responsibilities. Fiat has shown a disgraceful lack of responsibility and is bringing considerable discredit to the motor industry. A key complaint against Fiat—I have had an unbelievable number of complaints—is that it deliberately pursues a policy of undermining small dealers by terminating their franchises for no cause other than to replace them with larger groups. Moreover, it does so without offering compensation.
  All dealer agreements contain a provision for termination, which, at this point in time, is usually 12 months, although that will change. However, under domestic law, Fiat has the right to terminate at will, and it certainly does. What disappoints me is that, under the revised block exemption scheme, the power to terminate in that way will remain. That means that a manufacturer
  598
  can terminate a franchise at any moment without giving a reason. Termination should at least be based on breach of contract or objectively valid grounds, and we are far from that in the motor industry. Instead, there is no legal base in the block exemption scheme for challenging termination.
  EU law provides for equal treatment by manufacturers of their dealers, regardless of size. In practice, that means that the terms of trading should not be conducted in a way that discriminates against a dealer purely on grounds of size. Fiat, however, ruthlessly ignores those laws and resorts to large-scale discrimination in a disgraceful way. For example, it has supplied cars at a greater discount to large dealers, set unrealistic targets for small dealers and set minimum sales levels in circumstances where a much larger discount has been given to larger rivals. The European Commission should not allow Fiat to get away with such dirty tricks. Does the Minister condemn the breaking of EC law in that way?
  Dealerships devote their own time and money to develop expertise in Fiat products to meet the conditions of their franchise agreements, only to find the rug pulled from under their feet by the policy operated by Fiat. In terms of fairness and reasonableness, the actions of Fiat are extreme and without moral justification.
  Fiat's directors, especially Ian Rowlands, have sought to justify their actions by reference to their rights under the dealer agreement. He told me that Fiat has powers under the block exemption scheme which it intends to use in its commercial interest with no reasonable regard to the dealers' interest and well-being. Many dealers have worked for Fiat all their working lives.
  Lancia, which is owned by Fiat, is terminating all of its dealer agreements and withdrawing from the United Kingdom. Most Lancia dealers are also Fiat dealers. Termination of the Lancia franchise came as a complete surprise to most dealers. The reputation of Fiat has suffered as a result. No compensation has been offered to those dealers. In addition, Fiat lied by suggesting to various companies that Lancia was in Britain to stay.
  What prompted me to initiate this debate was the dreadful treatment that a company in my constituency, AB Motor Company of Hull, received from Fiat UK. It was established in 1919 and is the oldest established motor company in Hull. It had a very successful track record for 75 years, right up to the time when the franchise was terminated by Fiat. It has had that Fiat franchise since 1971 and the agreement was renewed in 1986.
  When the agreement was renewed, Mr. Trevor Good, who was the proprietor of AB Motors in Hull, was advised by his lawyers not to sign the agreement as it offered no protection to the dealership. However, if Mr. Good refused to sign, he would no longer be a dealer and his business would have to close down. He had no option but to sign the franchise agreement, which was so stacked against him.
  Fiat terminated the franchise without giving reasons and then undermined the company during the notice period. While AB Motors still held the franchise, Fiat released all of the fleet listings, which are the lists of customers, to a competitor. The revenue of AB Motors completely collapsed. Fiat also encouraged discriminatory advertising in the local press during the termination period by another Fiat dealer, which damaged AB Motors by suggesting that it was no longer a Fiat dealer even though that was not true. That had a massive impact on the revenue stream, which dropped immediately by 40 per cent.

  599
  This may sound strong but I have a long list of other cases, which, clearly, I cannot go into during the debate. However, I would like to touch on one or two so that the House realises that there is a lot of beef behind what I am saying. Mr. Christopher Keeley, chairman of Datchet Green Motors, had a Toyota dealership. He had just invested £80,000—the points that I am making are the allegations of the people concerned—in the business on the understanding that Fiat would continue the dealership. When the termination threat came, no compensation was offered.
  Mr. S. Davies of Altrincham said that the problem with the block exemption scheme, whatever its terms, in negotiating new agreements, is that it cannot work for the dealers unless there is a forum for presenting termination grievances in which they can be dealt with expeditiously. That does not exist.
  Mr. J. P. Vilton, managing director of Vilton Cars, Cannon Hill, London, entered a franchise agreement in 1990 to sell Lancia cars. Five months later, Fiat ran down the Lancia operation and failed to maintain previous levels of support. The impact was so disastrous that the business is no longer viable.
  Mr. Chris Horrock, of Page Motors, Essex, had a Lada and Citroen dealership. His dealer agreement was terminated, after he had made a big investment. His database of customer listings was given to other companies. Again, there was discriminatory advertising. His chief salesman was headhunted.
  Mr. Malcolm Fitch was given 90 days' termination notice by Fiat, which took his parts computer. He alleges that Fiat owes him money and will not pay.
  Mr. Tony Stillwell's dealer agreement was terminated at roughly the same time. Fiat insisted that he invested and would not take parts back when the termination notice ended. Fiat offered him an alternative Lancia dealership only for him to find that four months later it had wound it up. That is discreditable behaviour.
  That is only a tiny fraction of the horror list that I have. AB Motors—the company in my constituency—is planning legal action against Fiat to obtain compensation for the losses that it incurred as a result of Fiat's actions. It is being supported with legal services and costs by the Retail Motor Industry Federation, RMI, which regards this as an important test case and is to be commended for its continued support.
  I have also tried to operate as an intermediary. I arranged for AB Motors and Fiat to meet in a country house away from telephones to resolve the dispute by means of a compensation package without recourse to the courts. Although there seemed to be some goodwill in the beginning, Fiat showed its true colours when one of the directors, Ian Rowlands, said that it was not interested in the merits of the case because Fiat was bigger, had more power and money and would win. That was its attitude. It would just crush the smaller company. Fiat representatives at that meeting went on to say that Fiat believes that the liquidation of dealerships is an inevitable consequence of termination. Statistics show that once terminated, dealerships are dead.
  Many of the organisations that I have talked to about this matter, including RMI and certain manufacturers, believe that the block exemption scheme is still deficient. It still allows unscrupulous manufacturers to abuse the considerable powers that it gives them over their dealers,
  600
  especially in respect of termination. I regret that the Commission, in carrying out its review of the block exemption scheme, did not use the opportunity to prevent abuse by certain manufacturers, which has resulted in the breaking of EU law through discrimination against small companies.
  In this debate, I have attempted to speak up for small companies, which are generally good performers. They are loyal to their manufacturers, but they have been hammered because they tend to be on the small side. The Commission could have restored a sensible and realistic balance between dealers and manufacturers by introducing a form of compensation to dealers when their franchise was terminated. That would not be an unreasonable burden on manufacturers and it could provide the opportunity for dealers to remain in business, providing jobs and economic prosperity locally, or to adopt an alternative business strategy.
  Another key benefit of the compensation argument is that it would encourage manufacturers to move towards fewer and larger dealerships. The possible efficiency improvements were outlined in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report called "New Motor Cars", which was produced in February 1992. We must all recognise that there has to be a move towards efficiency improvements and we must encourage that. What is at issue is the way in which the manufacturers have gone about it. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House what the Government's position is on the MMC report. So far, no action has been taken and we would be pleased to hear about the Government's view.
  Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I apologise; I should have been here earlier in the debate but, unfortunately, I could not be. I believe that my hon. Friend knows that one of the dealers concerned lives in my constituency. Under the block exemption scheme, he has been given notice by Fiat that it is terminating its deal with him. My constituent has been in business with the company for the past 12 years. He had invested money, he was successful and he gave business to Fiat, but he is now about to be bankrupted. Does my hon. Friend agree that the block exemption scheme is a disaster and that the House should take action to deal with it?
  Mr. Randall: I suspect that my hon. Friend is talking about First County Garages in Norwood Green.
  Mr. Khabra: Yes.
  Mr. Randall: That was one of the companies to which I did not refer and I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the case. I spoke to the managing director of the company. The threat to the company arose after massive investment; the gentleman who owns the company put everything into it to try to meet Fiat's needs. Even after that, he has been kicked hard by Fiat. It should have come clean with him and said that he was not suitable or that his expansion plans were not good enough. To lead people up the garden path, to encourage them to invest and then to take such actions is a disgrace and I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend has raised the point.
  From the information that I have, I believe—this is strong—that Fiat UK Ltd. is behaving like a serial killer. It is wiping out lots of viable businesses with superb track records, with obvious consequences for jobs. I hope very much that Fiat will review its policy and that that will be the case for other companies that are abusing the block

  601
  exemption scheme. I hope that the companies will provide compensation, because that is the way out and would provide a balance. I hope that the Commission will recognise that the changes that it has just introduced to the block exemption scheme will still leave it deficient and open to abuse.
  9.3 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) for his speech. It is well known in the House that he has wide experience, especially of the motor trade. His speech is timely because, as he said, the negotiations on the new block exemption scheme have recently been concluded. I am pleased to report that the aims of the United Kingdom have been broadly met in the negotiations. Later, I shall deal in detail with many of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  It would be helpful for me to explain the background to the block exemption scheme before turning to the Government's policy. Paragraph 1 of article 85 of the treaty of Rome prohibits agreements between undertakings that affect trade between member states and which have as their objective, or effect, a distortion of competition. However, there are occasions when such agreements may have positive benefits that outweigh those negative effects. Paragraph 3 of article 85 of the treaty therefore provides that agreements may in fact be granted an exemption in such circumstances.
  To gain an exemption, such agreements must provide benefits to the Community, and consumers must receive a fair share of those benefits. The restriction on competition to be permitted must, however, be no greater than that which is necessary to deliver those benefits. In essence, that is what the structure of EU competition policy is, and the way in which an exemption can be applied for.
  Agreements that satisfy those criteria must be notified to the Commission for individual exemption, and it is then for the Commission to decide whether they do indeed merit exemption, or whether the negative effects are so great as to outweigh any of the benefits that may arise. There are, of course, occasions when there is likely to be a large number of similar agreements that qualify for exemption, and in such cases the Commission will often grant a block exemption. Agreements that satisfy the terms of a block exemption do not need to be individually notified to the Commission; they will be valid without there being any specific authorisation.
  In the European Community, most manufacturers of motor vehicles distribute their new cars using a system known as selective and exclusive distribution. Selective distribution allows the manufacturer to select dealers who meet certain standards. Exclusive distribution means that the manufacturer will grant each dealer an exclusive territory in which to operate. In return, the dealer undertakes to sell only that manufacturer's cars in that territory.
  That system, though, can and does restrict competition. It may also have an effect on trade between member states. Not everyone is allowed to sell new cars, as manufacturers choose their dealers and expect them to maintain high standards. They also ensure that there is
  602
  only one dealer for each brand in any given area. Furthermore, dealers are restricted to selling only the manufacturer's brand of car. That system is permitted because it also provides a number of positive benefits for the consumer.
  As we know, cars are technically complex machines and require a high degree of expertise, both before they are sold, to ensure that they are safe to use, and after sale, to ensure that they stay that way. The hon. Gentleman knows that from his wide experience at the highest levels in the motor industry.
  Furthermore, a consumer rightly expects to be able to buy his car, perhaps in one part of the country, and, if need be, have it serviced in another part of the country. For those reasons, it is necessary for a manufacturer to maintain a national network of high-quality sales and service facilities. Selective and exclusive distribution is one way of ensuring that the manufacturer is able to do that, and encourages high standards through specialisation.
  The selective and exclusive distribution system is therefore exempted from EC competition rules by a block exemption, which initially came into force in July 1985. The exemption on that occasion was to last for 10 years and would expire on 30 June 1995. One will see from that how timely the debate is.
  Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the Minister for outlining these points, particularly on competition, but many of the points to which he referred are in the recommendations of the MMC report. What the MMC was saying in its investigation into the industry in 1992 was that the block exemption scheme is stifling competition and that we need to change it to ensure that the dealers have more flexibility to be able to compete.
  Mr. Evans: I certainly accept that. I shall come to the context of the MMC report, because it is important to set the context of these matters. There was the block exemption for a period of 10 years, the MMC report and the negotiations. It is important, within the context of the pertinent remarks that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman, to set the matters in context. I assure him that I will come to the MMC report, because it has been the agenda for subsequent negotiations over the adjustments to the block exemption to which he referred.
  Mr. Randall: Although the new block exemption scheme is coming into operation in October, the discussions by the Commission are now complete, and the new document has been produced. Unfortunately, it does not include many of the proposals that were included in the MMC report. What mechanism, if any, will there be for us to make changes?
  Mr. Evans: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are premature. I wish to set out the context for him. That is important. I am sure that he will know that one of the important aspects of his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate was that it was an opportunity to set out the context of the matter for the industry in general. If I am to outline, not only to the hon. Gentleman but more widely, the Government's policy in this regard, it is important that I should be able to deal with the matter in the context that I have set out. I hope that he understands that.
  The selective and exclusive distribution system is therefore exempted from EC competition rules by the block exemption, which would have expired on 30 June

  603
  1995. Interestingly, the cars block exemption scheme was the first sector-specific block exemption to be granted by the European Union.
  The exemption goes into some detail in setting out the terms for a number of the other parts of the agreement between a manufacturer and his dealers. For example, it specifies the minimum length of agreements. It also stipulates that each party must give one year's notice of termination. In the context of many of the cases that were raised by the hon. Gentleman, the operation of the one-year notice of termination has led to many of the concerns that have been raised by him. However, I accept that there are others.
  The block exemption has not been without its critics. Some feel that it offers too much power to the manufacturer at the expense of the dealer. There have also been a number of complaints from consumers, who feel that car prices in the European Union are inflated because of the exemption, as it permits a restriction of competition.
  This lack of competition was perceived to be due to a number of factors. Most dealers could sell only one brand of car. Dealers could not advertise to customers outside their contract territory. It was also felt that manufacturers were able to discriminate against customers who purchased a car in another country within the European Community. That matter was the subject of considerable publicity some years ago.
  For the reasons that I have outlined, a number of consumer organisations believed that, when the block exemption expired in June 1995, it should not be renewed. On the other hand, manufacturers argued that competition in the market was fierce. They said that renewing the block exemption in its original form was essential in order that they could continue to offer a high-quality service to customers. Dealers' views were mixed. The larger dealers wanted to be able to sell more than one brand of car.
  The hon. Gentleman said that smaller dealers wanted to have a free market. I am bound to say to him that that was not the universal view of smaller dealers. Many smaller dealers felt that the selective and exclusive distribution system offered them some security, and that in a free market they might be edged out by the larger dealers. However, all dealers believed that their position within the manufacturer-dealer relationship needed to be strengthened, although they wished to retain the basic principles of the block exemption.
  Mr. Randall: On a point of correction, I did not suggest that small dealers wanted a free market. There is enough co-ordination in the motor industry for me to say that. I was saying that the block exemption scheme was not a free market. If there were a free market, the dealers could protect their interests, but as they are caged into the system, with all the powers stacked in favour of the manufacturers, manufacturers can do what they like with dealers. That was the point that I made about the benefits of the free market in this context.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that clarification. It underlines the point that I have made, that the general view of all dealers is that they want to ensure that their position within the manufacturer-dealer relationship is strengthened. That is one thing on which we can all agree. That brings me to the position in relation to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry.
  604
  The Government's policy on the renewal of the block exemption was guided by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's investigation of the supply of new cars. It is worth examining the background to that inquiry, and the outcome. The hon. Gentleman has asked me to give the Government's response in this regard.
  In May 1990, the Director General of Fair Trading referred the issue to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation. His primary concern was the price of new cars in the UK. That was the focus of the inquiry. The MMC was also required to establish whether a scale or complex monopoly existed, and whether it operated, or might be expected to operate, against the public interest.
  The MMC's report was, as the hon. Gentleman says, published in February 1992. It concluded that prices in the United Kingdom were not significantly higher than in other countries. Where they were higher, that was due to factors such as exchange rates, and because cars in the United Kingdom were of a higher specification than on the continent. The report found a scale monopoly in favour of the Ford Motor Company, but that it did not operate against the public interest.
  However, the MMC concluded that the operation of selective and exclusive distribution by 24 manufacturers constituted a complex monopoly. The report did not conclude that the system as a whole should be prohibited, but it did find that a number of restrictions on dealers might be expected to operate against the public interest: while they did not lead to higher prices, they might be able to sustain higher prices. The MMC therefore recommended that the restrictions should be lifted.
  The MMC said that dealers should be allowed to advertise outside their contract territories. It said that they should be granted greater freedom to sell competing brands of cars, both inside and outside their contract territories, and that they should also be able to sell car-related goods, and provide services outside their territories.
  The overall effect of the changes would have served to increase the independence of dealers in the United Kingdom. That would increase competition in the industry, which would ensure that prices were not artificially higher in the United Kingdom than in other countries.
  The Government were minded to agree to and implement those recommendations. To that end, undertakings were sought from the major suppliers in the United Kingdom. Those undertakings were not forthcoming. The alternative was to implement the MMC's recommendations by an order in the House. However, in March 1994, the Government announced that an order would not be sought.
  That decision was made because a review of the block exemption regulation was imminent. The Government felt that to seek an order for enforcement of the MMC's recommendations would subject the industry to a period of uncertainty which might be altered within a relatively short time by the outcome of the Commission's own review of the block exemption.
  The Government announced instead that they would encourage the Commission to take account of the MMC's findings. The analysis in the MMC's report, and its recommendations, therefore, have formed the basis of the United Kingdom's negotiating position and policy during negotiation on the new regulation.

  605
  I come now to the outcome of that. The Commission's review of the block exemption began towards the end of October 1994, when it issued a preliminary draft to competition authorities in member states. In the United Kingdom, officials from my Department conducted an extensive consultation exercise. That sought the views of all interested parties. Many helpful comments were received, which reflected the importance of the issue to all concerned.
  Having heard the views of member states in November 1994, the Commission published an official draft of the proposed new regulation. Again, a number of comments were made, by a variety of organisations. They included groups from within the industry, as well as consumer associations and legal bodies. Following further consultation with member states, the final regulation was approved by the College of Commissioners in June of this year. The current exemption has now been extended for three months, and will now expire not on 30 June but on 30 September. The provisions in the new regulation will come into force on 1 October 1995, for a period of seven years.
  I come now to the new provisions in the block exemption. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is disappointed by the outcome of the negotiation, but the Government take a rather more positive view of the outcome than would be apparent from the remarks that we have heard in the debate. I shall outline why we take that view.
  Among the significant changes that have taken place is that dealers will now have greater freedom to sell competing brands. They will also be able to advertise outside their contract territories. The importance of that is that those were key recommendations in the MMC's report.
  Furthermore, the minimum duration of agreements has been increased to five years. Both parties will now have to give at least two years' notice of termination. That is a doubling of the previous period, and it is an important step in the right direction. Each party will be able to request the views of an independent expert in the case of disputes over sales targets. That, as well as the right to compensation if only one year's notice of termination is given, further strengthens the position of dealers.
  Mr. Randall: I understand that the new arbitration facility can be invoked only after a court hearing has taken place. Will the Minister confirm that it is not possible just to go along and say, "Will you rule on this?", as I think it should be, and that a breach must have been perpetrated for the arbitration procedures to be invoked?
  Mr. Evans: One of the challenges of the current system is the absence of any facility for the introduction of a third-party element to resolve disputes, although an independent element has been negotiated for disputes involving, in particular, sales targets. That is a step in the right direction. I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman more details in due course, but the important point is that, for the first time, there is that independent element.
  For that reason, among others, the Government believe that the settlement is good for the United Kingdom, and represents a good deal for UK car dealers. The MMC's analysis has been reflected in the Commission's conclusions. The elements of selective and exclusive distribution have been retained, but some of the other restrictions have been lifted.
  606
  The Commission has expressed the belief that, previously, there were a number of instances of non-compliance with the terms of the previous block exemption. Others—notably, some dealer trade associations—have said that it offered the manufacturer too much power at the expense of dealers, and that that led to abusive treatment of dealers. That is relevant to many of the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
  Each block exemption contains a list of clauses known as the blacklist, which sets out a number of restrictive practices that may not be included in any agreement that seeks the benefit of the block exemption. It is worth noting that the blacklist in the new regulation has been extended to provide much greater certainty; that also demonstrates the Commission's commitment to stamp out malpractices that have occurred under the current block exemption.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that the block exemption might be amended to prohibit all forms of abusive treatment of dealers by manufacturers. I do not think that appropriate.
  Mr. Randall: The manufacturers want bigger and fewer networks. That was highlighted in the MMC report, which suggested that such an arrangement would produce greater efficiency and productivity. During that process, however, many smaller companies are being discarded because they cannot secure the necessary investment and the right structures to provide that efficiency. How are we to move from the current position to the new position? I am merely saying that we should have a scheme that allows terminations to take place in a way that does not wipe out companies.
  That is a dilemma, but I feel that it could be handled better. It is clear that the Commission has not got to grips with the problem; in my view, a compensation system is the only answer.
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he is not happy with the outcome of the negotiations on the block exemption. The Government believe, however, that many of the concerns raised in the MMC report have been addressed during those negotiations. We part company, ultimately, on the Government's belief that the block exemption is not there to regulate every aspect of the manufacturers' agreement with dealers; it is there to deal with trade and competition issues. In those circumstances, it can be taken only so far.
  The Commission has stated explicitly that, in future, it will monitor compliance with the block exemption closely. That statement is to be applauded, as block exemptions permit restrictions of competition. Owing to the benefits that such restrictions provide, it is essential that the provisions of the exemptions are not abused. As I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman, they may have been breached in the past.
  If a manufacturer breaches the terms of the block exemption, the Commission will take appropriate action to deal with the matter. It is for that reason that the new block exemption is a useful step forward. It will stimulate competition and encourage competitiveness, and it should equip all members of the industry to face the challenges of the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Nine o'clock.

TREASURY

  Education (Spending)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of gross domestic product in England and Wales is spent on education. [32238]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Gross domestic product by territory is published in table 12.1 of "Regional Trends" 1995 edition on a calendar year basis only, while general Government expenditure by territory is published in table 7.7 of the statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement an Budget Report 1995–96", Cm 2821, on a financial year basis only. In England and Wales, identifiable general Government expenditure on education in 1993–94 accounted for 6.1 per cent. of GDP for 1993.

  Import/Export Controls (Breaches)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent communications or discussions he has had with the chairman of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in regard to progress in continuing inquiries into alleged malpractice by companies or individuals in military import/export transactions. [32660]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Investigation into alleged breaches of import or export controls is a matter for the commissioners of Customs in their role as an independent investigating and prosecuting authority of the Crown.

  Neither the Chancellor nor I, the Treasury Minister with general responsibility for Customs matters, are consulted on decisions on investigation and prosecution in individual cases, but we are routinely informed of significant events in important cases. It would not be appropriate to make public details of communications on inquiries lest they prejudice current or future investigations or legal proceedings or cause unfairness to individuals.

  VAT (Tour Operators)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy urgently to press the European Commission for changes to the regulations relating to value added tax and the tour operators margins scheme. [32879]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I share my hon. Friend's concern and I have recently written to Commissioner Monti urging that the European Commission should give greater priority to a full review of the EC rules on the application of VAT to tour operators.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proposals he has to find means of compensating smaller tour operators for damage to their business as a result of the proposed implementation of 310
  the Valued Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order; [32881]

  (2) what recent representations he has received concerning value added tax and the tour operators margins scheme; and if he will set out the action which he intends to take as a result of those representations. [32878]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have received many representations about the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order 1995 which was laid before the House on 9 June, and is due to come into effect on 1 January 1996.

  Many in the industry, but not all, wish to see the implementation of the change delayed.

  I am aware of the concern expressed about possible distortions of competition and the effect of the order, particularly on the smaller tour operators.

  Accordingly, Customs and Excise has begun a wide-ranging review of the scheme and has issued a consultation paper to trade bodies and other interested parties. It has requested replies on the particular issues arising from the 1 January 1996 change by the end of August. I shall then consider what further action, if any, is appropriate.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will identify those sections of the European directives which have led to the promotion of the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order. [32882]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The relevant EC legislation is article 26 of council directive 77/388/EEC—the Sixth VAT Directive.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the net cost to the United Kingdom travel industry of the proposed implementation from 1 January 1996 of the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order; if that order has yet been subject to a compliance cost assessment; and if he will make a statement. [32880]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The increase in the total VAT due to the Exchequer as a consequence of the proposed implementation of the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order 1995 is estimated at between £10 million and £40 million in a full year.

  The order is the subject of a compliance cost assessment, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends next to meet representatives of the Association of British Travel Agents to discuss the implications for the United Kingdom travel industry which will be caused by the implementation of the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order. [32967]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have no plans for a meeting at this stage. However, Customs and Excise has begun a wide-ranging review of the tour operators' margin scheme and issues arising from the proposed implementation of the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order 1995 will be examined as a matter of priority. Customs has issued a
  311
  consultation paper and offered to meet representative bodies at any mutually convenient time.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement of his policy on the consistency of the proposed implementation of the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order with help for small businesses. [32883]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I recognise the concern over the position of smaller tour operators affected by the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order 1995. Their position is being examined as a matter of priority as part of the wide-ranging review of the tour operators' margin scheme, and in full consultation with the industry.

  Tortoise Products
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what seizures of tortoise products have been made by Customs and Excise in the last 12 months; and what advice is offered to travellers at ports of entry concerning tortoise products offered for sale in Morocco and other countries. [32747]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  HM Customs and Excise seized the following tortoise products in the year ending 31 March 1995—the latest period for which figures are available:

  8 tortoise shells

  72 tablets stated to contain tortoise as an ingredient

  While advice to passengers is not directed specifically at the sale of tortoise products in Morocco, international travellers are made aware of the controls on protected species in general by means of posters, leaflets and the display cases which appear at many major airports.

  Imported Biodiesel (Revenue)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised last year on imported biodiesel. [32716]

  Mr Heathcoat-Amory
  The answer is as follows:

  Excise duty: None

  Customs duty: Negligible

  VAT: Negligible

  Departmental Capital Spending
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected capital spending figure for his Department for 1994–95; and what is the latest budget figure. [30872]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: The provisional outturn figure for 1994–95 is £2.7 million. The budget provision for 1995–96 is £5.6 million.

  Duty Receipts
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of duty on(a) tobacco products, (b) alcohol products and (c) all other liable products for each of the last 10 fiscal years expressed (i) at April 1995 prices and (ii) as a percentage of total Exchequer income. [32331]
  312
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: The figures are as follows:

  (a) Tobacco duty

  (b) Alcohol duties

  (c) Other duties1

  (i) Duty receipts at April 1995 prices—£ million

  1985–86

  6,942

  6,533

  17,104

  1986–87

  7,174

  6,312

  18,731

  1987–88

  6,914

  6,300

  18,865

  1988–89

  6,829

  6,183

  19,522

  1989–90

  6,391

  5,633

  18,515

  1990–91

  6,523

  5,620

  17,871

  1991–92

  6,949

  5,596

  18,720

  1992–93

  6,470

  5,471

  18,905

  1993–94

  6,863

  5,447

  20,818

  1994–95

  7,576

  5,702

  22,068

  (ii) Duty receipts as proportion of central government receipts— percentage

  1985–86

  3.4

  3.2

  8.5

  1986–87

  3.5

  3.1

  9.1

  1987–88

  3.2

  2.9

  8.7

  1988–89

  3.1

  2.8

  8.8

  1989–90

  2.9

  2.6

  8.4

  1990–91

  3.1

  2.5

  7.9

  1991–92

  2.9

  2.5

  8.4

  1992–93

  3.0

  2.5

  8.8

  1993–94

  3.1

  2.5

  9.5

  1994–95

  3.3

  2.5

  9.5

  1 Other duties include vehicle excise duty and customs and Excise duties, other than those on tobacco and alcohol.

  Figures for 1994–95 are provisional.

  VAT Receipts
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of VAT collected in each of the last 10 fiscal years expressed(a) at April 1995 prices and (b) as a percentage of total Exchequer income. [32329]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: The figures are as follows:

  Net VAT receipts

  (a) at April 1995 prices £ million

  (b) as proportion of central government receipts percentage

  1985–86

  30,092

  14.9

  1986–87

  32,234

  15.7

  1987–88

  34,910

  16.1

  1988–89

  37,401

  16.8

  1989–90

  37,421

  17.0

  1990–91

  35,885

  15.9

  1991–92

  39,361

  17.7

  1992–93

  39,891

  18.5

  1993–94

  41,024

  18.6

  1994–95

  42,879

  18.5

  Figures for 1994–95 are provisional.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Electronic Mail
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what information he has on the savings hon. Members will make by using the Internet as opposed to mail for correspondence.
  313
  Mr. Gary Waller
  Savings will accrue to the House if the Parliamentary data and video network connection to the Internet is used instead of traditional mail. However, in those cases where connection to the PDVN is via a modem, there will be an increased telephone charge.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee what training will be provided for hon. Members and their staff on the Internet.

  Mr. Waller
  Demonstrations by the Computer Office to Members of both Houses, their staff and staff of the two Houses in the use of the world wide web and Internet e-mail will be provided at workshop open days. In addition, leaflets will be available on the use of the Internet, and Members and other users can ask the PDVN helpdesk for assistance.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee if he will commission a study of the trends in hon. Member's work patterns and work load due to the advent of electronic mail; and what mechanisms and training are to be provided for assisting hon. Members and their researchers to deal with Internet e-mail.

  Mr. Waller
  It is too early to consider such a study, since trends of hon. Members'usage of the PDVN have not emerged. The Committee will consider in due course what mechanisms are appropriate for Internet e-mail and recommend appropriate guidance for users. As far as training is concerned, I refer the hon. Member to my preceding reply to him on this subject.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee for what reasons hon. Members' connection to the Internet via the PDVN has been delayed; and when he expects access to be available.

  Mr. Waller
  The Internet connection was completed in mid-May and early testing of the facility took place during late May and through June. General access to the service has depended on standardising PDVN equipment and on the availability of a mail conversion gateway received only at the end of June. Users of the PDVN who are interested in using the Internet are being asked to allow their machines to be converted during the summer recess and should contact the PDVN helpdesk to arrange a convenient time for the upgrade. At the same time, other new services are also being made available, including the Library's parliamentary electronic document distribution system, Novell Group Wise 4.1—the updated version of Wordperfect Office—and also remote Windows access.

  Parliamentary On-line Information System
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Information Committee, if POLIS will be made available to the general public via the Internet.

  Mr. Waller
  No.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Subsidence Adviser
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received an annual report from the subsidence adviser appointed under section 46 of the Coal Industry Act 1994. [33340]
  314
  Mr. Page
  I have today received the subsidence adviser's first annual report. In accordance with the Coal Mining (Subsidence Adviser) Regulations 1994, copies have been laid in both Libraries of the Houses.

  Official Receiver
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what will be the maximum distance bankrupts and company directors will be required to travel to attend for further interview by the official receiver, in order that the official receiver can investigate possible offences which may have been committed if the initial enquiries of the official receiver are contracted out. [32322]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No decisions have yet been taken in relation to the residual size and location of the Insolvency Service should contracting out go ahead.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the maximum distance any of the constituents of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby who become bankrupt can expect to travel in the event of any of the functions of the official receiver being contracted out. [32584]

  Mr. Evans
  Accessibility will be an issue for discussion with potential bidders in the course of the negotiations on their proposals for contracting out. It is expected, however, that bankrupts will not be required to travel substantially farther than is presently necessary.

  Illegal Steel Subsidies
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evidence of illegal subsidies his Steel Subsidies Monitoring Committee has so far passed to the European Commission. [31144]

  Mr. Eggar
  The committee was formed in February 1995 to encourage the UK steel industry and other Government Departments to bring forward information which might point to the existence of illegal subsidies. A good deal of background information has been collected, and discussed with the Commission, including information about Italian, Spanish, German, Portuguese and Irish cases.

  Amway UK Ltd.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, columns 447–48, if hon. Members other than Ministers were present at the meetings in 1992 and 1995 between Ministers and Messrs Amway UK Ltd., or the Direct Selling Association. [32619]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 5 July 1995]: The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) was present at both meetings.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Small Claims Limit
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what consultation his Department has carried out to consider increases in the small claims limit since July 1994; and if he will make a statement. [32737]
  315
  (2) how many representations he has received since January as part of the full public consultation prior to any increase in the small claims limit; and if he will make a statement. [32738]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the interim report of the judicial review on the civil justice system conducted by Lord Woolf to comply with his Department's criteria for a departmental consultation on the level of the small claims limit; and if he will make a statement. [32840]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The small claims limit fell within the scope of the first stage of Lord Woolf's review of access to justice. During this review, Lord Woolf himself conducted an extensive consultation exercise including a programme of public seminars. A list of the individuals and organisations which contributed to the inquiry is annexed to the interim report, which was published last month. In view of that wide-ranging consultation, the Lord Chancellor does not intend to undertake further public consultation on the question whether he should implement Lord Woolf's recommendation that the limit for small claims, other than those for personal injury, should be raised to £3,000. The power to make the necessary amendments rests with the County Court Rule Committee which, as part of its consideration of the matter, will consult interested parties.

  Child Abuse Cases
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans his Department has to ensure that the public gallery in court is cleared during the evidence of children in cases of alleged abuse. [32039]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 6 July 1995:
  PQ 95/677: CHILD ABUSE CASES
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about the evidence of children in cases of alleged abuse.
  I should let you know that, with few exceptions, proceedings in the Crown Court are held in open court. However, section 37(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 enables a court to direct that all persons, other than court staff, the parties and their legal representatives, be excluded from court when evidence is given by a child or young person in proceedings contrary to decency or morality. The parents or guardian of a child witness can ask their legal adviser to make such an application. It is then for the judge to decide, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.

  Prosecution Costs (Plymouth)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the cost to public funds of the recent prosecution by Plymouth trading standards department of a resident of south Brent, south Devon, for the sale of a horse. [31838]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.
  316
  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Anthony Steen, dated 6 July 1995:
  PQ 95/666: COST OF BRINGING A PROSECUTION
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the cost to public funds of bringing a prosecution.
  I am sorry to have to tell you that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Small Claims Courts
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many landlords were taken to the small claims courts by former tenants for not repaying their deposits in each of the last 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [31919]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Simon Hughes, dated 6 July 1995:
  PQ 95/668: LANDLORDS TAKEN TO COURT BY THEIR FORMER TENANTS
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of landlords who have been taken to court by their former tenants.
  I am sorry to have to tell you that this information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Property Maintenance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what measures are in place which allow(a) local authorities, (b) mortgage lenders, (c) police forces, (d) council tax registration officers or (e) private citizens to take action to force owner-occupiers who (i) neglect owner-occupied property to the extent that it detrimentally affects the amenity and quality of life of neighbours or (ii) use residential property for trading, storage or warehousing purposes, to cease such practices and return such residential property to proper use; what plans he has to introduce additional measures; and if he will make a statement; [31387]

  (2) what action can be taken against a householder of an owner-occupied property in a residential area who (a) neglects to properly maintain his or her property to a reasonable standard or (b) uses the property for trading, warehousing and storage purposes to the significant detriment of neighbours and their amenity; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The responsibility for dealing with houses in poor condition lies with local authorities and they have wide-ranging powers. Where it is drawn to their attention that a house has been neglected they may take action under the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1897, or the Building (Scotland) Act 1959, or the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 or the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 to require that it be repaired or up-graded. These powers may also be used where neighbours are affected and there is a provision to require the maintenance of private open spaces. Planning permission for change of use is required if a residential
  317
  property is used for business purposes and that use is more than incidental to the enjoyment of the property as a dwelling house. Authorities have power to take action against those who breach planning control under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. There are no present plans to introduce measures additional to these powers.

  Any action which a mortgage lender could take over the condition or use of a property would be determined in individual circumstances by the terms of the mortgage agreement.

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from smaller colleges of higher education alleging difficulties in coping with Scottish Higher Education Funding Council-imposed budget reductions over the next three years; and what response he has made. [32232]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My Department has received letters from the principals of two monotechnic higher education institutions and nine copies of a campaign letter from representatives of St. Andrew's College of Higher Education. My right hon. Friend has also received formal representations from the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals in relation to the 1995 public expenditure survey.

  It is for the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to determine the relative needs of institutions within the total resources available to it. The council keeps in close touch with all the institutions it funds.

  My right hon. Friend will be considering carefully the council's assessment of the needs of higher education during the forthcoming public expenditure survey.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what distinction the SHEFC made in deciding budgets for higher education colleges in the next three years, between colleges which had reserves and colleges which had not been permitted to acquire reserves. [32234]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The SHEFC set out its allocations of funding to higher education institutions in its circular letter No. 10/95 on 15 March 1995.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the impact of funding cuts in the next three years on the quality of provision in higher education colleges. [32235]

  Full-time

  Part-time

  First degree

  Other HE

  Total under-graduates

  First degree

  Other HE

  Total under-graduates

  1980–81

  15,987

  7,340

  23,327

  604

  24,477

  25,081

  1981–82

  16,249

  7,309

  23,558

  829

  19,808

  20,637

  1982–83

  15,966

  7,763

  23,729

  741

  21,571

  22,312

  1983–84

  16,199

  8,006

  24,205

  922

  22,395

  23,317

  1984–85

  16,877

  7,878

  24,755

  1,080

  21,763

  22,843

  1985–86

  17,321

  7,893

  25,214

  1,107

  24,037

  25,144

  1986–87

  17,816

  7,963

  25,779

  1,362

  23,884

  25,246

  1987–88

  18,312

  8,425

  26,737

  1,424

  23,793

  25,217

  1988–89

  18,784

  8,374

  27,158

  1,335

  22,902

  24,237

  1989–90

  21,393

  9,265

  30,658

  1,508

  23,218

  24,726

  1990–91

  22,940

  9,410

  32,350

  1,613

  22,608

  24,221

  318
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Our expenditure plans for higher education until the 1997–98 financial year were set out in the departmental report "Serving Scotland's Needs", Cm 2814. This included a summary of the quality assessment reports on teaching by the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council in the academic session 1993–94, and reaffirmed the Government's commitment to greater accountability of HEIs in terms of relevant, up-to-date information about quality and standards to such as employers and current and prospective students. The funding councils, including SHEFC, are working to develop indicators for performance including teaching quality.

  My right hon. Friend will be considering evidence as to teaching quality and various representations he has received in the forthcoming public expenditure survey. So far almost 30 per cent. of the quality assessments of teaching published by SHEFC have been rated as excellent and only 2 per cent. as unsatisfactory.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many overseas students there were in Scottish higher education institutions in each year since 1985; and what proportion they represented of the total. [32236]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number and percentage of full-time overseas students in higher education institutions from 1985–86 to 1993–94 is shown in the table.

  Number of full-time overseas students

  Percentage

  1985–86

  6,274

  8.6

  1986–87

  7,015

  9.5

  1987–88

  7,087

  9.4

  1988–89

  7,183

  9.3

  1989–90

  8,063

  9.9

  1990–91

  8,779

  10.0

  1991–92

  9,610

  10.0

  1992–93

  10,722

  10.2

  1993–94

  11,953

  10.7

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the change in the pattern of undergraduate entry to higher education(a) between 1980 and 1987 and (b) between 1987 and 1993, and what studies he has initiated into it. [32241]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of entrants to higher education in Scotland by mode and level of study, for the years 1980–81 to 1993–94, has been published in the Statistical Bulletin "Scottish Higher Education statistics 1993–94". Summary information is given in the table.
  319

  Full-time

  Part-time

  First degree

  Other HE

  Total under-graduates

  First degree

  Other HE

  Total under-graduates

  1991–92

  25,323

  11,663

  36,986

  2,680

  21,826

  24,506

  1992–93

  28,680

  14,048

  42,728

  3,789

  23,284

  27,073

  1993–94

  29,467

  18,317

  47,784

  4,166

  21,709

  25,875

  The centre for education sociology, University of Edinburgh, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council has recently published a paper drawing on data from the Scottish young people's survey, funded by the Scottish Office.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount per capita in real terms spent on higher education students in(a) 1980, (b) 1987 and (c) 1993. [32242]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not readily available for all higher education students. For those students attending universities previously funded by the Universities Funding Council I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 9 February,Official Report, columns 228–29.

  Education (Spending)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of gross domestic product in Scotland is spent on education. [32237]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Identifiable Government expenditure on education in Scotland in 1993–94 was equivalent to 8.1 per cent. of gross domestic product for 1993.

  The following points are relevant to the interpretation of this figure:

  (i) It excludes all private sector spending on education.

  (ii) It includes expenditure on recreation and leisure, sport and Gaelic broadcasting. If these items were excluded the figure would be 7.8 per cent.

  (iii) It includes the cost of grants and of student loans received by all Scottish-domiciled students undertaking higher education courses. It does not include expenditure on awards or loans for students who are domiciled elsewhere in the United Kingdom but are undertaking courses in Scotland.

  Scottish Record Office
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the accounts statement of the Scottish Record Office executive agency will be published. [33339]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Copies of the accounts statement for 1994–95 have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

WALES

  Fowl Pest
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will show, by type, the number of cases of fowl pest in each year since 1985. [32291]
  320
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of fowl pest—avian influenza or Newcastle disease—have been reported in Wales since 1985.

  Tuberculosis (Cattle)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many individual reactors to the cattle tuberculosis skin test have been slaughtered in each Welsh county in each of the last five years; and how many of those had visible lesions post-mortem. [31740]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the numbers of reactors to the cattle tuberculosis skin test in each animal health office area in Wales which have been slaughtered in each of the last five years are given in the following table. The figures in brackets give the number of reactors slaughtered which had visible lesion at post-mortem.

  Area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Cardiff

  —

  20(20)

  3(3)

  28(22)

  46(42)

  Llandrindod Wells

  —

  —

  4(4)

  —

  25(21)

  Caernarfon

  5(1)

  1(1)

  —

  1

  1

  Carmarthen

  18(16)

  60(57)

  48(37)

  62(54)

  188(180)

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many herds in each of the Welsh counties have tested positively for tuberculosis in each of the last five years. [31738]

  Mr. Jones
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the numbers of herds in which cattle tested positive for bovine tuberculosis in each Animal Health Office area in Wales in each of the last five years were as follows:

  Area

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Cardiff

  —

  4

  3

  10

  18

  Llandrindod Wells

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Caernarfon

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carmarthen

  5

  14

  13

  17

  38

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has paid out in compensation for cattle slaughtered as positive reactors or dangerous contacts in each of the Welsh counties in each of the last five years. [31735]

  Mr. Jones
  The information is not available on a county basis. The following table shows the amounts paid for cattle which reacted to TB tests, by divisional office area.
  321

  £

  Division

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Caernarfon

  1—

  1—

  1—

  6,940

  4,644

  Carmarthen

  1—

  1—

  1—

  191,997

  323,163

  Llandrindod Wells

  1—

  1—

  1—

  142,179

  87,096

  Wales

  86,159

  74,854

  102,316

  341,116

  414,903

  1 No separate data available. The counties covered by the Divisional Offices are:

  Caernarfon—Clwyd and Gwynedd.

  Carmarthen—Dyfed.

  Llandrindod—Gwent, Powys, Mid-Glamorgan, South Glamorgan and West Glamorgan.

  Rabies
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of rabies there were in each year since 1967. [32288]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No cases of rabies have been reported in Wales since 1967.

  Epizootic Haemorrhagic Viris Disease
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of epizootic haemorrhagic viris disease occurred in each year since 1985. [32282]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No case of epizootic haemorrhagic viris disease has ever been reported in Wales.

  Animal Illnesses
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many cases of African horse sickness occurred in each year since 1985; [32300]

  (2) how many cases of peste des petits ruminants occurred in each year since 1985; [32285]

  (3) how many cases of contagious equine metritis occurred in each year since 1985. [32303]

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

  Agricultural Grants
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the percentage of each agricultural grant dealt with within the time targets set in "Commitment to Service". [32157]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  It will take some time to compile the latest data. I will write to the hon. Member when we have done so.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many claims for compensation due to late payment of agricultural grants have been lodged; how many claimants have received compensation; and what was the total cost of compensation. [32423]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This information is not centrally collected and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  322

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy occurred in each year since 1985. [32374]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Bovine spongiform encephalopathy was first diagnosed in November 1986; there are no figures available prior to this date.

  The numbers of confirmed cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in Wales in each year since 1985 are as follows:

  1986: 0

  1987: 26

  1988: 159

  1989: 507

  1990: 1,083

  1991:2,234

  1992: 3,716

  1993: 3,627

  1994: 2,296

  1995: 508 (to 30 June 1995)

  Population
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the population of working age for Wales for the most recent date for which figures are available and in 1991, 1981 and 1971. [32441]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The resident population of Wales, of men aged 16 to 64 and women aged 16 to 59 is shown in the following table.

  Residents of working age

  1971

  1,582,000

  1981

  1,662,700

  1991

  1,723,600

  1993

  1,724,000

  Source:

  Mid year estimates of resident population (OPCS).

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure that when recording the periods of activation time for emergency ambulances those times are related to the ambulance which arrives at the relevant scene of the emergency. [32495]

  Mr. Richards
  The activation time for emergency ambulances is the difference between the time that an emergency call is received and the time that the nearest available ambulance is dispatched. This gives an accurate indication of the time taken within the ambulance trust to react to a call.

  Farming
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for(a) dairy farmers (b) sheep farmers. [32937]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information on the prospects for dairy and sheep farmers is published in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom 1993/94",
  323
  available from the Library of the House. Data for 1994–95 will become available in the autumn.

  USK River
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the possible designation of the Usk river catchment as a special area of conservation under the terms of the European wildlife directive. [31142]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have received five letters and a petition on the subject.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the financial years 1992– 94, 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 the applications for project capital funding made by grant-maintained schools, indicating the amount received for each school in each year and the purposes for which the funding was granted. [32620]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the value of moneys held in trust by individual national health service trusts and health authorities. [32955]

  Mr. Richards
  The value of moneys held on trust by individual national health service trust and health authorities in Wales as at 31 March 1994 is as follows:

  £000

  Health Authority

  Clywd District Health Authority

  3,084

  East Dyfed District Health Authority

  3,890

  Gwent District Health Authority

  2,906

  Gwynedd District Health Authority

  2,942

  Mid Glamorgan District Health Authority

  1,345

  Powys District Health Authority

  370

  South Glamorgan District Health Authority

  5,866

  West Glamorgan District Health Authority

  3,284

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority

  55

  NHS Trust

  Pembrokeshire NHS Trust

  536

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  142

  Bridgend and District NHS Trust

  4

  Llanelli/Dinefwr NHS Trust

  5

  Carmarthen and District NHS Trust

  0

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales NHS Trust

  2

  South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust

  4

  Notes:

  1. 31 March 1994 data is provisional and the latest available.

  2. The figures for the value of monies held on trust is taken to be the value of net assets.

  Source:

  Annual Accounts of Health Authorities and NHS Trusts.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of blood supplies in each region was supplied to private hospitals in the last year for which 324
  figures are available; and if he will indicate the number of units involved. [32971]

  Mr. Richards
  In south Wales, the National Blood Transfusion Service (Wales) supplied 1 per cent.—1,100 units—of donated blood to private hospitals in 1994–95. The National Blood Authority is responsible for collecting and supplying blood in north Wales.

  Pre-School Education
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about pre-school education in Wales. [33471]

  Mr. Hague
  The scheme announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to give parents of all four-year-olds a voucher that can be exchanged for pre-school education, will apply equally in Wales.

  Wales has a good record in this field with some 90 per cent. of four-year-olds already receiving some form of pre-school education. I hope the scheme will enable all four-year-olds to benefit from a pre-school place.

  The voucher will be exchangeable for a part-time place in any private, voluntary or maintained institution providing nursery education, a full-time place in a reception class in a maintained school where this is available, up to a full-time place in a playgroup of a combination of these options. The value of the voucher will initially be set at £1,100.

  Parents will be able to top up the value of the voucher in the private and voluntary sector if that is necessary. But provision in maintained schools will continue to be free.

  Providers of places for which vouchers are exchanged will be expected to meet certain minimum quality criteria and be subject to light-touch inspection arrangements. The scheme will be funded by a mixture of recoupment of some of the money already spent on pre-school education in the maintained sector and of new money.

  It is my intention that the scheme will be fully operational in Wales from April 1997. I shall be consulting interested parties about implementation of the scheme, including how to make sure we are well prepared to secure its successful introduction.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken to ensure that Crown property is not being used for tobacco smuggling in Gibraltar. [32092]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Gibraltar law enforcement authorities have taken a number of steps to combat smuggling generally, including increased sea patrols with the help of the Gibraltar Squadron. These law enforcement authorities would take action against smugglers if there was hard evidence that Crown property was being used as a base for smuggling.
  325
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of tobacco smuggling between Gibraltar and Spain. [32090]

  Mr. Davis
  We do not have exact figures for the amount of tobacco smuggled between Gibraltar and Spain. For the period 1 January 1995 to 3 July 1995 the Royal Gibraltar police seized 199 boxes of contraband tobacco.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the Gibraltar Government regarding tobacco smuggling. [32091]

  Mr. Davis
  We regularly discuss smuggling with the Gibraltar Government, including tobacco smuggling. Discussions were held recently on the need to tackle the activities of fast boats.

  Albania
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to open an embassy in Albania. [32670]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We re-established diplomatic relations with Albania on 29 May 1991. HM ambassador at Rome is accredited to Albania and a charge d'affairs is resident in Tirana. We have told the Albanian Government that we cannot consider opening a full embassy until an outstanding property claim has been settled.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will made a statement on the meeting of the reflections group held in Toledo on 1 and 2 July. [32886]

  Mr. David Davis
  The third meeting of the intergovernmental conference study group took place on 30 June and 1 July in Toledo, Spain. It was an informal meeting at which the head of the European secretariat at the Cabinet Office, Mr. Brian Bender, represented me.

  The meeting discussed the EU and the citizen, and the justice and home affairs pillar of the Maastricht treaty. On the question of the EU and the citizen, Mr. Bender argued that the EU needed to be made more relevant to people's lives. This was best achieved by addressing issues of real concern to people, such as jobs, growth, less interference by the EU, and less EC fraud and waste. Further development of the concept of European citizenship which was proposed, for example, in the reports to the study group by the Commission and the European Parliament, raised difficulties. In the UK the concept of European citizenship was seen as coming into potential conflict with national identity. People were also concerned about possible future obligations of citizenship.

  With regard to simplifying the treaty to make it less complex and more readable Mr. Bender applauded the objective but expressed some scepticism about whether it could be achieved without altering the substance of the treaty. A careful balance had been achieved in the Maastricht treaty which needed to be preserved.
  326
  On the justice and home affairs pillar of the treaty, Mr. Bender took issue with the suggestion in the Commission and European Parliament reports to the study group that the third pillar was not working effectively. The positive outcome of the Cannes European Council at which three conventions were agreed—Europol, customs information system and fraud—demonstrated that the third pillar could deliver results. Problems with the pillar related more to the sensitivity of the subject matter than to the institutional procedures introduced at Maastricht. It might be possible to simplify committee procedures within the pillar, but it would be a grave mistake to try to develop EC techniques such as majority voting or enhanced rights of initiative for the Commission. This might produce more decisions, but it would generate resentment and could do long-term damage to member states' political will to co-operate in these areas.

  Mr. Bender argued that democratic oversight of the third pillar should rest primarily with national Parliaments.

  Embassies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list each new car acquired by embassies or posts abroad in the last five years, indicating(a) the name of the embassy or post, (b) the make of the car and (c) the cost. [32975]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information, in the form requested, is not readily available, and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  In the last five years the FCO, including ODA, has spent £20,985,391 on the purchase of 1,201 vehicles for 215 overseas posts. These have included more than 20 different makes and types ranging from motor-cycles, cars, minibuses, vans and trucks to meet specific local needs.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the refurbishments made to the properties of embassies or posts abroad in each of the last three years, indicating(a) the name of the embassy or post, (b) the nature of the alteration and (c) the cost. [32982]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information requested is not immediately available. I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as it has been assembled.

ENVIRONMENT

  Housing
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment(a) how many state-funded housing association and (b) council-owned homes there were, and how many were unoccupied, on 1 April in (i) York, (ii) north Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England in each since 1979. [31585]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available information is set out in the tables. The housing association data for 1988 and earlier years are based on estimates provided by local authorities and there is known to be some under-reporting of vacant dwellings.
  327

  Local authority dwellings

  York

  North Yorks

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  England

  Stock

  Vacants

  Stock

  Vacants

  Stock

  Vacants

  Stock

  Vacants

  1979

  11,679

  80

  48,119

  302

  584,770

  8,980

  4,667,100

  100,500

  1980

  11,611

  77

  48,321

  250

  591,810

  9,460

  4,767,500

  100,400

  1981

  11,572

  95

  47,969

  254

  595,980

  7,890

  4,912,400

  97,200

  1982

  11,437

  134

  46,951

  328

  588,850

  9,270

  4,818,800

  99,500

  1983

  11,097

  150

  45,422

  443

  568,870

  12,580

  4,659,800

  107,100

  1984

  10,862

  115

  44,473

  448

  559,140

  10,960

  4,560,700

  105,100

  1985

  10,684

  111

  43,829

  465

  553,720

  11,780

  4,510,900

  109,500

  1986

  10,467

  82

  43,254

  449

  547,100

  11,800

  4,439,200

  111,600

  1987

  10,325

  64

  42,579

  458

  541,110

  11,360

  4,412,600

  110,200

  1988

  10,149

  88

  41,491

  385

  529,370

  11,660

  4,322,800

  102,900

  1989

  9,786

  55

  40,201

  412

  514,310

  11,600

  4,177,000

  100,700

  1990

  9,661

  81

  38,956

  401

  493,800

  10,850

  4,037,400

  99,200

  1991

  9,641

  82

  35,230

  295

  479,100

  8,610

  3,898,900

  83,100

  1992

  9,580

  39

  34,949

  299

  473,810

  8,450

  3,844,400

  74,400

  1993

  9,484

  32

  34,607

  286

  466,220

  7,980

  3,759,800

  70,900

  1994

  9,336

  28

  29,874

  274

  457,550

  9,160

  3,666,200

  70,300

  Notes:

  The county, regional and England totals are grossed for missing data.

  Two authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside—Ryedale (in 1990–91) and Hambleton (in 1993–94) have carried out Large Scale Voluntary transfers to housing associations.

  Source:

  Annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns submitted by local authorities.

  Housing association dwellings

  York

  North Yorks

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  England

  Stock

  Vacants

  Stock

  Vacants

  Stock

  Vacants

  Stock

  Vacants

  1979

  361

  23

  3,748

  69

  20,940

  730

  275,900

  17,200

  1980

  421

  35

  3,711

  74

  22,420

  590

  294,900

  17,500

  1981

  421

  15

  3,093

  63

  23,250

  570

  343,000

  17,100

  1982

  475

  5

  3,189

  28

  23,830

  590

  366,600

  16,100

  1983

  488

  1

  3,306

  19

  26,750

  640

  390,100

  14,700

  1984

  567

  13

  2,817

  37

  27,490

  760

  413,900

  15,000

  1985

  673

  10

  3,155

  22

  29,120

  800

  439,500

  15,400

  1986

  703

  5

  3,413

  29

  30,970

  700

  464,500

  14,900

  1987

  786

  1

  3,592

  25

  33,800

  430

  482,500

  12,900

  1988

  810

  4

  4,246

  65

  35,200

  510

  498,100

  12,700

  1989

  760

  n/a

  3,220

  n/a

  36,650

  n/a

  519,600

  21,700

  1990

  851

  n/a

  3,928

  n/a

  40,910

  n/a

  568,300

  19,700

  1991

  874

  10

  7,206

  117

  43,570

  720

  608,300

  16,400

  1992

  947

  16

  7,463

  93

  45,910

  800

  646,100

  16,200

  1993

  1,036

  59

  8,001

  203

  49,400

  1,940

  714,300

  27,600

  1994

  1,113

  18

  12,833

  145

  56,800

  1,010

  778,800

  20,700

  Notes:

  >The 1979 to 1988 county, regional and England totals are grossed for missing data but for 1989 to 1994 only the England figures are grossed for missing values.

  Two authorities in Yorkshire and Humberside—Ryedale (in 1990–91) and Hambelton (in 1993–94) have carried out Large Scale Voluntary Transfers to housing associations.

  The 1993 vacants figures include a number of dwellings purchased under the Housing Market Package initiative (a total of 10,500 in England).

  Sources:

  1979 to 1988—Annual Housing Investment Programme (HIP1) returns submitted by local authorities.

  1989 to 1984—Annual HAR 10/1 returns which housing associations submit to the Housing Corporation.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Department's estimate of the number of local authority houses that will be built in the current financial year. [32821]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Department does not prepare forecasts of new house building.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many asylum seekers were allocated social housing in each of the last 10 years as a328
  percentage of the total number of allocations made by each local authority in England, Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [31920]

  (2) how many (a) women under 18 years and (b) men under 18 years have been waiting (i) over six months, (ii) over 2 months and (iii) over 18 months for social housing in each local authority in England, Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [31921]

  (3) how many individuals, classified as vulnerable under part III of the Housing Act 1985, were allocated social housing in each of the last five years as a percentage of the total number of allocations made by

  329
  each local authority in England, Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [31922]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many starts were made in social housing for rent in each Hampshire district in each of the past five years; and how many starts he estimates will be made in each district in each of the next two years. [31844]

  Mr. Jones
  The publication "Local Housing Statistics" shows estimates of housebuilding starts by housing associations and by local authorities for each local authority area Hampshire. Figures are shown in table 1 of each of the following issues:

  Year

  Issue number

  1990

  103

  1991

  105

  1992

  109

  1993

  110

  1994 (first three quarters only)

  112

  Copies of these publications are in the Library.

  The Department does not prepare forecasts of new house building starts.

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which members of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment receive a grant from(a) the National Environment Research Council and (b) a private company; and in the latter case if he will list the companies and the size of grants; [32499]

  (2) if he will list the members of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment with the name of their present employer; and whether they receive any form of research grant from any Department. [32500]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The current membership of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment comprises:

  Professor J. Beringer: University of Bristol

  Professor E. M. Cooke: Public Health Laboratory Service

  Dr. P. Dale: Institute of Plant Science Research

  Dr. A. Garland: Glaxo-Wellcome plc

  Dr. C. Gliddon: University of Wales

  Dr. A. Gray: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology

  Ms J. Hill: Green Alliance

  Dr. J. Kinderlerer: University of Sheffield

  Mr. J. McLeod: National Institute of Agricultural Botany

  Professor D. Onions: University of Glasgow Veterinary School

  Professor N. Poole: Zeneca Ltd.

  Dr. D. Robinson: Scottish Crop Research Institute

  Members are not required to provide comprehensive information on sources of funds for research, and such information is not therefore held by my Department. However, the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, the Scottish Crop Research Institute, and the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology all currently hold research contracts from my Department. Members are required to disclose
  330
  any personal or professional interest, or any interest of the organisation which employs them before review of specific applications by the committee.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if members of the public are allowed to attend committee meetings of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. [32502]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Members of the public are not allowed to attend meetings of the committee. They may make written submissions to the committee.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place the annual reports of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment for the last five years in the Library. [32496]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The first annual report of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment was published last year and it was placed in the Library.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what investigations has taken place on the decision by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment to allow the testing of genetically modified scorpion venom virus in open fields. [32497]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The confined release of a genetically modified scorpion venom virus was the subject of a consent issued by the Secretary of State to the Institute of Virology and Environmental Microbiology in April 1994, following advice received from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment.

  Following the receipt of communications from some members of the public, the proposed release was reviewed for a second time by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, and its advice was that the consent should be maintained.

  During the course of the release, the site was visited by specialist inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive, whose report confirmed that the release was being carried out in accordance with the terms and conditions of the issued consent. A satisfactory report of the release has been submitted by IVEM to the Secretary of State.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many forms of genetically modified viruses have been permitted by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. [32501]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has no authority to permit releases; consents for releases are given by the Secretary of State for the Environment, acting jointly with, as appropriate, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Scotland, or the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has to date given advice to the Secretary of State for consents to release two forms of virus, one, a baculovirus, the other a bacteriophage.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the applications for the release of genetically modified organisms which have
  331
  been refused by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. [32498]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The committee has no powers to approve applications. Since the committee was placed on a statutory basis in 1993, it has not advised that any applications be refused. It has delayed its advice on specific applications pending the provision of additional information, and it has advised on precautions to be taken in making specific releases.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if registered restricted covenants that seek to preserve the character of a development are considered as other material considerations when a planning application is being considered. [32421]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  While restrictive covenants and planning controls impinge upon each other to some extent, they constitute different systems of control and each has an independent existence. It is, however, ultimately for the courts to decide what is a material consideration.

  Mr. Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications for planning applications for the absence of the term, building line. [32422]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is for a local planning authority to determine in the first instance whether a planning application adequately describes a proposed development. The validity of applications is ultimately a matter for the courts.

  Oil and Gas Platforms (Dumping)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government will support the Oslo Commission decision of 29 June to ban the dumping at sea of North sea oil and gas platforms. [32503]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No decision on this subject could be reached by the Oslo Commission on 29 June for procedural reasons, but a majority of the contracting parties indicated that they would vote in an intersessional written procedure for a decision for a moratorium on deep sea disposal pending the development of a ban as soon as possible. The UK and Norway—the only two countries which have deep-sea installations—indicated that they will not vote for that decision. Under the convention, they will thus not be bound by it. Any ban will be mere posturing by countries without such installations. These countries less than three years ago signed the OSPAR convention which provides for case-by-case assessment to determine the best way for the environment as a whole of decommissioning each major offshore installation—this remains the most effective way of dealing with this difficult problem.

  Planning Blight
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the subject of compensation for planning blight; and if he will make a statement. [31159]
  332
  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department regularly receives inquiries and comments about compulsory purchase and the compensation that may be payable.

  During an Adjournment debate on 5 April, Official Report, columns 1693–1700. I mentioned that certain aspects of the current arrangements require a careful and objective review. We therefore propose to commission research to look into a wide range of issues, which will include the effects of blight and the attitudes and expectations of those affected by compulsory purchase.

  Marine Ecosystems (North Sea)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action is being taken to stop the destruction of marine ecosystems in the North sea. [31163]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A range of national, European Union and international action is being taken to protect North sea ecosystems. The fourth North sea conference in June concluded that, within territorial waters, implementation of the EC habitats and birds directives was a priority. The conference asked the Oslo and Paris Commissions to consider what action is needed in respect of those waters outside territorial limits.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the levels of revenue reserves held by local authorities. [33468]

  Mr. Curry
  My Department has recently conducted a survey of the general fund revenue reserves held by local authorities during 1994–95. The results show that authorities held about £5.7 billion in revenue reserves at 1 April 1994, of which about £2.3 billion was unallocated, the remainder being earmarked for specific purposes or held on behalf of schools under local management of schools schemes.

  Authorities expect their reserves to decrease by 1 April 1995 to about £4.8 billion, of which £0.6 billion would be held on behalf of schools, £2.3 billion in other earmarked reserves, and £1.9 billion in working balances and other unallocated reserves. This compares with their budgeted revenue expenditure of £45.6 billion for 1995–96.

  Assuming that authorities appropriate from reserves the amounts which they have taken into account in their 1995–96 budgets, their reserves would total £3.9 billion on 31 March 1996, of which we estimate that between £1.25 billion and £1.5 billion would be unallocated.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the available figures for the reserves which each authority expects to hold at 1 April 1995.

  Mortgage Indemnities
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, column 541, if he will list by local authority in England and Wales (a) the total value of indemnities given on mortgages under section 442 of the Housing Act 1985 and (b) the total value of indemnities given on loans for all purposes. [32340]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 4 July 1995]: The available information on the total value of

  333
  indemnities given on mortgages under section 442 of the Housing Act 1985 between April 1986 and 31 March 1995 is given in the table. This is based on data as reported by local authorities during the course of the year and does not incorporate any estimation for non-response.

  Information on the value of indemnities given on other types of loan is not collected.

  Information in respect of Welsh local authorities is the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mortgage indemnity agreements entered into by local authorities England: April 1986-March 1995

  Total value £000

  Basildon

  12

  Bolton

  2,438

  Broadland

  21

  Bromsgrove

  18

  Broxbourne

  6,747

  Calderdale

  1,175

  Cherwell

  751

  Cleethorpes

  18

  Crawley

  1,715

  Crewe and Nantwich

  3

  Derby

  275

  Dudley

  1,050

  Easington

  65

  Ellesmere Port

  100

  Elmsbridge

  684

  Guildford

  780

  Hammersmith

  60

  Hertsmere

  1,098

  Kings Lynn

  104

  Kirklees

  10

  Knowsley

  1,648

  Langbaurgh

  594

  Leicester

  143

  Malvern Hills

  6

  Manchester

  13

  Middlesborough

  213

  North Warwickshire

  220

  Oldham

  22

  Preston

  970

  Reading

  263

  Reigate and Banstead

  50

  Rossendale

  412

  Rushcliffe

  8,286

  Salisbury

  322

  South Hams

  581

  South Kesteven

  534

  South Wight

  693

  Spelthorne

  2,436

  St. Edmundsbury

  482

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  94

  Stockton on Tees

  514

  Tameside

  164

  Tendring

  1,064

  The Wrekin

  46

  Torridge

  54

  Wandsworth

  7,820

  Wealden

  174

  West Devon

  871

  Westminster

  1,616

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  576

  Woking

  1,294

  Woodspring

  13

  England total

  49,312

  Source:

  P1B Housing returns.
  334

  Archway Tower
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call for a report from the Property Services Agency on the future use and current condition of Archway tower, Junction road, London N19, formerly leased to the Department of Social Security.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: Property Holdings has responsibility for Archway tower, which is leased to my Department, and is in need of some modernisation and refurbishment.

  It was formerly occupied by the Benefits Agency as a public caller office. It has recently moved to premises more suitable for its needs. While the building has been considered by other Departments, so far no interest has been shown and it has therefore been placed in the hands of letting agents with the intention that the lease is, if possible, totally disposed of.

  Homeless Households
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of households accepted as homeless by local authorities under part 3 of the Housing Act 1985 was recorded as ethnic minority households in the last year for which figures are available. [30547]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 26 June 1995]: The statistical return—PIE—on which local authorities are asked to provide information on their activities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 has, since the second quarter of 1991, asked about the ethnic origin of households accepted for permanent re-housing. Complete data are not provided by a sizeable number of authorities and, because of the considerable variations in the ethnic mix between authorities, national estimates are not produced on the data currently submitted.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many schemes and to what value have been approved in 1994–95 under the private finance initiative; what are the estimates for the current financial year; how many schemes are currently being considered and at what value; for how long have they been considered and how many have been in the assessment process for over(a) six months and (b) 12 months; and what was the average length of time taken to assess schemes so far approved; [30844]

  (2) how many schemes and by how much Government spending has changed in 1994–95 as a result of the private finance initiative; what is the estimated effect in 1995–96; how many jobs are to be created by schemes approved to date under the initiative and how many have been lost as a consequence in the public sector; and what is the forecast of transfer of employment from public to private sector over the last five years because of the initiative.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [pursuant to his reply, 28 June 1995, c.655]: I indicated that the Department of the Environment and its sponsored bodies attracted around £4 million in private investment. This should have stated that £4 billion had been attached in support of programmes in 1994–95.
  335

HEALTH

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the average cost to her Department for providing glaucoma sufferers with a lifetime of prescriptions; [31403]

  (2) what is the total annual cost to his Department for providing prescriptions to glaucoma sufferers; and how much is claimed back each year through prescription charges; [31401]

  (3) what is the average cost to his Department for prescriptions to glaucoma sufferers per annum, per patient; and what is the same cost to the patient in prescription charges. [31400]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Drugs used for the treatment of glaucoma, 1994 (provisional) England

  Amount

  Net ingredient cost

  £25.4 million

  Prescription items

  3.4 million

  Average net ingredient cost per prescription item

  £7.50

  1. Drugs as defined by the British National Formulary section 11.6 (Treatment of glaucoma). Some of these drugs may have been prescribed for conditions other than glaucoma.

  2. The information was obtained from the prescription cost analysis system which is based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in England by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. It excludes items dispensed by hospital pharmacies.

  3. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees.

  4. Prescription data does not identify the disease or condition for which the item has been prescribed.

  Autoimmune Rheumatic Disease
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department carried out into a national repository of multicase families with autoimmune rheumatic disease; what have been the findings; and if he will make a statement. [30001]

  Mr. Malone
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In 1993–94 the MRC spent £2.9 million on research into the autoimmune system.

  No research is being carried out by the Department of Health into autoimmune rheumatic disease.

  Committees
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which members of(a) the Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, (b) the Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy and (c) the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food receive grants from private companies. [32418]
  336
  Mr. Sackville
  Relevant grants for research from private companies are declared by members in the appropriate register of commercial interests, copies of which will be placed in the Library.

  Health Authority Boundaries
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects the new health authority boundaries to be published; and if he will make a statement; [32412]

  (2) what guidance he has offered to regional health authorities concerning consultation with the public about new health authority boundaries; [32410]

  (3) what opportunity there is for hon. Members to make representations concerning proposals for the new health authority boundaries; [32409]

  (4) if he will place in the Library details of the proposed new health authority boundaries; [32413]

  (5) what requirements he has placed on regional health authorities to consult with the public prior to finalising the new health authority boundaries. [32411]

  Mr. Malone
  Public consultation on the boundaries of the new health authorities will be carried out by regional offices of the national health service executive. A copy of the guidance "Consultation On The Boundaries Of The New Health Authorities" is available in the Library.

  Each regional office will issue a consultation document setting out proposals for the new health authority boundaries within its area. Consultation will start on 17 July and will last three months. Comments should be made to the appropriate regional office by 17 October.

  Decisions on the boundaries of the new health authorities will be made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, following the consultation period, taking into account the views expressed.

  Advertising
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on outside advertising agencies for each year since 1979; and if he will list the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department, their purpose and their cost. [32475]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information for the years 1979–80 to 1984–85 is not available. Advertising expenditure for the financial years 1985–86 to 1994–95 is as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  3.106

  1986–87

  7.969

  1987–88

  6.494

  1988–89

  3.724

  1989–90

  7.280

  1990–91

  4.797

  1991–92

  8.058

  1992–93

  5.053

  1993–94

  5.809

  1994–95 (estimated)

  4.305

  337
  Advertising campaigns have included AIDS, drug and solvent misuse, organ donation, blood donor recruitment, nurse recruitment, keep warm keep well, food hygiene, cot deaths, health of the nation, and the Children Act.

  The figures include the 1.75 per cent. commission charged by the Central Office of Information for services associated with cental purchasing.

  Details of specific advertising campaigns, their purpose and their cost could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health authorities fund the intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection infertility treatment either within their own hospitals or as extra-contractual referrals. [32505]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is not available centrally.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what number and percentage of young offenders aged(a) under 16 years, (b) 16 years and (c) 17 years were subject to supervision orders supervised (i) by social service departments and (ii) by the probation service. [32637]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information available centrally on supervision by social services departments only distinguishes children aged 14 and over from other children. These figures are in "Supervision Orders, year ending 31 March 1994, England" A/F 94/16, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Supervision by the probation service is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the report of the social services inspectorate study of small children's homes. [32728]

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the study by the social services inspectorate into unregistered children's homes was completed; and if he will place a copy of the study in the Library. [32544]

  Mr. Bowis
  The report is not yet completed.

  Hospital Maintenance
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the latest figures for backlog of hospital maintenance by region. [32812]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) on 8 December 1994, columns 359–60 for the latest information available.
  338

  Supra Regional Services
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make available a summary of the funding and levels of activity agreed for 1995–96 with centres designated to provide supra regional services. [33469]

  Mr. Sackville
  A summary of this information has been placed in the Library as an addendum to the document "Supra regional services 1995–96" announcement by the Secretary of State for Health.

  Co-trimoxazole
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Medicines Control Agency has now considered the place of co-trimoxazole in current clinical practice. [33470]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Medicines Control Agency has considered this matter and consulted the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The Government propose fully to implement their advice, which is that the indications for co-trimoxazole should be restricted to the following:

  Treatment and prophylaxis (primary and secondary) of Pneumocystis carini pneumonitis in adults and children.

  Treatment and prophylaxis of toxoplasmosis, treatment of nocardia.

  Treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and urinary tract infections, where there is bacterial evidence of sensitivity to co-trimoxazole and good reason to prefer this combination to a single antibiotic.

  Treatment of acute otitis media in children, where there is good reason to prefer co-trimoxazole to a single antibiotic.

  The CSM also advised that there are no new safety issues with co-trimoxazole but proposed clarification of the safety information in data sheets and that patient information leaflets should be introduced as soon as possible. An article in "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance" will be published shortly providing these findings to health professionals. A copy of the bulletin will be placed in the Library.

  Anaphylaxis
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths in England and Wales in 1994 are known to have been due to anaphylaxis. [31143]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of deaths certified as due to anaphylactic shock—international classification of diseases code 995.0—in England and Wales for 1992, the latest year for which figures are available, was nine.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where registers of trust board members' interests are held. [32986]

  Mr. Malone
  Each national health service trust must hold and maintain a register of board members' interests and that register must be available to the public on request, in accordance with the "Codes of Conduct and Accountability for NHS Boards", copies of which are available in the Library.
  339
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures exist to register conflicts of interest declared by trust board and health authority members; and how many such matters have been notified to his Department or the NHS executive. [32976]

  Mr. Malone
  The codes of conduct and accountability require members of national health service boards to declare any private interests that are potentially material and relevant to NHS business and to have those interests recorded in board minutes and entered into a register. Guidance from the NHS executive recommends that the register should be kept up to date by means of an annual review. There is no requirement on members of NHS authorities and trusts to make any additional declaration of interests to the NHS executive or to the wider Department of Health.

  NHS Appointees (Payments)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 16 February, to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond),Official Report, column 808 (1) if he will (a) provide similar figures on NHS appointees' payments for previous years and (b) indicate when 1994–95 figures will be available; [32979]

  (2) if he will disaggregate the figures on NHS appointees' payments to show the value of (a) bonus payments, (b) benefits in kind and (c) taxable expenses allowances. [32980]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the remuneration of members of the boards of individual regional and district health authorities and national health service trusts in 1994–95 is expected to be available centrally in November this year. Information is not available centrally for previous years or disaggregated in the form requested.

  NHS Estates
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will itemise the assets and values now diverted from individual trusts to NHS Estates, by region; [32987]

  (2) what plans NHS Estates has to dispose of assets divested to it by NHS trusts. [32988]

  Mr. Sackville
  No assets have been transferred, or are proposed to be transferred from trusts, to NHS Estates, so there are no plans by NHS Estates for any disposals.

  Redundancy Packages
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many redundancy packages are at present being offered by(a) his Department and (b) by the NHS executive. [32914]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are currently no redundancy schemes on offer to staff. An earlier voluntary scheme closed on 31 January 1995.

  Hospital Managers
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of hours worked by hospital managers in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [32918]
  340
  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Trust Managers
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of managers within NHS trusts as recommended by the Audit Commission. [32922]

  Mr. Malone
  The Audit Commission has made no such recommendation.

  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information is held by his Department or the NHS executive on the medical procedures that are most prone to clinical negligence claims. [32989]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by trust the(a) number, (b) value and (c) medical specialty against which clinical negligence claims were settled in each of the last years for which figures are available. [32977]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally in the form requested.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had with the relevant(a) hospital trusts, (b) district and (c) regional health authorities in relation to the failure to locate appropriate open heart surgery and intensive care bed facilities any closer than the University hospital of Wales in Cardiff, in respect of Mr. Dennis, a patient at Wexham Park hospital, Slough, Buckinghamshire; and if he will make a statement. [32841]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. It is the responsibility of health authorities to work with their local hospitals, to ensure the adequate intensive care provision to meet local needs.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received in relation to the provision of a hospital-to-hospital bed bureau service to reduce transfer times in urgent and intensive care cases. [32843]

  Mr. Sackville
  There have been a number of representations about the possible use of information technology for the establishment of a database showing available intensive care beds.

  Blood Bags
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the estimated saving from changing supplies of storage bags for blood; what has been the estimated total cost of replacing the blood stock lost through defective bags; and what action is being taken with regard to those responsible for the decision. [32845]

  Mr. Sackville
  Negotiation of a national contract to replace 14 regional contracts for blood bags led to lower prices from the previous monopoly supplier and introduction of an alternative source of supply with no
  341
  reduction in product specification. Estimated savings are £700,000 for 1994–95.

  The National Blood Authority is urgently investigating the problems that have recently been identified with Tuta bags.

  Hospital Closures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 25 May,Official Report, column 765, what information on closures of hospitals is collected by his Department and in what form [32916]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 6 February,Official Report, columns 35–36.

  Dr. Johnston
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the approximate number of communications between the NHS management executive and Camden and Islington health authority over the last six years in relation to Dr. Johnston's legal action; and if he will make available copies of these communications to hon. Members. [32920]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 24 May,Official Report, column 602.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of blood supplies in each region was supplied to private hospitals in the last year for which figures are available, indicating the number of units involved. [32984]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. It has always been the policy of the national health service to meet non-NHS reasonable requests for blood on the basis of availability and clinical need.

  Departmental Staff
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff members of(a) his Department and (b) the NHS executive have expressed an interest in redundancy. [32915]

  Mr. Sackville
  There were 1,560 applications for voluntary early retirement/severance from staff of the Department and its agencies. Some 231 applications were from national health services executive staff.

  Bull Bars
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to investigate whether bull bars have caused preventable death; and what plans he has to advise the Department of Transport in respect of controls on these bars. [32919]

  Mr. Sackville
  By the end of the year, the Department of Transport hopes to be able to produce an interim report on accidents involving vehicles fitted with bull bars. It is currently analysing information collected in 1994 by 30 police forces in England, Scotland and Wales. The Department of Health is liaising closely with the 342
  Department of Transport, which will be considering what action might be taken to control the use of bull bars.

  Bed Availability
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set up an inquiry into the best means of providing information on bed availability to hospitals urgently requiring specialised intensive care facilities at other hospitals. [32842]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for health authorities and providers to ensure that hospitals have effective bed management procedures for intensive care and that specialist centres develop a co-ordinated approach to bed usage. There are currently several initiatives in hand to facilitate an immediate response to specialised intensive care units seeking to transfer a patient in the event of their having no spare capacity.

  Resource Allocation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the origin, statistical basis and purpose of the market forces factor in the national health service executive's new formula for resource allocation; and if he will make a statement. [32844]

  Mr. Sackville
  To be equitable, the allocations system has to take account of the fact that the cost of providing services is higher in London and the south-east. A market forces factor—MFF—was first introduced on the recommendation of the advisory group on resource allocation in 1980 and later reviewed in 1988.

  The MFF was reviewed in 1993 as part of the review of weighted capitation. The review was able to take account of more detailed data on staff costs from the new earnings survey as well as a detailed model of how care is purchased across the country.

  A more detailed explanation is in the booklet "HCHS Revenue Resource Allocation—Weighted Capitation formula" and a more technical paper "Market Forces Factor—Staff Pay Adjustment" copies of which are available in the Library.

  NHS Trust Funds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the value of moneys held in trust by individual NHS trusts and health authorities. [32974]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  Hospitals (Energy Consumption Returns)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of hospitals in the energy consumption returns in each year since 1979. [32921]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of hospitals obtained from energy consumption returns was not collected before 1993–94. I refer the right hon. Member to the replies my hon. Friend the Minister for Health gave her on 16 May,Official Report, column 173–76 and on 24 May, Official Report, column 597 for the available information.
  343

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Patrick Kane
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will refer to his advisers the article, a copy of which has been sent to him, concerning Patrick Kane; and if he will arrange for his case to be reviewed by the Life Sentence Review Board. [30211]

  Sir John Wheeler
  I can confirm that, following an internal review of this case, Patrick Kane has been informed that his case will be referred to the Life Sentence Review Board earlier than the normal 10-year stage of imprisonment. The case will be considered by the Northern Ireland Life Sentence Review Board in early 1997.

  Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure that the proportion of senior open competition appointments by the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission who are civil servants approximates to the proportion appointed by the Civil Service Commission in England. [32164]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission recruits solely on the basis of merit as determined in fair and open competition and all eligible candidates, either from within the civil service or from outside, are assessed against common job-related requirements.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set up an independent inquiry into the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission's conduct of open competitions for senior appointments with particular reference to(a) the reasons for the predominance of civil service appointees, (b) the limited professional experience required of appointments to the post of chief engineer and scientist and (c) the role of the retiring chief executive of the Training and Employment Agency in the appointment of his successor. [32198]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission has a well established record of fair and impartial recruitment. I see no need for an independent inquiry into the conduct of open competitions for senior appointments bearing in mind that:

  (a) appointments are made solely on the basis of merit; and in 1994 some 50 per cent. of appointees at grade 6 and above were from outside the civil service;

  (b) the requirements for the post of chief engineer and scientist were related to the duties of that post and to those of the chief executive of the industrial research and technology unit; the dual role of the postholder called for a balance between technical competence and management ability;

  (c) the selection panel for the post of deputy chief executive/chief executive designate of the Training and Employment Agency was properly constituted in accordance with rules drawn up by the Civil Service Commissioners.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to appoint an independent person to take charge of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commission. [32191]
  344
  Sir John Wheeler
  I have recently reviewed the composition of the Northern Ireland Civil Service Commissioners and I shall shortly be recommending to Her Majesty the appointment of a further independent commissioner. This will bring the balance of commissioners to three non-civil servants and three civil servants. I am satisfied that the office of chairman of commissioners should be held by the permanent secretary of the Department of Finance and Personnel, who is responsible, by virtue of the Civil Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, for the general management and control of the Northern Ireland civil service.

  School Building
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools were built in the years (i) 1960 to 1964, (ii) 1965 to 1969, (iii) 1970 to 1974, (iv) 1975 to 1979, (v) 1980 to 1984, (vi) 1985 to 1989 and (vii) 1990 to 1994; and what was the design life of schools in each period. [32438]

  Mr. Ancram
  The number of new schools built in each of the periods is set out in the table. Information about the design life of schools built in each period is not available.

  Period

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  1960–64

  100

  39

  1965–69

  147

  21

  1970–74

  110

  19

  1975–79

  65

  10

  1980–84

  25

  1

  1985–89

  17

  1

  1990–94

  26

  5

  Railways
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of INTERREG grant Northern Ireland Railways will expect to receive in relation to the development of(a) Portadown and (b) Lisburn railway stations. [32404]

  Mr. Moss
  Northern Ireland Railways has not applied for grant from the INTERREG II programme for the development of Portadown and Lisburn railway stations.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of financial contribution Northern Ireland Railways expects to receive from Craigavon district council in relation to the development of Portadown railway station. [32405]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no plans for any development at Portadown railway station in the immediate future. Therefore the question of funding from Craigavon district council does not arise.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what amount of financial contribution Northern Ireland Railways expects to receive from Lisburn district council in relation to the development of Lisburn railway station. [32406]

  Mr. Moss
  There will be no financial contribution from Lisburn borough council. The expenditure incurred at Lisburn has resulted from the need to carry out work to the structure of the building, which had become a safety
  345
  risk. The full cost of the work is being met by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company.

  Blood Supplies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of blood supplies in each region was supplied to private hospitals in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will indicate the number of units involved. [32970]

  Mr. Moss
  During the financial year 1994–95, a total of 630 units of ordinary blood, red cells, were supplied to the Ulster independent clinic in Belfast and to the North/West independent clinic in county Londonderry. This represents 1 per cent. of the total blood supplies.

  Northern £

  Southern £

  Eastern £

  Western £

  Total £

  Capital in Perpetuity Accounts

  25,308

  8,359

  474,689

  85,731

  594,087

  Other Fund Accounts

  2,375,436

  649,850

  13,362,927

  734,901

  17,123,114

  Total

  2,400,744

  658,209

  13,837,616

  820,632

  17,717,201

  On 1 April 1993 the first six HSS trusts became operational in Northern Ireland. However, at 31 March 1994 the relevant funds held in trust had not transferred to the HSS trusts. Accordingly in 1993–94 the trust funds remained with the relevant Health and Social Services Board for accounting purposes, although the relevant HSS trust did have access to their proper funds.

  Dr. Yin Yin Teoh
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the recommendations arising from the investigation by the trust of the circumstances surrounding the Dr. Yin Yin Teoh case which he intends to implement in other hospitals. [32917]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of Health and Social Services is presently considering the relevance to other hospitals in Northern Ireland of the recommendations arising from the investigation by the Royal Group of Hospitals HSS trust into the case involving Dr. Yin Yin Teoh. It is likely that these will be made available to other hospitals in the near future.
  346
  In addition, 18 units of platelets—less than 0.1 per cent. of the total—and 12 units of fresh frozen plasma—0.2 per cent. of the total—were supplied to the Ulster independent clinic.

  Trust Funds (Health)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the value of moneys held in trust by individual NHS trusts and health authorities. [32972]

  Mr. Moss
  The information in respect of the health and social services boards at 31 March 1994 was as follows:

  General Practitioners Fundholders
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what level of savings was achieved by general practitioner fundholders in Northern Ireland during 1993–94, and if he will make a statement. [33503]

  Mr. Moss
  In 1993–94, the first year of the fundholding scheme in Northern Ireland, savings retained by fundholding GPs amount to £2,456,539, representing some 8 per cent. of budgets set. GPs are obliged by law to spend savings in ways which will benefit their patients. In the main, practices are, to date, using their savings on initiatives such as reducing waiting lists, funding additional services, purchasing clinical equipment and, in one case, redeveloping a health centre.
  347

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been(a) the administration costs, (b) the legal costs and (c) other costs incurred as a result of the introduction of the 1994 tariff for criminal injuries compensation, the ensuing court case, and the subsequent abandonment of the tariff scheme. [32635]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to him in the Official Report on 17 May, column 288.

  Foundation for Business Responsibilities
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the powers of the Charity Commissioners to force charities to provide lists of their donors; what penalties can be imposed to enforce these powers; and if these powers were used during the commissioner's investigation into the Foundation for Business Responsibilities; [32055]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the legal powers of the Charity Commission to compel individuals to come for interview to aid its inquiries; what penalties can be imposed to enforce these powers; and if such powers or penalties were used in the commission's investigation into the Foundation for Business Responsibilities. [32054]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Charity Commission has power under the Charities Act 1993 to require a person to supply documents, or copies of documents, relevant to the discharge of its functions. A person who is found guilty of wilfully suppressing any document which he is required to produce to the commission may be liable to a fine and/or a term of imprisonment.

  Charities are not, however, required to retain lists of individual donors. The commission does not use its formal powers to require lists of donors.

  The commission may compel individuals to come for interview during an investigation, using its powers under section 8 and 9 of the Charities Act 1993, and it may enforce those powers under sections 87, 88 or 90(2) of that Act. I understand that it was not necessary to use those powers during the commission's inquiry into the Foundation for Business Responsibilities.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 766, if the Charity Commission investigators were informed of other break-ins at the Foundation for Business Responsibilities' former offices; and if they sought or received confirmatory evidence of these further break-ins. [32743]

  Mr. Baker
  Charity Commission investigators were not informed of any other break-ins at the Foundation for Business Responsibilities' former offices.

  Stalking
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the available data on stalking in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement; [32061]
  348
  (2) what action he proposes to deter stalkers and to protect their victims; [32063]

  (3) what representations he has received from the national anti-stalking and harassment campaign and support association; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement; [32064]

  (4) if he will introduce legislation to make stalking a criminal offence. [32060]

  Mr. Maclean
  It is a matter of great concern when an individual persistently and obsessively pursues another, to the point of causing distress and anxiety to the unwilling recipient of his attentions.

  We are aware of a number of such cases through press reports and information supplied by the police, individuals who have been personally involved, and the national anti-stalking and harassment campaign, NASH. NASH has also provided a number of detailed assessments of the problem, including proposals to amend the law to make stalking a specific criminal offence.

  This is, however, a difficult area in which to legislate, since the behaviour of stalkers can range from ostensibly harmless activities such as sitting outside a person's house, following them, and sending flowers and chocolates—which cannot be prohibited by law—to more serious actions, such as making threats, nuisance telephone calls, and sending abusive letters—which are already criminal offences.

  I have responded to NASH, and to others, expressing the Government's reservations about legislating in this area. Nevertheless, we are aware that specific anti-stalking legislation is in place in the United States and Canada, and we are examining their laws to see if there are any lessons to be learnt.

  Children (Interviews)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to include guidance on interviewing children with special needs within the memorandum of good practice in line with the Criminal Justice Act 1991. [32044]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are considering whether to revise the memorandum of good practice to take account of this and other points raised by research and experience to date.

  Sabotage
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his department has offered to farmers and the food industry on measures they can take to protect themselves from sabotage and other acts of violence; and if he will make a statement. [31166]

  Mr. Michael Howard
  The animal rights national index, which is based at New Scotland Yard and funded by my Department, provides regular briefings to companies and other national organisations at risk from animal rights extremists. The index also provides assessments and other material for police special branches to support them discharge their responsibility for organising local briefings for those considered to be possible targets. Where individuals or locations are assessed to be at particular risk, the police offer specific protective security advice.
  349

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to initiate another competition for closed circuit television funding. [32735]

  Mr. Maclean
  The recent CCTV challenge competition injected £5 million into local CCTV schemes, generating up to £13.8 million in other funding. Although my right hon. and learned Friend has not ruled out the possibility of further competitions in the future, it is too early to give a firm commitment.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what specific funding is available in the current financial year and in 1996–97 to assist with the installation of closed circuit television in shopping centres and high streets. [32380]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: Local authorities can bid for funds under the single regeneration budget challenge fund for various specific purposes, including the establishment of CCTV schemes. The recent CCTV challenge competition has injected £5 million into local CCTV schemes, generating up to £13.8 million in other funding. The possibility of further competition in the future has not been ruled out but it is too early to give a firm commitment.

  Private Security Industry
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to respond to the first report from the Home Affairs Committee HC17 on the private security industry. [32736]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has asked colleagues for their views on the report, and the Government will then respond as soon as possible.

  Metropolitan Police Committee
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Metropolitan Police Committee to issue its first annual report. [32739]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter for the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Committee.

  Reactivated Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about shootings involving reactivated firearms. [32981]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are aware of 19 incidents since the beginning of 1993 involving firearms which have been identified as being previously deactivated and then reactivated to working condition. The standards to which firearms are deactivated have been comprehensively reviewed. Revised, more stringent, specifications will be introduced shortly.

  Police Paperwork
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 9 February,Official Report, column 383, what progress has been made on the development of a standard computer system for all police forces. [32856]
  350
  Mr. Maclean
  A standard computer system for case processing is being developed by Greater Manchester police as part of the national strategy for police information systems. The system is expected to make a significant contribution towards reducing police paperwork, in keeping with the recommendations of the recent efficiency scrutiny of the administrative burdens on the police. Standard computer systems for the custody process, the provision of management information, and the direction of police responses to incidents, which were identified by the police service as priorities for immediate national development, are also now being taken forward. Avon and Somerset constabulary, Hertfordshire constabulary and the Metropolitan police have undertaken to produce standard systems for each of these essential tasks. We expect that the first of these systems will become available towards the end of next year. The Government are providing both technical and financial assistance to each of the lead forces.

  Neckholds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports his Department has received about deaths or injuries from the use of neckholds; what plans he has to review their continued use or training arrangements appertaining to officers authorised to use them; and if he will make a statement. [32093]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Police Complaints Authority, in its annual report for 1993, stated that it had passed expert opinion on the effect of neckholds and certain armlocks to the relevant committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers. I understand that that committee has almost completed a review of the guidance on self-defence and restraint. Training of police officers in the use of self-defence and restraint techniques is a matter for the chief officer of each force.

  Retail Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 June,Official Report, columns 268–69, if he will list the types of violence against retailers that has led to representations being made to him by right hon. and hon. Members. [32252]

  Mr. Maclean
  The representations made to my right hon. and learned Friend were made in response to a proposition carried at the 1995 annual delegate meeting of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, USDAW. This proposition, which was copied to hon. Members, referred to the deaths of, and attacks against, retail workers.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information his Department holds on the incidence of crime by geographical area smaller than police force area; and if this information can be related to post code areas. [31929]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on notifiable offences recorded by the police is collected regularly by the Home Office only at police force area level. More local figures are obtained from forces on an ad hoc basis in order to
  351
  answer specific requests for internal briefing, or for use in research projects.

  Arrests
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were arrested for all types of offence in each police force area in 1994. [31367]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to the total number of arrests and is given in the table.

  Total arrests in England and Wales in 1994, by police force area

  Police force area

  Number of arrests in 1994

  Avon and Somerset

  40,875

  Bedfordshire

  18,005

  Cambridgeshire

  19,320

  Cheshire

  31,767

  Cleveland

  28,694

  Cumbria

  20,282

  Derbyshire

  25,181

  Devon and Cornwall

  35,707

  Dorset

  16,675

  Durham

  27,190

  Essex

  42,120

  Gloucestershire

  17,980

  Greater Manchester

  123,855

  Hampshire

  64,285

  Hertfordshire

  21,483

  Humberside

  32,618

  Kent

  54,509

  Lancashire

  62,546

  Leicestershire

  23,133

  Lincolnshire

  20,277

  London, City of

  6,070

  Merseyside

  68,059

  Metropolitan Police

  150,951

  Norfolk

  15,844

  Northamptonshire

  20,420

  Northumbria

  69,001

  North Yorkshire

  23,652

  Nottinghamshire

  41,517

  South Yorkshire

  50,629

  Staffordshire

  38,419

  Suffolk

  16,652

  Surrey

  18,046

  Sussex

  39,633

  Thames Valley

  60,913

  Warwickshire

  16,054

  West Mercia

  39,214

  West Midlands

  133,156

  West Yorkshire

  81,314

  Wiltshire

  16,025

  Dyfed Powys

  16,068

  Gwent

  21,523

  North Wales

  26,360

  South Wales

  57,386

  England and Wales

  1,753,408

  Michael Bettaney
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the security alert that took place at Swaleside prison on Saturday 27 May involving the convicted spy Michael Bettaney; if Michael Bettaney had access to maps, drawings and photographs of the outside of the prison; what disciplinary proceedings have arisen or will arise out of this incident; when Michael Bettaney's case will next 352
  be reviewed by the parole board; and for what reasons Michael Bettaney is held in conditions that isolate him from other prisoners at Swaleside prison. [28351]

  Mr. Michael Howard
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: Through the vigilance of staff supervising a visit at Swaleside prison on 27 May, a number of photographs were confiscated from Michael Bettaney, along with a crude outline drawing showing Swaleside and Elmley prisons as squares.

  Security at the prison has not been compromised. The police have now concluded their investigations and reported to the Crown Prosecution Service. A Prison Service inquiry is now taking place into the incident and the question of disciplinary proceedings will be decided when that inquiry is concluded and after the Crown Prosecution Service has decided whether to take action.

  Michael Bettaney became eligible for parole after serving a third of his sentence and, like other prisoners, his case is reviewed annually.

  For reasons of national security I am unable to discuss the conditions in which Michael Bettaney is held, or the reasons for them.

  Ian Hay
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will agree to meet a delegation of constituents concerned about the circumstances surrounding the killing of Ian Hay by a police marksman. [32378]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: I have already agreed to meet my hon. Friend, at a mutually convenient date, to discuss his constituents' concerns about this case.

  Police Tasks Review
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total cost of undertaking the review of police core and ancillary tasks; how many of his Department's officials were allocated to work on the review; and how many staff hours were spent on it. [32079]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: Five Home Office staff and one Metropolitan police chief inspector were allocated to the review. The total staff hours are estimated at 12,000. The associated pay costs, travelling and subsistence, and the estimated cost of printing and distribution, amounted to about £233,000. This does not include the costs incurred by other organisations involved in the review.

  Sex Tourism
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with other EU member states concerning possible measures to prevent sex tourism and the sexual abuse of children in developing countries; and if he will make a statement. [28839]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: We are monitoring closely the ability of other countries' laws, including those of other EU member states, to deal with the problem of child prostitution and sex tourism, to see whether any lessons can be learnt.
  353
  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce legislation to permit the prosecution in the United Kingdom of United Kingdom subjects who commit sexual offences, with particular reference to those against children, in foreign countries. [28837]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: The Government deplore the sexual exploitation of children, wherever it may occur. Our own law against such abuse is rightly severe. Our courts' jurisdiction, though, is territorially based rather than nationality based, and we therefore have no power to prosecute British nationals who commit offences against children in other countries.

  We are, however, considering whether there is any scope for further Government action to tackle the problem of child prostitution and sex tourism.

  Mrs. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to monitor the sale and promotion of sex holidays in foreign countries by tour operators, travel agents and individuals in the United Kingdom. [28838]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 June 1995]: We are aware of the concern about the sale and promotion of sex holidays in foreign countries by tour operators, travel agents and individuals in the United Kingdom. By its nature, such activity does not lend itself likely to monitoring by the Government. We are, however, currently considering whether international police liaison in this area could be improved.

  Young Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of(a) boys and (b) girls under the age of 16 years who were being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 19 June. [31099]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 June 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 Brian Landers to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 6 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking for the number of (a) boys and (b) girls under the age of 16 years who were being held in prisons in England and Wales as of 19 June.
  The latest available provisional information is for 30 April 1995. On that date 187 ma!es (52 remand and 135 sentenced) and 4 females (all sentenced) aged under 16 were held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. Information on the juvenile prison population is published in successive volumes of "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (Table 3.2 of the 1992 edition, Cm 2581), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

TRANSPORT

  Marine Rescue
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each year since 1986 the number of(a) incidents and (b) people involved, including those rescued, assisted and fatalities, for each marine rescue centre. [31756]
  354
  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 6 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  Tables giving the details you requested have been placed in the Library.
  Persons assisted is a combined total of persons assisted and rescued, separate figures are not available for the two categories.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will make his decision on the tenders for the CTRL project submitted on 14 March. [32095]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 3 July 1995,Official Report, column 61.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the studies that have been undertaken into the traffic impact on(a) Hackney and (b) East London generally of a channel tunnel rail link station at Stratford. [32442]

  Mr. Watts
  A broad brush assessment of the road traffic and highway impact of a possible channel tunnel link station at Stratford in East London is set out in Ove Arup and Partners' final report on Stratford traffic impacts, which formed part of, and was published in January 1994 at the same time as, Union Railways' report to Government on the rail link. Substantial further work will be required if it is decided that an intermediate station should be provided at Stratford.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 23 May,Official Report, column 569, how long was the interval between (a) the general alarm signal and the abandon ship signal, (b) the abandon ship signal and the reception of all passengers aboard lifeboats/liferafts and (c) the reception of all passengers aboard lifeboats/liferafts and the reception ashore, in the ferry exercises Common Aim 3, Claymore, Goodwin, Liverpool Bay, Eddystone, Webex, Seafire, Beauforts Dyke and Soverign. [31491]

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

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 3 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  The information requested is not recorded by the Department.
  355

  Flight Delays
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average delay time of scheduled flights to European destinations from Heathrow in March and June. [31854]

  Mr. Norris
  The average delay to scheduled passenger flights between Heathrow and European airports in March 1995 was four minutes.

  June 1995 statistics will not be available for approximately eight weeks.

  Birmingham Orbital Routes
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to invite private consortia to construct the proposed western orbital motorway around Birmingham through the design, build, finance and operate private finance initiative; and if he will make a statement; [32741]

  (2) what is his current policy on the building of the proposed western orbital motorway around Birmingham as a toll motorway under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991; and when he intends to invite private consortia to bid to act as concessionaire for the route. [32740]

  Mr. Watts
  No decision has yet been taken to build the western orbital. The next step in the planning of the scheme would be the publication of draft orders which would open a formal objection period leading to a public inquiry.

  The trunk roads review, published in March 1994, indicated that the western orbital route would be considered for its suitability to be taken forward under a design, build, finance, and operate contract. DBFO contracts involve remuneration to operators from Government, and do not require payment of tolls by road users.

  Train Services
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy in meeting the needs of passengers of the integration and co-ordination of bank holiday services stopping at Epsom, Dorking, Havant and Portsmouth, run by South West Trains and Network South Central and services stopping at Portsmouth harbour run by Regional Railways. [32621]

  Mr. Watts
  None. This is an operational matter for British Rail and its train operating units.

  Motorway Charging
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has to sign contracts for design, build, finance and operate road schemes, prior to enacting legislation to enable a charge to be levied from users of existing motorways. [32745]

  (2) what studies he has carried out into the implications for public spending of the design, build, finance and operate private finance initiative if Government plans for motorway charging is abandoned or substantially delayed; [32742]

  (3) whether he intends his plans for motorway charging to encompass (a) the A419/A417 Swindon-Gloucester road, (b) the A69 Newcastle-Carlisle road, (c) the A30/A35
  356
  Exeter-Bere Regis Road, (d) the A50/A564 Stoke-Derby road and (e) other all-purpose trunk roads. [32744]

  Mr. Watts
  Competitions for the first two tranches of DBFO projects, comprising eight schemes, are currently under way. They are expected to be concluded later this year and early next year respectively. The DBFO initiative is not conditional on charging users directly for the use of inter-urban roads. Remuneration of DBFO operators, which will be over 30 years and linked to usage, will be met from the resources available to this Department for its spending programmes.

  Legislation would be required to introduce charging and that would be a matter for Parliament in due course. The Government have said that they envisage charging for the motorway network.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his timetable for his plans to charge motorists for the use of motorways; and if he will make a statement. [32746]

  Mr. Watts
  Policy on motorway charging remains as stated by the then Secretary of State for Transport in the Official Report, column 646–49, on 2 December 1993. Its introduction is subject to the availability of suitable technology, which is being assessed, and Parliament's approval of the necessary legislation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Household Income
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average annual household income after deduction of direct and indirect taxation and housing costs at 1995 prices of(a) the richest 20 per cent. and (b) the poorest 20 per cent. of families in each year since 1979 in (i) York, (ii) north Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and Humberside and (iv) England. [31606]

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

  Estimates of average household income after direct and indirect taxation for the richest and poorest 20 per cent. of households in the United Kingdom as a whole, have been published each year since 1957 in an article on "The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Incomes" in "Economic Trends". The most recent estimates for 1993 are available in the December edition of 'Economic Trends' No. 494 (HMSO ISBN 011 620643 8).

  In addition, estimates of patterns of personal disposable income in the United Kingdom can be found in "Households Below Average Income 1979–1992–93"— HMSO ISBN 011 762 3180—published in June this year.

  Copies of both publications are in the Library.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, what are the Government estimates of the percentage of unemployment benefit claimants disqualified from benefit for leaving employment voluntarily, being dismissed for misconduct or for refusal of employment since April 1994, who would be eligible for jobseeker's allowance hardship payments for(a) the

  357
  completed period of disqualification and (b) part of the period of disqualification. [32592]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The arrangements for access to hardship payments of jobseeker's allowance will broadly follow those which apply for actively seeking work in income support. As now, entitlement to hardship payments will be decided by an adjudication officer on a case-by-case basis. Figures for those who would be entitled to such payments under jobseeker's allowance are therefore not available.

  However, the estimated financial effects of the jobseeker's act include an assumption that up to 90 per cent. of those currently receiving a reduced rate of income support because of a disqualification from unemployment benefit would receive a jobseeker's allowance hardship payment at some point during an equivalent jobseeker's allowance sanction.

  Unemployment Benefits
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have had their benefits reduced for failing to attend or complete a compulsory programme in each quarter since January 1993. [32187]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  Number of reductions in benefit following failure to attend or complete a compulsory programme

  Quarter year

  Restart courses

  Jobplan workshops1

  Totals

  1993

  January-March

  900

  —

  900

  April-June

  3,800

  —

  3,800

  July-September

  7,300

  —

  7,300

  October-December

  12,300

  —

  12,300

  1994

  January-March

  13,200

  —

  13,200

  April-June

  7,600

  9,800

  17,400

  July-September

  7,400

  11,400

  18,800

  October-December

  7,300

  11,300

  18,600

  19952

  January-March

  6,100

  9,400

  15,500

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to nearest hundred.

  1 Jobplan Workshops started in April 1993. From April 1993 to March 1994 statistics were combined with those for Restart courses.

  2 Figures for 1995 are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Mortgage Interest
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 27 June,Official

  Income Support hardship decisions 1994–95

  Quarter 1994

  Region1

  Awarded

  Actively seeking2 Refused

  Awarded

  Availability3 Refused

  April—June

  SE

  100

  100

  400

  600

  W and CE

  100

  200

  200

  100

  S and NE

  —

  200

  100

  100

  Total4

  300

  500

  700

  900

  358
  Report, columns 584–85, following the introduction of changes to the rules on income support help with mortgage interest payments, what consideration will be given to unemployed people now receiving income support help with mortgage interest payments who refuse to accept temporary or seasonal employment contracts that may extend to over 12 weeks in duration but which may return them to unemployment after 1 October 1995. [32113]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  A person refusing temporary or seasonal employment without good cause will be disqualified for receipt of unemployment benefit for a period of up to 26 weeks, but not extending beyond the period for which the employment in question would have been available. As long as the job refused remains open to the claimant, there is normally no entitlement to income support, except under the hardship provisions. If, however, the job is no longer open to the claimant any entitlement to income support will be subject to a reduction in the personal allowance for the same period. If income support is paid under either of these alternative routes, any help with mortgage interest payments is unaffected. Decisions on benefit are taken by independent adjudication officers, who are supported by advice contained in the adjudication officer's guide, a copy of which is in the Library. There is no intention to amend the legislation on good cause for refusing employment as a result of the change to the income support rules on mortgage interest payments.

  Optical Character Recognition
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his plans to introduce optical character recognition into his Department's processing of benefit applications. [32913]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department is looking at this technology for benefit applications.

  However, there are a number of issues to be resolved before any decisions can be made.

  Income Support
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many income support and unemployment benefit claimants have(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully claimed income support under the hardship rules for each region and for Great Britain as a whole for each quarter since April 1994, indicating those whose claim was in doubt due to their (i) not actively seeking work and (ii) availability for work. [32594]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.
  359

  Income Support hardship decisions 1994–95

  Quarter 1994

  Region1

  Awarded

  Actively seeking2 Refused

  Awarded

  Availability3 Refused

  July—September

  SE

  100

  100

  400

  700

  W and CE

  200

  200

  300

  200

  S and NE

  —

  100

  200

  200

  Total4

  300

  400

  800

  1,000

  October—December

  SE

  100

  100

  400

  700

  W and CE

  300

  400

  300

  300

  S and NE

  —

  100

  100

  200

  Total4

  400

  700

  900

  1,200

  January—March5

  SE

  100

  400

  700

  700

  W and CE

  400

  700

  300

  300

  S and NE

  100

  100

  100

  300

  Total4

  600

  1,200

  1,100

  1,300

  1 The regions are: Southern England (SE); Wales and Central England (W and CE); and Scotland and North East (S and NE).

  2 Awards or refusals of hardship payments under Income Support (General) Regulation 10A to those not actively seeking work.

  3 Awards or refusals of hardship payments under Income Support (General) Regulation 8 to those not available for work.

  4 Figures are rounded to the nearest 100; therefore totals are not necessarily the sum of the regional figures.

  5 Figures for January—March 1995 are provisional and subject to change.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of people claiming income support by(a) gender and (b) age for each region and nation in the United Kingdom in (i) May 1994 and (ii) the latest month for which figures are available. [32983]

  Mr. Burt
  I have placed a copy of the information in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many severe hardship(a) claims and (b) awards were made in each (i) district and (ii) area directorate in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [32978]

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

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Science Teachers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many science teachers in secondary schools are

  Record of Ministerial Overseas Travel04 July 1995

  Date(s) of visit

  Minister

  From

  To

  Country

  Purpose of visit

  Numbers in Delegation

  Expenditure £

  Secretary of State

  29/04/92

  30/4/92

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  6

  2,231.00

  Minister of State

  11/06/92

  12/06/92

  Switzerland

  Conference

  2

  1,504.00

  Secretary of State

  11/06/92

  12/06/92

  Spain/Italy

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  3

  3,615.00

  Secretary of State

  16/06/92

  16/06/92

  Netherlands

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  3

  1,668.00

  Secretary of State

  23/06/92

  24/06/92

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  7

  2,393.00

  Minister of State

  06/09/92

  10/09/92

  Poland/Bulgaria

  Agreement Signing

  2

  2,200.00

  Secretary of State

  08/09/92

  09/09/92

  France

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  3

  1,874.00

  Secretary of State

  14/09/92

  17/09/92

  Russia

  UK Know How Fund

  4

  13,281.00

  Viscount Ullswater

  21/09/92

  23/09/92

  France/Belgium

  Fact Finding Visit

  2

  1,585.00

  Secretary of State

  22/09/92

  22/09/92

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Council

  5

  1,841.00

  360
  physics graduates; how many of these teach in (a) local authority-run schools, (b) grant-maintained schools, (c) independent schools and (d) others; and what is the proportion of physics graduates among science teachers in each category. [32239]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The figures requested are only available for maintained secondary schools in England, including grant-maintained schools. The figures given relate to January 1992. On that date, there were 6,300 science teachers with a degree including physics, excluding BEds. This represented 17 per cent. of all science teachers. Separate figures are not available for grant-maintained schools.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) details of all overseas trips made by him or ministerial colleagues in his Department paid for wholly or partly from public funds and (b) the purpose, destination and duration of such overseas trips, which officials accompanied him and the total cost in each case, including that of officials to public funds for each year since 1992. [32255]

  Mr. Paice
  The available information is given in the following table:
  361

  Record of Ministerial Overseas Travel04 July 1995

  Date(s) of visit

  Minister

  From

  To

  Country

  Purpose of visit

  Numbers in Delegation

  Expenditure £

  Patrick McLoughlin

  26/09/92

  03/10/92

  Japan

  Fact Finding Visit

  2

  15,823.00

  Minister of State

  27/09/92

  02/10/92

  U.S.A.

  Fact Finding Visit

  2

  13,143.00

  Viscount Ullswater

  18/11/92

  20/11/92

  Poland

  UK Know How Fund

  2

  1,501.00

  Secretary of State/Minister of State

  03/12/92

  03/12/92

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Council

  8

  2,240.00

  Viscount Ullswater

  01/04/93

  08/04/93

  U.S.A./Canada

  Fact Finding Visit

  2

  15,495.00

  Secretary of State

  05/04/93

  06/04/93

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  7

  1,163.00

  Secretary of State

  30/04/93

  30/04/93

  France

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  4

  1,141.00

  Minister of State

  03/05/93

  05/05/93

  Denmark/Germany

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  7

  3,881.00

  Secretary of State/Minister of State

  31/05/93

  01/06/93

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  9

  4,049.00

  Minister of State

  03/06/93

  04/06/93

  Hungary

  UK Know How Fund

  2

  2,387.00

  Ann Widdecombe

  09/06/93

  10/06/93

  Switzerland

  Conference

  1

  699.00

  Secretary of State

  25/07/93

  30/07/93

  U.S.A.

  Fact Finding Visit

  4

  21,977.00

  Ann Widdecombe

  01/09/93

  03/09/93

  Germany

  Fact Finding Visit

  2

  1,393.00

  Secretary of State

  03/09/93

  03/09/93

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  3

  1,016.49

  Ann Widdecombe

  08/09/93

  10/09/93

  Spain

  Fact Finding Visit

  2

  2,818.00

  Secretary of State

  13/09/93

  23/09/93

  Far East Tour

  Fact Finding Visit

  3

  20,195.00

  Minister of State

  13/09/93

  14/09/93

  Sweden

  Fact Finding Visit

  2

  1,019.00

  Minister of State

  20/09/93

  21/09/93

  Czech Rep/Slovakia

  Agreement Signing

  3

  6,208.32

  Minister of State/Miss Widdecombe

  22/09/93

  24/09/93

  Belgium

  Informal Social Affairs Council

  3

  1,688.00

  Minister of State

  24/09/93

  01/10/93

  Australia

  Fact Finding Visit

  3

  14,807.00

  Secretary of State

  29/09/93

  29/09/93

  Netherlands

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  2

  773.00

  Secretary of State/Minister of State

  11/10/93

  12/10/93

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  8

  4,030.82

  Lord Henley

  19/10/93

  19/10/93

  Belgium

  Conference Council Of Europe

  1

  434.00

  Minister of State

  28/10/93

  29/10/93

  Malta

  Meeting

  2

  5,279.07

  Secretary of State/Minister of State

  22/11/93

  23/11/93

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Council Symposium on Older

  8

  3,230.29

  Ann Widdecombe

  16/12/93

  16/12/93

  Ireland

  Workers

  2

  942.50

  Secretary of State

  22/02/94

  22/02/94

  Germany

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  3

  863.79

  Secretary of State

  01/03/94

  01/03/94

  France

  Social Affairs Bilateral Informal Social Affairs

  3

  1,352.48

  Minister of State

  09/03/94

  11/03/94

  Greece

  Council

  2

  2,321.24

  Secretary of State

  09/03/94

  09/03/94

  Italy

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  2

  1,433.05

  Secretary of State

  10/03/94

  16/03/94

  U.S.A./Canada

  G7 Jobs Conference

  6

  21,011.75

  Ann Widdecombe

  05/04/94

  07/04/94

  Bulgaria

  Fact Finding Visit

  3

  2,705.59

  Minister of State

  18/04/94

  19/04/94

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Council

  6

  2,718.80

  Secretary of State

  07/06/94

  08/06/94

  France and Italy

  OECD/Bilateral

  2

  1,070.98

  Minister of State

  09/06/94

  10/06/94

  Switzerland

  ILO Conference

  1

  914.72

  Secretary of State/Minister of State

  21/06/94

  22/06/94

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council Informal Social Affairs

  9

  4,534.67

  Minister of State

  08/07/94

  09/07/94

  Germany

  Council

  2

  1,023.51

  Secretary of State

  05/09/94

  05/09/94

  France/Italy

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  4

  3,460.23

  Secretary of State

  12/09/94

  12/09/94

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  3

  904.03

  Minister of State

  15/09/94

  15/09/94

  Germany

  Conference

  3

  1,316.10

  Secretary of State/Minister of State

  21/09/94

  22/09/94

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Council

  7

  3,063.60

  James Paice

  03/10/94

  05/10/94

  Sweden

  Fact Finding Visit

  2

  1,594.21

  Minister of State

  03/10/94

  04/10/94

  Norway/Finland

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  3

  2,200.00

  Minister of State

  17/10/94

  17/10/94

  Austria

  Conference

  1

  2,036.53

  Secretary of State

  07/11/94

  08/11/94

  Portugal

  Fact Finding Visit

  4

  2,513.50

  Minister of State

  16/11/94

  17/11/94

  Czech Republic

  UK Know How Fund

  3

  2,400.94

  Secretary of State

  21/11/94

  21/11/94

  France

  OECD/Bilateral

  4

  1,617.52

  Minister of State

  25//11/94

  25/11/94

  Italy

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  3

  2,188.50

  Secretary of State/Minister of State

  05/12/94

  06/12/94

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Council

  10

  5,159.69

  Minister of State

  21/12/94

  21/12/94

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Council

  7

  2,805.41

  Secretary of State

  23/01/95

  23/01/95

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Council

  8

  2,351.37

  Secretary of State

  28/01/95

  30/01/95

  Switzerland

  Conference

  0

  422.78

  James Paice

  02/03/95

  03/03/95

  France

  Conference

  2

  972.52

  Minister of State

  21/03/95

  21/03/95

  Ireland

  Social Affairs Bilateral

  2

  939.00

  Secretary of State/Minister of State

  26/03/95

  27/03/95

  Belgium

  Social Affairs Council

  6

  3,873.72

  Secretary of State/Minister of State

  29/03/95

  30/03/95

  France

  Conference

  4

  1,963.41

  362

  363

  Record of Ministerial Overseas Travel04 July 1995

  Date(s) of visit

  Minister

  From

  To

  Country

  Purpose of visit

  Numbers in Delegation

  Expenditure £

  Minister of State

  09/04/95

  13/04/95

  Hungary/Poland

  UK Know How Fund

  2

  2,820.08

  Minister of State

  08/06/95

  09/06/95

  Switzerland

  ILO Conference

  1

  1245.23

  Secretary of State/Minister of State

  28/06/95

  29/06/95

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  8

  4,686.27

  1 Final costs of this visit not yet brought to account.

  Notes on Office Holders:

  Secretary of State:

  April 1992—May 1993: Mrs. Shepherd.

  May 1993—July 1994: Mr. Hunt.

  July 1994—to date: Mr. Portillo.

  Minister of State:

  April 1992—July 1994: Mr. Forsyth.

  July 1994—to date: Miss Widdecombe.

  Assaults on Staff
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each quarter since January 1992, what is the number of recorded assaults on staff by claimants in Employment Service offices. [32360]

  Mr. Paice
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Stephen Byers dated 6 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of recorded assaults on staff by claimants in Employment Service (ES) offices during each quarter from January 1992.
  There are currently around of 1,200 ES local offices carrying out some 2 million direct transactions with the public each week, so in any one quarter there are approximately 25 million face to face contacts with the public. It is against this backdrop that the following table of recorded assaults over the past 3 years should be seen.

  Quarter ending

  Actual assaults1

  Attempted assaults

  Verbal assaults

  March 1992

  38

  13

  284

  June 1992

  44

  47

  250

  September 1992

  49

  116

  149

  December 1992

  72

  169

  158

  March 1993

  70

  123

  156

  June 1993

  69

  79

  187

  September 1993

  74

  140

  231

  December 1993

  45

  116

  155

  March 1994

  61

  91

  249

  June 1994

  42

  54

  179

  September 1994

  70

  59

  483

  December 1994

  92

  50

  474

  March 1995

  91

  51

  664

  1 These figures include staff who sustained no physical injury as a result of the assault.

  The ES takes very seriously the safety of its people and over the past two years we have regularly emphasised the importance of reporting all incidents and staff have been actively encouraged to do so. Furthermore, the likelihood of assault in every ES local office is assessed by trained risk assessors and appropriate steps taken to reduce the risk.

  I hope this is helpful.
  364

  Schools
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many(a) education authority secondary schools, (b) grant-maintained schools, (c) independent schools and (d) others there were at the latest available date. [32240]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The latest available information for all school types at a consistent date is shown in the table.

  Schools in England—January 1994

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  LEA maintained

  18,423

  3,075

  21,498

  Grant maintained

  260

  554

  814

  Independent1

  2—

  2—

  2,268

  Others3

  2—

  2—

  1,862

  1 Includes direct grant nursery schools.

  2 Independent schools and special schools may cater for pupils of all ages and are not classified into primary and secondary schools.

  3 Includes maintained nursery schools and special schools.

  On 1 July 1995, there were 422 grant-maintained primary schools, 631 GM secondary schools and four GM special schools operating in England.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the primary and secondary schools in the Tonbridge and Mailing constituency that have achieved grant-maintained status and those schools where applications for grant-maintained status are awaiting her decision.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There are currently 10 grant-maintained schools in the Tonbridge and Mailing constituency. Details are as follows.

  Primary schools

  Ditton CE Primary School

  Ditton Infant School

  Snodland CE Primary School

  Brookfield Primary School

  Secondary schools

  Aylesford School

  Hillview School for Girls

  The Hayesbrook School

  The Hugh Christie School

  The Mailing School

  Tonbridge Grammar School for Girls

  365
  At present, there are no schools in this constituency with applications for grant-maintained status under consideration.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether the guidelines and penalties under the IACS scheme are sufficiently clear and that the penalties are in proportion to the offence committed. [31177]

  Mr. Baldry
  The rules on penalties are set out clearly in the IACS 1995 booklet; under the scheme rules there is no discretion to waive or reduce penalties.

  Sheep
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which of the recommendations from the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of sheep have not been implemented; and if he will make a statement. [31178]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Farm Animal Welfare Council's report made a practical and positive contribution to the welfare of sheep. Our detailed response to the Council's recommendations was published on 29 March this year. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Organic Food
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to encourage organic food production. [31181]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government are already doing a great deal to encourage the production of more organic food, including the introduction of the organic aid scheme a substantial R and D programme and support for the work of the independent United Kingdom register of organic food standards.

  Milk
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the President of the National Farmers' Union to discuss the marketing of milk. [31182]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the previous Minister regularly met representatives of all sides of the agriculture industry, including the president of the National Farmers' Union, to discuss issues of importance to them. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the new Minister will continue this regular dialogue.

  Veal Calves
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to promote humane rearing of veal in Europe. [31183]

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend the previous Minister secured the agreement of the European Commission to bring forward from 1997 its review of directive 91/629/EEC laying down minimum standards 366
  for the protection of calves. The Commission has work in hand and when its report comes forward to the Council, we shall press the case for an early end to the use in the European Union of close confinement systems for rearing calves. In preparation for this, I have visited EU capitals to enlist ministerial support. The response was encouraging.

  Pesticides
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is currently undertaking into the use of pesticides on food crops. [31184]

  Mrs. Browning
  MAFF has a wide range of research related to the use of pesticides on food crops; the various elements of this research are designed to contribute both to the Government's policy objective that pesticide use should be limited to the minimum necessary for the effective control of pests compatible with the protection of human health and the environment, and to the improvement of the economic performance of the agriculture and horticulture industries. The recently published "MAFF Research Strategy 1995" sets out the Ministry's current strategy for research and provides a more detailed examination of the R and D programme in each sector.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to develop ideas for the reform of the common fisheries policy in 2002. [31185]

  Mr. Baldry
  My predecessor established the common fisheries policy review group, whose job it is to come up with constructive and realistic proposals for improving the operation of the common fisheries policy. The views of fishermen have also been invited.

  Animal Transportation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further welfare proposals he has for animals in transit in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) abroad; and if he will make a statement. [31186]

  Mrs. Browning
  As my right hon. Friend the previous Minister, announced to the House on 22 June,Official Report, columns 477–78, the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers has reached agreement on Community-wide rules on the welfare of animals during transport. The rules introduce maximum journey limits and minimum rest periods and will apply throughout the EU. We shall circulate our proposals for implementing regulations in due course; all member states must introduce the necessary national legislation to implement the agreement by 31 December 1996.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the levels of pesticide residues found in fruit and vegetables. [31187]
  367
  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have a substantial annual surveillance programme for pesticide residues in a wide range of foodstuffs, including fruit and vegetables. The results are published annually in the report of the working party on pesticide residues. In the most recent report, no residues were found in 66 per cent. of all samples and the maximum permissible residue was exceeded in only 1 per cent. of samples. The residues found had no implications for human health.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce the level of pesticides leaching into United Kingdom waterways. [31175]

  Mrs. Browning
  The pesticides approval process takes into account their potential to contaminate water and approval conditions are set to minimise contamination.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that future stocks of fish are adequately protected. [31180]

  Mr. Baldry
  Britain contributes fully to the common fisheries policy, which exists to ensure the sustainable exploitation of fish resources in the waters of the European Union.

DEFENCE

  Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether service personnel who took part in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment can have access to the laboratory and scientific records of experiments and studies in which they participated. [31957]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 6 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking whether the Service Personnel who were Volunteers at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) can have access to the laboratory and scientific records of the experiments in which they participated has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), which since April, includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  2. It is a long standing policy of CBDE to provide details, on request, of the studies in which a Service volunteer participated to the medical practitioners who are responsible for the medical care of the individual concerned. The medical practitioner can then take into account activities undertaken at CBDE in their ongoing care for their patient. Former volunteers who have written directly to CBDE requesting information on the studies undertaken are also given an outline of the type of investigation in which they participated, but more detailed information is only released to qualified medical personnel with a direct responsibility for the individual.
  3. I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical countermeasures to protect service personnel have been developed by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment since 1980 following 368
  studies and tests with service volunteers. [31971]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 6 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what medical countermeasures have been developed by the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) since 1980 following studies and tests with Service volunteers has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, incudes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  2. The nature of the medical countermeasures available to defend the United Kingdom Armed Forces against the threat posed by chemical and biological warfare agents continues to be a sensitive matter. The knowledge of countermeasures clearly diminishes their value and I am not, therefore, able to go into detail. I can, however, say that some of the studies undertaken using Service volunteers have enabled the development of an improved combined therapy auto-injector used to combat the post-attack symptoms of nerve agent poisoning.
  3. I hope this information is helpful to you.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service volunteers were involved in studies with the MK 4 overboot at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down; when these studies were carried out; what was the nature and conclusion of these studies; under which defence agreement the results of these studies were shared with other countries; and when these overboots were issued for use by the armed forces. [31959]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 6 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the studies on the Mk 4 overboot at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, has included CBDE as one of its divisions.
  2. The development of the Mark 4 overboot began in the late 1970's. CBDE's contribution to the programme was to provide general advice on design and material testing. Studies of this nature involved no use of Service volunteers by CBDE. Wearer trials to determine the acceptability of the new design for use in military operations were conducted for the programme's sponsoring branch, the Directorate of Clothing and Textiles, by the Defence Nuclear Biological Chemical Centre at Winterbourne Gunner.
  3. The development of the Mk 4 overboot was carried out wholly by the United Kingdom and the results of studies undertaken as part of the programme were not shared with other nations.
  4. The Mark 4 overboot was accepted into service in 1984 and the first production run was completed in 1986.
  5. I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds it was considered necessary to create an Independent Ethics Committee in July 1991 to oversee the service volunteer programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; why the previous committee of Porton Down medical officers was set up; on what date it was set up; and if the
  369
  Committee of Porton Down Medical Officers ever exercised its veto on human experiments. [31960]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The creation of the Independent Ethics Committee in July 1991, followed the publication of guidelines from the Royal College of Physicians. The previously existing committees were subsumed into it in order to ensure that the CBDE continued to follow best practice. No studies involving service volunteers can be conducted without the approval of the committee, which reviews the protocols to ensure that every study has a clear military justification and a risk assessment has been carried out.

  The Committee on the Safety of Human Experiments, whose membership included the medical officers of CBDE, was set up in 1963 by the then Director, Mr E. E. Haddon. The reason is believed to be the concern expressed internationally regarding the ethics of human experimentation, reflected in the 1964 declaration of Helsinki.

  The committee had the right to veto studies, but more importantly was the focus for modifying protocols and maintaining the register of work. Studies could not start without the permission of the committee, which was subsumed into the IEC.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long Professor Hugh Dudley has been the chair of ethics committee overseeing the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; who else is currently serving on this committee; how many members of Porton Down staff serve on this committee and what post they hold within Porton Down; if the committee has the right to veto experiments involving service volunteers; in what years the committee has met more than four times since its inception and what the reason for this was; and if he will place all the minutes of this committee since its inception in the Library. [31975]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Professor Dudley has been the chairman of the Independent Ethics Committee since its inception in 1991 in response to the Royal College of Physicians' guidelines for experiments involving human subjects. The committee consists of 11 members, nine of whom are drawn from outside the MOD. The external members of the committee include representatives of the medical and legal profession, senior academics and lay people. The senior military officer and the technical director of the CBDE are the only members of the CBDE staff who are members of the committee. No studies involving service volunteers can be conducted without the approval of the ethnic committee.

  The panel has not yet found it necessary to meet on more than four occasions in a year, but provision remains for it to do so, if required. The minutes of this committee include matters which are of commercial and defence sensitivity and it would not be appropriate to place them in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Nerve Agents
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March,Official Report, columns 711–12, on what dates the results of the NAPS studies were published in the scientific journals
  370
  named. [31962]

  Mr. Soames
  This matter is for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, DERA to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 6 July 1995:
  Your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking, pursuant to his Answer of 16th March, on what dates the results of the NAPS studies were published in the scientific journals named, has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) which, since April, includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its divisions.
  2. The articles on studies involving NAPS were published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology in January 1978, in the Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology in July 1978 and May 1979, and in the Fundamentals of Applied Pharmacology in December 1985.
  3. I hope this information is helpful.

  Press Conference
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which journalists and publications were invited to attend his press conference with his French counterpart on 27 June; what criteria were adopted in deciding who was invited to attend; and if he will make a statement on the exclusion of journalists from the press conference. [32432]

  Mr. Soames
  Invitations to the press briefing on 27 June were extended to French correspondents and broadcast organisations based in London and to accredited defence correspondents of main domestic news media. The Defence press office, which was responsible for issuing invitations, did not seek to exclude journalists from any recognised news organisation.

  Third Country Trading Relations
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 29 June,Official Report, column 749, if he will examine evidence submitted by hon. Members of links between British firms and Licentee AG of Switzerland. [32953]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  If hon. Members have evidence of illegal activity this would be a matter for the enforcement agencies.

  Nuclear Weapon Testing
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his French counterpart about France's decision to resume nuclear weapon testing. [32088]

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he made to his French counterpart during their meeting in London on 27 June on the proposals by France to resume nuclear tests in Mururoa; and what representations he has recently received on nuclear testing. [31948]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 4 July,Official Report, column 180.
  371

  Ministerial Visit
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends next to visit NATO headquarters in Brussels. [32725]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is due to visit NATO Headquarters for the Defence Planning Committee on 29 and 30 November 1995.

  HMS Andromeda
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom HMS Andromeda has been sold; what assessment his Department has made as to whether it received good value for money from the sale; what is his Department's definition of value for money; and if he will make a statement. [32724]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  HMS Andromeda was sold to the Indian navy in March this year. It is not our practice to reveal details of such sales in the interest of customer confidentiality, but I can say that the price realised directly to the taxpayer met the criteria given in my reply to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) of 14 February,Official Report, column 613. The sale has also generated work for a number of British companies in the refit and spares support fields.

  Offset Obligation Agreements
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those occasions during the last 10 years in which, as part of an international participation agreement, his Department has made credit available for the establishment of joint venture companies, technology transfers and defence research and development contracts. [32416]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Offshore suppliers of equipment to the MOD may meet their industrial participation, or offset, commitments in a number of ways, including transfer of technology, the award of defence research and development contracts and certain work arising from the establishment of joint venture companies. Such arrangements are commercially confidential, and we cannot disclose details.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the offset agreements with(a) the United States and (b) other manufacturers of defence equipment signed during the last 10 years; and if he will list the value in each case. [32417]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A list of offset obligation agreements singed during the last 10 years follows. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, I am unable to list individual values.

  List of industrial participation obligations signedover the last 10 years

  Company (US unless stated)

  Equipment

  Boeing Corp.

  AWACS

  Boeing Hel

  Chinook Mid-Life Update

  CAE Electronics (Canada)

  Magnetic Anomoly Detector

  CAE Electronics (Canada)

  Merlin Training System

  Computing Devices Canada (CDC) (Canada)

  Challenger II (Fire Control System)

  372

  List of industrial participation obligations signedover the last 10 years

  Company (US unless stated)

  Equipment

  Cummins

  Power Pack for AS90 SP Howitzer

  E Systems

  Nimrod Update (Starwindow)

  General Dynamics

  Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS)

  General Electric

  i. Goalkeeper II

  ii. Sonar 2093

  General Instrument

  Radar Warning Receiver (RWR)

  Hughes

  Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM)

  Lockheed

  C-130J

  Martin Marietta

  Skynet Launch Vehicle

  McDonnell Douglas

  Follow-on buy of Ship Launch Harpoon Systems

  McDonnell Douglas

  Skynet (Expendable Launch Vehicle)

  Raytheon

  Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS)

  Rediffusion/Evans and Sutherland

  Nimrod MR MK2 Simulator

  SAAB (Sweden)

  Direct Fire Weapons Effects Simulator (DFWES)

  Sperry-Marine

  NATO Ships Inertial Navigation System (SINS)

  Texas Instruments

  Low Level Laser Guided Bomb (LLLGB)

  TRW

  Ocean Surveillance Information System (OSIS)

  Westinghouse

  AWACS E-3D Depot Level Maintenance

  Westinghouse

  AWACS Radar Software Support Rig

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department has undertaken of the employment effects of(a) offset agreements made as part of his Department's purchase of defence equipment and (b) offset agreements made by British companies as part of their agreement to sell to another country. [32456]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Department's aim in negotiating offset agreements with offshore companies is to attract new, quality, defence work to United Kingdom defence industry. Such work brings employment benefits to the UK, but the Department has made no study of this particular aspect. When British companies are doing business overseas, it is for them to judge the level of offset they can offer, and we have undertaken no study of the employment effects of such arrangements.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the value of the obligation agreements with(a) CAE Electronics, (b) E-Systems, (c) Cummins, (d) Hughes Aircraft Co., (e) McDonnell Douglas, (f) Raytheon, (g) SAAB, (h) Texas Instruments, (i) Westinghouse and (j) TRW-OSIS. [32535]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The industrial participation obligation agreements which we have with offshore contractors are commercially confidential, and therefore I cannot disclose the individual values.

  Astra plc
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all the schedules of documents taken from
  373
  the Astra group of companies have now been accounted for. [30066]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: A re-sort of the seized property store, directed by the deputy chief constable of the MOD police, has accounted for all schedules of documents seized from the Astra group of companies by the MDP in relation to their investigations of corruption involving those companies.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which(a) other Departments and (b) agencies of Government on bodies acting on their behalf had access to the papers taken from the Astra group of companies in early 1990. [30064]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 28 June 1995]: Department of Trade and Industry inspectors were allowed access to such papers by and in the presence of MDP officers in pursuance of their own enquiries.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions on which his police staff visited Astra plc or any of its subsidiaries between 1 January 1989 and 31 December 1991. [30100]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: Officers from the MOD police fraud squad are recorded as having visited the premises of Astra plc or its subsidiaries, in connection with the investigation of corruption involving those companies, on the following occasions between 1 January 1989 and 31 December 1991: 13 March 1990, 30 March 1990, 3 April 1990, 4 April 1990, 5 April 1990, 9 April 1990, 10 April 1990, 11 April 1990, 26 April 1990, 10 May 1990, 11 May 1990, 16 May 1990, 19 May 1990, 20 May 1990, 24 May 1990, 25 May 1990, 15 June 1990, 20 June 1990, 21 June 1990, 10 July 1990, 11 July 1990, 19 July 1990 and 7 August 1990.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what authority Detective Inspector Berry of the 374
  MOD police was acting when he wrote to the Astra administrators on 27 January 1993. [30102]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: Detective Inspector Berry is a member of the MOD police who operate under the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. He holds the office of constable under the Crown, and acted under the direction of superintendent, head of the MDP fraud squad.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds(a) Mr. Chris Gumbley, (b) Mr. John Seilens, (c) Lieutenant Colonel Hollingsworth and (d) Mr. Miller of Astra plc were arrested by Ministry of Defence Police officers. [30108]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: All four were arrested on suspicion of corruption under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906.

  Mr. John Anderson
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the treatment of Mr. John Anderson by the Ministry of Defence police and the resultant complaint to the Police Complaints Authority. [30107]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 27 June 1995]: Mr. Anderson was arrested by the Ministry of Defence police in April 1990. He was detained in connection with a possible case of corruption; he was interviewed and released without charge. Subsequently, he made a number of complaints concerning the circumstances of his arrest. These were investigated in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the report forwarded to the independent Police Complaints Authority. The PCA, having carefully studied the report, decided that no disciplinary action should be taken against the officers who were the subject of Mr. Anderson's complaints.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

BBC Charter and Agreement
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the draft of the new BBC Charter and Agreement will be published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the Government intend to lay the draft Charter and Agreement in the autumn.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful reply and congratulate him on his promotion to a new portfolio. Will the Bill to combine the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission be brought forward before the draft Charter, because the two interact very closely?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his kind opening remarks. As has been intimated, we have stated our intention to effect the merger of the BSC and the BCC and we hope to introduce a broadcasting Bill next Session to implement our cross-media ownership and digital broadcasting proposals. It is likely that this will include provisions to merge the two bodies. We hope to have tabled the draft Agreement and the draft Charter in the early autumn.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join in congratulating the Minister. Can he give an assurance that there will be a substantial debate in your Lordships' House on the draft Charter and Licence in the overspill period? Can he give any information as to what decision, if any, has been made with regard to the BBC transmission services?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, any debate would be a matter for the usual channels in the ordinary way. There will certainly be a debate in the other place and I expect that there will be a demand for a debate in your Lordships' House as well. The noble Lord asked about transmission services. As the noble Lord will know, that matter is currently under investigation.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, there have been reports in the newspapers that a special committee has been set up by the BBC to investigate the use of bad language and other similar trends of recent years. Has that anything to do with the publication of the Charter and Agreement? What powers does the committee have? What is it all about?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can confirm that we welcome the announcement this week by the chairman of the BBC's board of governors, Mr. Marmaduke
1238
Hussey, that the BBC is to hold a conference on standards of taste and decency to identify what audiences find acceptable. It is expected that new guidance to programme makers will emerge as a result. We think it most important that these matters are dealt with in a manner which is acceptable to the public at large.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when the two bodies come together we hope that the new body will have more power than the two had separately? At the moment they seem very flabby, and very reluctant to uphold decency, condemn violence and carry out a number of other things they are empowered to do but never seem to. When "The Last Temptation of Christ" was broadcast, it was very heavily criticised by large numbers of people but the BSC and the BCC said that it did not count as a religious programme. That is how they got round the mistakes they made. The BBC would not allow it to he shown on its channels.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks, which I know echo the views of a large number of people. The new Agreement with the BBC will place specific obligations on the corporation to avoid offending against good taste and decency and not to abuse religious views. Those will replicate the requirements of the Broadcasting Act 1990 in respect of commercial broadcasters. The BBC's governors will be responsible for approving appropriate standards for BBC programmes.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his promotion. Given his obvious good sense, I am sure that he will work very closely with the BBC. Will he accept from me that, given the huge number of hours of programmes put out on radio and television by the BBC, what is really surprising is how few grounds there are for serious criticism?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his good wishes. Those are normally a preface to a difficult question. In this instance I am glad to be able to confirm that we believe that the BBC sets itself the highest standards and that in most instances it reaches them.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether there will be any provision in either the Charter or the Agreement to require the BBC to act with integrity and responsibility? I have in mind in particular the quite indefensible behaviour in publishing parts of a highly confidential draft report of the Scott Committee. If there is no such requirement, why not?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his comments. It must be emphasised that there is an overriding duty of impartiality on the BBC and on broadcasters generally. I hope your Lordships will forgive me but I have not seen the details of what might or might not have been a draft. I am not in a position to give any precise and helpful reply to the noble and learned Lord. However, I shall make sure that when matters progress further he is kept fully in the picture.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, perhaps I may emphasise that I was not talking about impartiality. I was talking about integrity.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in congratulating my noble friend, along with others, on becoming, as it were, another sort of usual channel, may I ask him whether we can hope that when the draft Charter and draft Agreement are published the structure that they reveal will mean that the governors of the BBC are at a sufficient distance from the day-to-day managers of the BBC, and sufficiently distinctly serviced, to be at arm's length from the corporation when enforcing the terms of the agreements he has just described?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his remarks. The BBC is subject to regulation by its governors. Therefore, it is important that the governors remain sufficiently at arm's length from the management of the corporation to be able to do exactly what my noble friend describes.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we join in the congratulations to the new Minister and assure him that, provided that he is as positive and helpful as his predecessor, we shall give him an equally easy ride. Within the context of broadcasting statements, will he confirm that announcements on the sale of BBC transmitters and on digital broadcasting will be made before the House rises? Most importantly, will he give an assurance that there will be an opportunity for full public consultation on those proposals?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, for his kind remarks. I can assure your Lordships that I shall endeavour to do everything I can to ensure that I have as easy a ride as I can achieve. The Government are considering the way ahead on digital broadcasting and will issue proposals as soon as possible. There will then be an opportunity for consultation on the proposals.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that when the regulatory bodies fail to take firm and decisive action over offensive material shown on programmes, Her Majesty's Government will call those regulatory bodies to account?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is a matter for the regulatory bodies to exercise their discretion on the basis of the facts they have in front of them. One of the important characteristics is that BBC public broadcasting is kept at arm's length from the Government.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, may I also congratulate the Minister. When he comes to consider the draft Agreement, will he bear in mind the extraordinary contribution of the World Service of the BBC in providing an amazingly accurate and honest description of international affairs? In central and eastern Europe in particular it does remarkable work. I hope that the Charter and the Agreement will reflect the tribute that we wish to pay.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in recognising the contribution of the World Service. Of course, it does a good job not just for our own country but for the rest of the world.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!

National Lottery
3.11 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will conduct a detailed review of the operation of the National Lottery and its effect on charities.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, all aspects of the National Lottery are being kept under review, but we believe that it is much too early in the life of the lottery to be considering making changes at this stage. The Government have made a clear commitment to monitor charitable income, and are considering how best this can be carried out.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, while congratulating the Minister on his new appointment today, may I ask him whether he is aware that I do not join in the arrangement to give him an easy ride? Is the Minister further aware that the National Lottery is rapidly becoming a national scandal as regards the income of charities? Is he also further aware that Camelot, the company that runs the National Lottery, is taking for itself in terms of expenses and profit, a sum in the region of 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. of the weekly income, and that the contribution to charity has dropped from the projected 8 per cent. to only 5 per cent., while medical charities in particular are suffering as a result of that drop in income? Will the Minister today give an absolute guarantee that the Government will make good the shortfall in the income of medical charities, otherwise how can we cure illness if we cannot do medical research?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, is muddling two slightly separate things. Of course, we are all in favour of having as much research into medical matters as possible. At the same time, it was Parliament that set up the National Lottery and stipulated the way in which the proceeds of the lottery should be distributed as and when they were available. It is not right to look at this matter in terms of a particular shortfall in one area or another of charitable giving and spending. We now have a new situation. It is important for your Lordships to realise that it appears that charities as a whole may be benefiting by up to £320 million a year over and above the revenue they had before. We do not accept that it is necessarily the case that charitable giving has in fact declined because of the lottery. Because we take the matter seriously my noble friend Lady Blatch has had discussions with the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. The Government are still considering how best it can take the matter forward so that we can debate this issue on the basis of fact rather than surmise.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that up to 26th June this year 486 projects received lottery funds to the tune of £95 million,

1241
including the arts, the environment, sports, etc., and yet not one penny has gone to one project covering medical research? Can the Minister tell the House when medical research, and especially cancer research, will benefit from lottery funds?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is important that your Lordships understand the way in which the lottery money is divided and distributed. It is divided according to a formula laid down in the Act and then distributed according to a timetable. The National Lottery's Charities Board is not making any grants at all until October. It is up to that body to determine how it distributes the money which it will receive from the lottery. While it has indicated that it will place priority at this stage on charities concerned with poverty, it has not excluded the possibilities of medical research or, for that matter, any other charitable purpose, if it feels that the applications made are appropriate to receive disbursements.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, has my noble friend had time to be aware of the fact that the income of the Football Trust has been reduced by 40 per cent. since last year, and that although we have been able to help the larger clubs to a very great extent, we are now facing great difficulties in providing help to the smaller clubs whose own resources are much less?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I am aware of the problem to which he alludes. But there has been a reduction in pools' duty. In addition, I understand that the way in which the football pools themselves have been conducting their own business has changed. We believe that that will go a significant way towards ensuring that they recoup some of the losses which they believe they have suffered.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when this matter was last discussed at Question Time in this House on 6th June, his predecessor stated—reported in Hansard at col. 1259—that the research into the impact of the National Lottery on charitable income had begun? Shortly after, in a letter to a colleague in another place, he adjusted that position and said that it had not yet begun. Will the Minister take this opportunity to help the House and clarify the exact position?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am delighted to be able to clarify what appears to be a degree of misunderstanding on this matter. I can confirm that the Government have given a commitment to monitor the effect of the National Lottery, and that they are still considering how best to take this forward. I hope that that makes the position clear beyond any doubt.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord. Is he aware that the National Lottery has not been detrimental to all charities? Is he further aware that the British Red Cross Society has actually augmented its funds in its 125th anniversary year, having raised more money than ever before?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. The British Red Cross is a most worthwhile charity, so it is encouraging to hear that it is
1242
doing so well. As I said in response to an earlier question, it is important that we deal with this kind of topic on the basis of evidence rather than supposition.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Treasury receives week by week 12 per cent. of the total takings from the sale of lottery tickets in the previous week? In view of the fact that the lottery is such a financial runaway success, will the Government consider reducing that 12 per cent., as it already represents over twice what each of the individual five good causes are earning?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful for that remark. I know of no current government plans to do what the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join in the congratulations that have been expressed to the Minister. Does he agree that, although it may be too early to measure the overall effect on the income of charities as a result of the operations of the lottery, there are some specific effects which are already discernible? Is he aware that one of them is the enormous drop in the level of funds allocated to the arts by the charitable organisations sponsored by the football pools? Is he further aware that these losses are not going to be made up from other sources, and that many of the arts bodies have to face discontinuities in their income which are severely embarrassing?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as in all matters, the world is continuously moving on. One has to try to deal with these matters in the context of the realities of the time in which we are living. The National Lottery is now part of British public life, and that is something which organisations will have to take into account when making their plans.

Fish Stocks: Common Fisheries Policy
3.19 p.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to prevent the possible total disappearance of fish stocks in the waters affected by the common fisheries policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, the European Union's common fisheries policy exists to provide for sustainable exploitation of the fisheries resources in the waters of member states. The UK fully supported the recommendations in the direct declaration adopted at the recent North Sea conference to improve the operation of the common fisheries policy. To that end, the UK will continue to press for and to support appropriate Commission proposals to improve regulation and control of fishing activity and to improve the state of scientific knowledge on which to base such proposals.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer and congratulate him on his well deserved promotion to the Ministry of Defence. No doubt his mind is more consumed with nuclear weapons than fishing boats at the moment. Therefore, I shall not

1243
press the international point about the importance of the UN agreement on Straddle stocks but refer instead to the common fisheries policy promotion, which does not appear to be working. I wonder whether my noble friend will consider bringing forward the question of the common fisheries policy at the forthcoming IGC where we shall have a veto—there will not be majority voting—so that we can consider the number of boats at sea. Perhaps he could also mention the fact that the common fisheries policy is trying to limit the number of Spanish boats at sea—
Noble Lords: Question!
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, would my noble friend comment on the fact that the common fisheries policy is trying to limit the number of Spanish boats at sea, while the European Commission is busy commissioning new fishing boats for the Spanish fishing fleet, and—
Noble Lords: Order!
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks and entirely agree with him that the conservation of stocks is a prime duty of the European Community. That is why the annual agreement on total allowable catches is conducted against a background of expert scientific advice. My right honourable friend the former Minister established a group to look at all the options for improving the CFP. It is expected to have completed its task by the end of the year. It is a wide-ranging review and appropriate recommendations will be brought to the attention of the European Commission. Meanwhile, as your Lordships will be aware, the central issue is that the available fishing effort is greater than the fish stocks can stand. To that end, we aim to reduce the size of our fleet in common with other member states, including Spain, to meet our MAGP targets through decommissioning, for example.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as this is the noble Earl's last appearance with the agriculture brief, perhaps I may thank him from this Dispatch Box for the unfailing courtesy and helpfulness that he has shown in his three-and-a-quarter years at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and wish him well in his new post.
In the circumstances, perhaps it will be appropriate if I ask the Minister an easy question today. Does he agree that the common fisheries policy, as it has developed, is beginning to make the common agricultural policy look like a beacon of common sense and sweet reason?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I too have much enjoyed and appreciated our exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes over the past three-and-a-quarter years. I very much appreciate the constructive way in which he has approached our exchanges. In reply to the noble Lord's question, to put it at its mildest, the CFP is far from perfect. In particular, it is too bureaucratic. As I have said, we are reviewing our approach to it and shall continue to press for improvements. However, there are benefits as well as drawbacks to the CFP and any changes will need to be considered with great care.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that since many fish migrate between waters near the shores of different countries, regulation and restraint are what matter most in the areas in and near north-west Europe because fishing methods and technology are now lethally effective?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend draws attention to an extremely important point. Although one may have capacity targets, total allowable catches and technical conservation measures, they have to be enforced properly. It is perhaps a truism to say that fish are no respecters of boundaries, but the CFP is a more effective vehicle for policing those boundaries and the entitlements of member states than unilateral action could ever be.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that efforts to reduce fishing by decommissioning seem to be more than outweighed by the efficiency of the vessels which catch the fish? As there is considerable evidence, as submitted to the North Sea ministerial conference, that supplies of cod in the North Sea are likely to fall below what is renewable, what do the Government propose to do?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Government's decommissioning plan is only part of a raft of measures which we hope will deliver the necessary results in terms of conserving stocks, which is most important. The Government recognise that in the longer term the state of North Sea cod stocks remains a matter of concern. It is important that total allowable catches are set at prudent levels. However, given the large size of that stock, which at current reduced levels still numbers over 500 million fish, and its extensive distribution, it is not thought likely that North Sea cod will become extinct, as has been predicted in some quarters.

Dr. Hastings Banda
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve Baroness Macleod of Borve asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they are making to the Government of Malawi to ensure a fair trial for Dr. Hastings Banda and others.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Malawi Government are obliged to give Dr. Banda and his co-accused a fair and public hearing. We expect those obligations to be fulfilled completely. We shall be monitoring the trial and note that the defence counsel is British. There are no grounds at this stage for us to make representations.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for her helpful Answer, perhaps I may also thank her on behalf of the people of Malawi for all that she has done over many years to help that very poor but very beautiful and kind country. However, in view of what she has just said, is my noble friend aware that on 14th February 1995 the Director of Public

1245
Prosecutions of Malawi said on the BBC World Service that the decision to arrest Dr. Banda and others was entirely political and not made by his department?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am always pleased to do all that I can for poor countries in the world. I was, of course, aware of the comments that had been made on the BBC, but not all comments that have been made on the BBC and in other places about that situation have been wise or accurate. We have sought to ensure that the trial is properly conducted. We have through our "Good Government" initiative arranged training in the UK on the conduct of jury trials for Malawian judges, including Justice Mkandawire who is presiding at this trial.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that this country of ours is looked on throughout the world as the country that created democracy and decent justice? To that extent, will she add to the excellent statement that she has just made by assuring the House that we shall attempt to get the support of all democratic countries on this issue? I believe that our country can provide that lead and that we shall be supported.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, this is a very vexed issue but, as the noble Lord knows, we have not only sought to promote sound democracy in emerging countries, but to ensure that they have the training and the institutional capacity to run a proper judiciary which has due respect for human rights. It is critically important that human rights are properly respected both in Malawi and other countries. There have been improvements in the past year or so in Malawi. Where democracy is to flourish, it is right that there should be freedom of the press, freedom of speech and full regard for the courts of law.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Dr. Banda is a very old man with a very long and distinguished record of public service? Will she assure the House that Her Majesty's Government are watching carefully to see that, if he has to be put on trial at all, he has a fair trial?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we are all aware of the many years of dutiful service that Dr. Hastings Banda has given to Malawi. We have been at pains to ensure that any trial, and particularly this trial, is conducted properly. The trial is now expected to start on 10th July when the judge will hear pleas. The jury selection is planned for 11th July. The whole world's eyes will be on the conduct of justice in Malawi. That is absolutely right and proper.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that merely because of the tyranny and repression which characterised the previous regime it is tremendously important that this trial, of all trials, should be conducted in a way beyond reproach? Does she realise that she will have the full support of this side of the House in ensuring that that happens? Will she inform the House how much priority is given within the aid budget towards strengthening the administration of justice as part of good governance in the third world, to which the Government are committed?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He is absolutely right: this trial must be conducted in a way that is beyond reproach. That is why the United Kingdom has focused much of its support for good government on the proper training, for jury trials, of judges and of others. I can give the noble Lord details of the training attachments: six High Court judges and two Supreme Court judges are being trained in this country; and three jury trial workshops are being conducted in Malawi to ensure that that happens. I am glad that we have the full support of the Opposition. All the work that we are doing in institution building in Malawi and other countries is designed to make them self-sufficient in running a system which is responsible and which enables every person to be heard before a court, with a proper defence, and that they be judged innocent until they are proven guilty.

Employment Rights Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this or the next Bill standing in my name on the Order Paper and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee on either of them. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall beg to move in each case that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Industrial Tribunals Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Evidence Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Child Support Bill
3.34 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Applications for departure directions]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 on page 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment which dealt with the question of how applications for a departure direction made outside the 28-day time limit without good reason should be handled.

1247
The Minister kindly indicated that he was sympathetic towards the intention behind the amendment and agreed that we would be able to deal with it on Report.
The amendment achieves the effect which both the Minister and this side of the House agree is desirable; namely, that persons who apply for a departure direction outside the normal 28-day time limit without good cause can nevertheless have their applications considered from the date of their application. The Minister was kind enough to write to me to say that he has examined the question, has consulted parliamentary counsel and has been advised that the powers in new Section 28G(4) inserted by Clause 7 are sufficient to enable regulations to be made to achieve the results that we want and that subsection (4) of the new Section 28A inserted by Clause 1 can simply be removed, and that is the effect of the amendment.
It would be helpful if the Minister would give some commitment as to the content of the regulations under new Section 28G(4). One of the effects of the amendment would be to delete the reference in the amendment tabled in Committee to allow claims to be considered where there is good cause for their application. I understand from the Minister that that will be catered for in regulations. He was kind enough to send me an example of the existing regulations which makes it clear that that can be achieved.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation as to the content of the regulations. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, in Committee I listened carefully to the comments on this subject of the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I indicated then that I would reflect on what he said. I have decided that I find his arguments persuasive. Our purpose in including a time limit for applications for a departure direction was to reduce as far as possible the period of uncertainty which would exist for both the parent with care and the absent parent while there was a possibility that the amount of maintenance fixed by the formula assessment might be altered.
We were concerned that people should not delay making application, although of course if there were good cause for so doing we proposed that late applications should be accepted. We felt that it would be unfair to the other party if the absent parent or the person with care was able to let the matter slide but then ask, perhaps some time in the future, for a departure which would affect the amount due right back to the date when liability first started.
As I have said, on reflection I agree that it would be equally unfair to exclude someone from any chance of a departure because he or she had failed to act promptly. I am content to accept the proposal that an application made later than 28 days from the issue of a maintenance assessment should be considered but that any direction which results will not be backdated beyond the date of the application unless there was good cause for the delay.
In due course, we shall bring forward regulations to that effect, using the delegated power in subsection (4) of the new Section 28G as introduced by Clause 7. I am happy to recommend that the amendment be accepted.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for the letter that he sent me. I hope that he finds this habit-forming as the day wears on—the evening, I suspect—and it is therefore with some confidence that I seek the opinion of the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Preliminary consideration]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert:
("(c) that the entitlement of a person with care to any maintenance disregard calculated in accordance with section 36(5) (bb) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 would be lost or reduced.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 13. This is an amendment about the maintenance disregard—one of the most important issues in the Bill. We on this side support the principles of the Child Support Agency: that absent fathers should support their children and should do so by paying maintenance consistent with their means, thus allowing many first families to float off of benefit. We agree entirely with that. Where the father can pay, he should pay. It is not the taxpayers' job to pick up that bill and his responsibility. The trouble is that in paying maintenance most fathers will make their first families no better off. In many cases, they will make them worse off than if they had avoided their responsibilities and not paid. The amendment addresses that issue.
Why are first families no better off and often worse off on maintenance than they are on income support? Eighty pounds of maintenance would displace £80 of income support, which is what a lone parent with a couple of children might receive. In that situation, a lone parent with two children would be no better off but no worse off. However, when that same lone parent was receiving £80 per week from income support, the benefit carried with it a passport, a portfolio, of other benefits; for instance, free school dinners worth £10 a week for two children, access to the Social Fund for cold weather payments and budgetary loans, and even housing renovation grants.
A woman receiving the same sum from maintenance as from income support loses those passported benefits that are attached only to income support. She is therefore worse off. She received the additional benefits on income support because it was thought that at that level of income she was so poor that she needed additional support. Yet with no extra income, the same sum being paid by maintenance, that additional sum has been taken away from her.
Therefore, given that first families will be worse off if the absent father does his duty and pays maintenance why should those fathers willingly pay and why should mothers willingly co-operate with the CSA to make themselves poorer? The Child Support Agency has lacked consistency. We all know that, and the Minister has accepted it. It has lacked consistency because it has lacked legitimacy and it has been seen as unfair. Hence this amendment, which allows the mother to keep a

1249
modest fraction of the maintenance. We are talking about £5 to £10 per week—a disregard—before it is deducted pound for pound from her income support. That modest disregard would, roughly speaking, compensate her for the loss of passported benefits such as free school dinners which she would have received if she had stayed on income support. She would be no worse off for obeying the law. Surely that is what we want to see. Surely that is reasonable.
To what are the Government objecting? They have offered three reasons for objecting to the proposal. Their first argument was cost, their second was disincentive, and their third was that the Government were helping mothers anyway by a back-to-work bonus. None of those arguments is sufficiently persuasive to overturn the amendment.
As to cost, a modest disregard to the mother of, say, £5 per week would cost about £85 million after the back-to-work bonus had been netted off. I accept that that is not a small sum but it is almost exactly the sum which the Government have allocated to absent fathers to soften the effect of the CSA. When the Government allocated that £85 million they did not talk about additional costs but about reduced savings. I agree with them; we too are talking about reduced savings for the parent with care. Fewer savings will be flowing because some modest protection will be given to the mother with children in order that she is not worse off. I am sure that today the Minister will not wish to argue that £85 million given to fathers is reduced savings but that £85 million given to mothers is additional costs. I am sure that in all consistency he will wish to apply the same standard in an even-handed way to both parties.
The Government made more of their second argument that a modest disregard would deter lone parents from returning to work. I ask the House in all reasonableness whether a modest disregard of £5 to £10 per week will make a difference as regards a lone parent returning to work. Will £5 per week be the key determinant of whether a mother returns to work? Of course not—we know that that is not the case. Most lone parents want to work. They remain on benefit for an average of only two to three years until the youngest child is of school age. They usually then come off benefit and go back to work. They have been unable to return to work earlier because they have small children of one or two years of age and they do not wish and often cannot afford to find alternative child care for their infants. Are we really pressing reluctant mothers to leave tots of one to two-and-a-half years of age in the hands of others? Are we really saying that having lost their fathers they should now lose their mothers to work, against the wish of their mothers? And that from the party of the family!
What above all restricts women returning to work is child care on the one hand and the lack of available jobs on the other. But once the children are of school age, most lone parents find their way back into the labour market. Whether they do or not, I am sure that all noble Lords will acknowledge that a £5 or a £8 disregard will make no difference whatever. In any event, the Government have accepted that part of the maintenance will be rolled up and returned to the mother at the rate of £5 per week as a back-to-work bonus when she
1250
returns to work. Why? This is not a Jobseekers Bill; it is meant to be a Child Support Bill. Why then are we giving her a rolled up maintenance disregard, called a "back-to-work bonus", when she is returning to work and therefore has the prospect of being better off rather than when she has children who are dependent on her and when she cannot work and is poorer? That is deeply perverse.
The Government have accepted that with the back-to-work bonus women receive a modest fraction of the maintenance as a disregard. However, they give it to the mothers when they need it less rather than when they need it more. They give it to them when they are leaving their children to work rather than when they are staying at home to care for them. I call that wrong-headed. Lone parents on benefit are very poor. They are often ill-fed, ill-clothed, in poor health and in deep debt. Replacing income support with maintenance will make many of them poorer still.
At a time when the Government are aiding absent fathers—and quite rightly—it is not fair that they are ignoring the plight of mothers who are always much worse off than absent fathers, given the construction of the maintenance system. It is not fair. But we know that mothers with care will not go on strike; they will not desert their children; they will not defy the law; and they will not refuse to do what they are required to do. Whatever the price, they will look after, stay with, and care for their children and to that extent he law-abiding. We punish women for the fact that they obey the law and we have been rewarding the men who break it. I believe that that is unfair.
This amendment would be more even-handed. It would balance the situation between mothers and fathers. It is simple and it is not expensive. It would stop women being worse off by going from income support to maintenance and it would support what will always remain a fragile first family. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I get down to business, I hope that I shall be forgiven for taking a moment to congratulate Mr. Alistair Burt on his promotion to the rank of Minister of State. It is a well earned promotion and I am happy to congratulate him on it. I wish to say to those outside the Chamber who may read the debate that Mr. Burt is not to blame for this Act being on the statute book. Actions against him personally are not the way to change it. An Under-Secretary in our system is a private soldier in the ministerial army. He does not give orders. It is a mark of his unusual stature among Under-Secretaries that even though these changes are quite inadequate he has managed to produce as much change as he has. If we are looking for people to blame for the 1991 Act, we do not look for Under-Secretaries who came in afterwards. But we must reflect that the classic line that the evil that men do lives after them is a sexist remark.
Now that it has been decided that the attitude to broken marriages—which I might perhaps describe cursorily as the Gospel according to St. Mellons—is

1251
apocryphal within the Conservative Party, perhaps we may give slightly more thought to this issue than it has been possible to give it before.
At this stage, I shall not take up the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about rewarding those who break the law. She is wrong and we shall return to that on another occasion. But in this instance, and for once on this Bill, these Benches and those Benches happen to think alike. This is a good and important amendment and on these Benches we support it with all the strength that we can muster.
One important argument in favour of the amendment is that it gives people an incentive to pay. A large number of men want to support their children but they do not wish to pay more to relieve the Treasury or other taxpayers. If people who are asked to pay maintenance knew that their children would be better off as a result, there would be a much greater degree of compliance than there is at present.
If, as the Government presumably want, the Act is to survive at all, it is necessary to make people a great deal more willing to comply with it than they are now. It would make the women, many of whom are extremely poor, better off than they are now instead of having them, as they are as a result of the present operation of the 1991 Act, often worse off than if they remained on benefit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is quite right about the effect of passported benefits. I had hoped that, as we had in 1991, we might have an amendment to deal specifically with that problem. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, divided the House upon the matter and I very much wish that he had been successful.
Of course, the provision of school meals is likely to affect the vast majority of people affected by this Act. If you have a large family and you lose free school meals, you are losing a very substantial part of your necessary weekly income. Therefore, many women who receive maintenance as a result of the implementation of the 1991 Act are worse off than they were when they received benefits.
Again, if we are to achieve the consent which the Act needs for its operation, it is necessary that somebody should be seen to benefit. If this amendment were agreed to and the disregard were to be made sufficiently large, we might perhaps be able to argue that some of the poverty among women had been relieved. On these Benches, we should very much welcome that.
The next important matter is that the amendment would make it easier for the women concerned to enter employment. I simply do not understand why the Minister thinks that it would act as a disincentive. One of the greatest difficulties if you are trying to get off benefit into employment, especially if you are a single mother in that position, is the costs created by returning to work. You need to pay fares. Certainly if you are living in or near London that is likely to be a substantial cost. You will need to arrange childcare, and we shall return to that later. But the initial costs of childcare, especially the costs before the first pay cheque comes in, can be a considerable handicap in returning to work.
1252
This amendment would play a small, modest part towards solving those problems. For that reason, we welcome it.
The effect might be similar to, for example, the jobseeker's grant and other measures announced in the last Budget. On these Benches, and I believe on the Opposition Benches generally, we welcomed those measures. It is in that same spirit that we propose the amendment.
We do not believe that the back-to-work bonus is a substitute and, frankly, it appears to us to be a gimmick. It does not do very much to help. Regular money coming in every week would do a great deal more.
The other matter which I believe is particularly important in relation to the amendment is that it would provide women with an incentive to co-operate with the Act. Miss Chant, giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, said that even women were not co-operating with the Act. I do not know why she was so surprised. That is what most of the rest of us expected. But if we want them to co-operate, we must give them an incentive. We must try to get back to the spirit of legislation which helps people to do what they want to do in any event. That greatly reduces the problems of enforcement.
Of course, if we were to give women a carrot to operate the Act, we should not need the stick. If there was a disregard, we could do without the objectionable benefit penalty which has caused a good deal of hardship and injustice and a great deal of administrative labour and general confusion. Therefore, if we lead people to act in their own interests instead of harrying, chasing, whipping and scorpioning them and so on, we should get on a great deal better. This amendment would do a great deal of good and we are happy to support it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not wish to say anything on the merits of the amendment but I should like to address a few words about the phrase with which the noble Baroness introduced it; namely, that she is in favour of the Child Support Agency. I can only say that if she is still in favour of it after its disasters, anomalies and administrative chaos—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I said that I was in favour of the principle of the Child Support Agency. I chose the word deliberately because I did not wish to be associated with the administrative chaos that has subsequently followed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the principle of the Child Support Agency was that a jurisdiction that had belonged to the justices of the peace since they were set up in the 13th century was transferred to a government agency. That government agency was to apply a series of formulae which your Lordships will have an opportunity to examine on a later amendment. As I said, that has caused not only administrative chaos but also grave hardship, great injustice and such indignation that the postbags of Members of another place were even fuller in relation to that matter than they were in relation to the poll tax.

1253
If one can believe that the Child Support Agency is right in principle, that is the charm of fidelity to an idea rather than to experience. It is very natural that anyone who seems to have the gift of perennial youth should tend to be caught in a political time warp. I fear that that is what has happened to the noble Baroness. We are so much in her debt that we try to exculpate her and find a scapegoat. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has such a fund of good will, we tend to blame him. He should have told the noble Baroness that Sidney Webb is now dead. I see that the noble Lord wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Can he explain the exact connection between Sidney Webb and the maintenance disregard?
4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I was taking up the very phrase with which the noble Baroness introduced the amendment and which should not go undisputed; namely, that one favours the Child Support Agency as against the jurisdiction of the justices of the peace. As I said, the justices of the peace were established in the Middle Ages. They took cognisance of the maintenance of children in the parish and of deserted women and enforced the obligation on what we now call the absent parent. They did so under common law until the end of the last century when their jurisdiction was codified in the 1895 Act. They were then to do what the Child Support Agency was supposed to do—to ensure that absent fathers maintained their children so far as was reasonable in all the circumstances. That is exactly what is claimed for the CSA and in respect of which it has woefully fallen down.
The justices of the peace—the magistrature—no doubt being human beings, could have been improved in their proceedings. Indeed, I know that the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, have ideas which I share on how the system might be improved; that is, by the institution of a family court. That was powerfully argued, too, in 1991 by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. What he said on that occasion could well bear rereading, if I may make so bold with the noble Baroness.
In the Courts and Legal Services Act we welcomed a measure that your Lordships will remember—the specialist family county court. We welcomed it as a step towards a family court. The 1991 Act which is now under review, confirmed in that respect by this Act, was a notable step away. I was presuming to complain of the noble Baroness being caught in a time-warp in that no one had told her that Fabianism is not at the top of the agenda of her party at present; that a centralised bureaucratic state is no longer to be advertised; that the apparatchiks of the Soviet empire are not to be admired; and that that empire should no longer be regarded as the fatherland of the working class, or the monster at its head referred to affectionately as "Uncle Joe". All that is gone.
However, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was particularly to blame in not having drawn to the attention of the noble Baroness the fact that Clause
1254
4 has now been revised and that Clause 28 is now considered to be seven times more important. For those reasons, the Child Support Agency—a body of bureaucrats—has arrogated the jurisdiction that was being carried on by the body which is called "the great unpaid" and at great cost. What the noble Baroness said at the outset should not go entirely unchallenged, at least from these Benches.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, and with the leave of the House, I have one question for him. Does he consider that his attitude to the amendment—and, indeed to later amendments—will be regarded as attempting to wreck the Bill?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if we could only come rapidly to Amendment No. 15 which deals with the appointment of a child support advisory committee and pass it, then nine-tenths of the remaining amendments on the Marshalled List could be withdrawn. That is the way to do the business this afternoon.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if we could only come rapidly to Amendment No. 47, I suspect that your Lordships might be a great deal happier. However, perhaps I may begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the congratulations that he extended to my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt. I am grateful for what the noble Earl said about my honourable friend and I shall certainly pass those remarks on to him.
Both the amendments that we are discussing deal with the maintenance disregard in income support. In fact, this is the third time during the proceedings on the Bill that we have discussed the issue. It is clearly a subject which generates strong feeling on both sides of the House—or perhaps I should say on all sides.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, argued his case—and I shall not deal with it in any great detail because it goes quite a long way from the subject of the amendment—against the whole concept, preferring that such matters be returned to the court system which, clearly in his view, was markedly better. I have already explained to the House that the previous system had many inconsistencies in it. Indeed, the figure arrived at as maintenance through all those inconsistencies was often extremely low, partly because the Bench knew that the taxpayer would pick up the tabs in any case. Even when granted—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, was it ever as low as the one penny a week which the CSA managed in one case to leave to a divorced father?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that that question is terribly relevant. Indeed, that was part of one of the difficult administrative problems that we had. It is not a matter of the principles of the way that the system works. That ought not to be the case and I hope that it will not be the case in the future. I do not know whether the courts went as low as awarding one penny; indeed, I doubt whether they did. But the awards were certainly not very high and they certainly did not cover anything like the costs of the children. Moreover, in very many cases, even when they came to a conclusion, the courts did not have the

1255
mechanisms for ensuring that the money was paid. Perhaps the parents with care in those distant halcyon days when the courts had such responsibility would not join the noble and learned Lord in thinking that that was a sensible way to work. I see that the noble Earl wishes to intervene. I give way.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. However, as he introduced such a general point, perhaps I may ask him, before he again blames the courts for what was wrong in the old system, to think about the points made on Second Reading by his noble friend Lady Faithfull.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords, but I should point out that I did not introduce the subject; indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, introduced the more general debate. However, I have thought about that and I noted what my noble friend said. I believe that I indicated in Committee—although, if I did not, it is because it has arisen since—that I actually had occasion to discuss those days with someone who was in the post of looking after parents with care and trying to secure money from absent parents. I have to say that her recollection of the situation does not match that of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. In any case I suspect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will never be persuaded by anyone, far less myself, as regards his view that lawyers and courts ought to be left to deal with absolutely everything and that they can be relied on to do it in a totally sensible way.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I apologise for again intervening in the noble Lord's speech, but are the courts not being left to deal with the maintenance of the mothers? If they can deal with the maintenance of the mothers, why can they not deal with the maintenance of the children? Is it not quite ludicrous to suppose that those two matters can be adjudicated upon differently?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, what the courts do now in the case of divorce—as the noble and learned Lord knows—as regards the relationship between the husband and wife is to attempt, as far as is humanly possible, to institute what I think is called a clean break. As I believe I have said on a number of occasions, there can never be a clean break from the children, and that is where the Child Support Agency comes in. As I indicated as I was about to leave this particular diversion, I doubt whether I shall ever be able to persuade the noble and learned Lord that any system would be an improvement on what the courts did or would do if they were granted the powers to look after these issues again.
I shall deal first of all with Amendment No. 13 as it is the key amendment which introduces the disregard. We have given considerable thought to the arguments put forward both here and in another place for a disregard. But despite the passionate and eloquent speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and others, we remain firmly of the view that a maintenance disregard in income support is not the best way of providing help for lone parents or other parents with
1256
care. In a speech in Committee which some noble Lords will remember as it covered much the same ground as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, mentioned in her speech today, she gave five reasons in favour of her proposal. While she has not enunciated them as five points this afternoon, I believe she has encompassed every one of them in her contribution. I wish to consider each of them separately.
The first point that the noble Baroness makes, and I have no doubt that she will return to it on a number of occasions during the day, is that lone parents and their children are poor. However, I should point out that we already spend—or taxpayers spend—something like £9 billion each year supporting lone parents. That is a considerable sum. Since 1979 poorer lone parents have seen a real increase in their income. It is also the case that since 1988 extra help, which is now worth over £1 billion a year, has been given to low income families, and of course that includes many lone parents. It is important to recognise the considerable amount of money which has already been spent on supporting lone parents and to ensure that any additional expenditure is effective. I believe that overall the child maintenance bonus will be of more real and lasting benefit to lone parents than would a disregard in income support.
The second point is the loss of passported benefits such as free school meals and free prescriptions for the parent with care when the payment of maintenance lifts her off income support. This implies that maintenance is somehow different from other sources of income which may also lift parents off income support benefits or indeed all benefits. We must remember that the financial provision for children is properly the responsibility of parents who can afford it and should not be passed on to the taxpayer through the benefit system. Parents with care lifted off income support may in any case be able to claim housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as help with NHS charges, on grounds of low income. They may also be eligible for family credit if they take up employment, and family credit rates include an element to cover the costs of school meals. I recognise that some parents with care will have to meet charges from which they have previously been exempt, but receipt of maintenance is in this respect no different from receipt of other forms of income.
I believe that the noble Baroness suggested that the £5 disregard would somehow compensate for the loss of passported benefits. I do not believe it would because, if the parent with care stays on income support, she receives the passported benefits regardless of whether there is a disregard. All a disregard does is to shift upwards by that amount the level of income at which the parent with care would be floated off income support. Once floated off, at whatever level of income she loses these passported benefits.
The third point made in her speech on a previous occasion by the noble Baroness was that a maintenance disregard would give an incentive to both the absent parent and the parent with care to co-operate in seeking and paying maintenance. I believe that point was also made by the noble Earl. I have previously made the point that I do not believe that a disregard will

1257
encourage absent parents who are reluctant payers to become committed payers. Many who refuse to pay take this line on the grounds of their fundamental objection to the child support system and not because maintenance is fully taken into account when assessing income support. As I said on 19th June, the regular receipt of maintenance can transform the lives of parents with care and their children by opening up opportunities for employment. This fact alone ought to be enough to convince absent parents that maintenance was of value to their children if they were genuinely looking to be convinced that they should pay. The claim that a disregard would encourage parents with care to co-operate is equally debatable. Reference was made in Committee to the possible collusion between parents with care and absent parents to avoid the effects of a reduced benefit direction.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The point about collusion has been made many times before. Is there a single piece of hard evidence to sustain it, and, if so, could we please hear it?
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was in the midst of explaining that. I shall not produce hard evidence because I am simply speculating that it may happen. To the extent that this may happen, it is a risky route for the parent with care as she will have no means of ensuring that the absent parent will actually pay the money he offers each week. She will also be acting fraudulently if she fails to declare any maintenance received. The maintenance bonus, which forms part of this Bill, will give parents with care a real bonus when they begin work of 16 hours or more a week. Parents with care will come to realise that they are losing money if they collude in this way.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that the back-to-work bonus was a gimmick. He seemed to suggest that a £5 a week disregard would help the parent with care at the moment that that person decides to move into work from being out of work. I suggest to your Lordships that the back-to-work bonus that we are instituting in this case would build up over what I accept is quite a long period. Nevertheless it will build up and it will give the lady—it usually is a lady—a great deal more than £5 in the week or two in which she makes the leap from being out of work to being in work.
I would therefore suggest that it is not a gimmick but rather it is an important way to help a parent with care move from income support to being in work. I have said this in relation to the Jobseekers Bill as well as here. The parent with care will have various start-up costs associated with a return to work. It is for that reason that in this Bill and in the Jobseekers Bill we have instituted the back-to-work bonus, as we called it in the Jobseekers Bill, so that people will have something to use to cross that bridge. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis; and it is important that we try to find a way across that bridge. To be honest,I do not think that
1258
a £5 a week disregard is anything like a substitute for a back-to-work bonus which would be paid at the time the bridge is crossed.
The fourth point—it is a point which is often made and it has been made again today—is about greater equity between parents with care and absent parents in the context of the package introduced by this Bill and the changes to regulations which we introduced in April. As I said in my response at the time, a number of measures in the Bill benefit the parent with care, for example the departure scheme, the child maintenance bonus and the compensation for family credit and disability working allowance recipients. But the measures both in this Bill and in the changes to regulations which I introduced to your Lordships in April will remove the legitimate causes of concern of absent parents and should ensure that more of them co-operate in meeting their maintenance liability. That should ensure that more maintenance is paid more regularly to more children.
The noble Baroness referred to net costs of £85 million for the £5 per week disregard. I believe that she calculates that as the long-term costs of the disregard less the cost of the child maintenance bonus. We calculate that the long-term costs are £110 million. Whether one looks at it as reduced savings or increased costs, £85 million is a significant sum to spend on a disregard in income support, with all its disadvantages.
Both I and my colleagues in another place have said that we think that it is right that resources should be directed at easing the transition from income support into work. Furthermore, the long-run costs of disregard were calculated on the basis that that disregard would apply only to cases where maintenance was being paid. The amendment provides for disregard to apply to all maintenance due. I believe that that would be inappropriate since it cannot be right to disregard something that is not actually being paid; it would also further increase the cost to the taxpayer.
However, to respond to one of the points that was made, there is no assumption on our part that lone parents should be at work rather than at home. I fully accept that some parents with care will decide that it is appropriate to stay at home to care for their children, particularly when those children are young. It is for the parent with care to decide what is right for her. Surveys of lone parents show that most want to return to work, and the child maintenance bonus will help them to do so. A parent with care who builds up the bonus steadily over time, say from the time her child is a year old, will be entitled to the full £1,000 if she starts work when the child starts school.
The final point made by the noble Baroness was the need for extra help while the parent with care is on income support because many already work and incur child care costs. However, lone parents already benefit from a higher disregard of earnings within income support, getting a £15 disregard compared with the £5 given to others. That is given in recognition of the extra in-work costs, including child care in those cases where it is needed.

1259
As I said at the beginning, we have considered this issue seriously. I listened to and have considered the points made by your Lordships when we debated the matter at Committee stage. However, for the reasons that I have outlined, I remain of the view that this is not the best way to proceed.
As the noble Baroness explained, Amendment No. 2 is intended to ensure that parents with care who benefit from the disregard proposed by the amendment I have just discussed are protected from losing any of the benefit of that disregard as a result of a departure direction in favour of the absent parent. It is consequential on the major amendment, and my arguments are similar.
For all the reasons that I have put forward, I cannot accept that we should have a child maintenance disregard for this particular type of payment. I know that the noble Baroness feels strongly about the matter. It is not that I do not understand the argument, but I believe on balance that the position we have taken is the right one. If the noble Baroness decides to put the amendment to the test I invite my noble friends to support me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first I should like to comment briefly on the contributions of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I appreciate that we disagree on the principle of the Child Support Agency, but I am happy that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who frequently shares the same view on such matters as I do, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, nonetheless support the amendment. The amendment would ensure that women with children—the parents with care—were no worse off because they received maintenance rather than income support pound for pound. It provides that no one should be worse off because they co-operate with the agency and replace their income support with maintenance. Without the amendment many women will be worse off as a result of co-operating with the agency. That is a fact.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, teased me, as to be fair he warned me he would, about Fabianism. He said that I was not aware that the age of Fabianism was dead. However, as George Bernard Shaw and the early Fabians argued, Fabianism was the application of reason to social problems. Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, quite so sure that he wishes to dissociate himself from that? Does he really favour its opposite, irrationality?—and that from a very distinguished Law Lord.
As for the Government's view and the points made by the Minister, I rather feel that they have helped to reinforce my points for me, even if the Minister answered the speech made in Committee rather than on Report.
First, we argued then and now that lone parents are very poor. The Government did not deny that. Secondly, we argued that under the Bill those poor lone parents will be made poorer still because they will lose passported benefits. The Government did not deny that.
Thirdly, we argued that such a modest maintenance disregard would increase co-operation and consent to
1260
the Bill. The Government doubt that. However, it is the case that 18,000 mothers with care are refusing now to co-operate with the agency for apparently no good cause. We do not know the reason, but it is certainly not because of a fear of violence. Is the Minister so sure that some of those mothers with care would not now be co-operating with the agency if they were to receive a maintenance disregard? There is anecdotal evidence on our side. There is none on the Minister's side. Therefore, we have no reason not to believe that a modest disregard would ensure that more mothers and more fathers would willingly co-operate with this law. Surely none of us doubts that co-operation and consent are at the core of the CSA, as reformed, being effective in the years to come. Without them, it will not be effective.
Fourthly, the Minister referred to the back-to-work bonus which, as he said, is a maintenance disregard paid when the mother leaves her children to go back to work. The Minister said, perfectly reasonably, that that is a decision for the mother and the Government should not make the decision for her. She must judge when it is right, and it would be unreasonable for her to leave her children when they are very small. We agree. It is the mother's choice. Then why is it that the Government are loading the maintenance disregard to construct that choice so that the mother is given a bait—a carrot—to go back to work? If the Government were genuinely neutral about allowing a mother to make the best choice given the age of her family, she would have the choice of a maintenance disregard paid weekly or a maintenance disregard rolled up as a lump sum to be paid at the point when she returns to work.
The fact that the Government will not offer that choice between the two options means that they are loading it in favour of the mother with young children, who may be a year old or two-and-a-half years old. She is being persuaded and pressured by the Government, as a result of the back-to-work bonus, to leave them in the hands of someone else, often reluctantly, to go back to work. As the party of the family, and as the House of the family, we should not do that.
The Minister said that it was the mother's choice. What the Minister accepts and did not challenge at any point in his reply is that a mother with care receiving maintenance in place of income support will often be worse off. Is that what we want? Do we really want a mother with care to be worse off unless she is forced back into work by the back-to-work bonus? Is that fair? Is that reasonable? Is it even-handed? Is it wise social policy? I do not believe that it is, and I shall seek the opinion of the House on the matter.
4.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 80; Not-Contents, 151.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Jeger, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Avebury, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Judd, L.

Birk, B.

Kennet, L.

Blackstone, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cross, V.

Molloy, L.

David, B.

Monkswell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Donoughue, L.

Nelson, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Ogmore, L.

Eatwell, L.

Peston, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Ezra, L

Rea, L.

Falkender, B.

Redesdale, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B

Rochester, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Freyberg, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stallard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stedman, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Strafford, E.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hanworth, V.

Tope, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Tordoff, L.

Haskel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Wharton, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

White, B.

Hooson, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chesham, L.

Abinger, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Addison, V.

Cockfield, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Courtown, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cox, B.

Ampthill, L.

Craigavon, V.

Arran, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Astor of Hever, L.

Balfour, E.

Cranworth, L.

Barber, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Davidson, V.

Beloff, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Birdwood, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Denman, L.

Bolton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Donegall, M.

Brentford, V.

Downshire, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Dudley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Burnham, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Cadman, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Caldecote, V.

Elles, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Elton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Ferrers, E.

1262

Finsberg, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Flather, B.

Moyne, L.

Foley, L.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Newall, L.

Gainford, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Norfolk, D.

Geddes, L.

Norrie, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northesk, E.

Goschen, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Gridley, L.

Onslow, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Orkney, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Harrowby, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Pender, L.

Henley, L.

Perry of South wark, B.

Hogg, B.

Pike, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hooper, B.

Pym, L.

Hothfield, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Howe, E.

Rawlings, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renwick, L.

Inglewood, L.

Romney, E.

Jeffreys, L.

Salisbury, M.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kimball, L.

Sharpies, B.

Kingsland, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Knollys, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Knutsford, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Lane of Horsell, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Leigh, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lindsay, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Suffield, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Teviot, L.

Lucas, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Torphichen, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Waterford, M.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wedgwood, L.

Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Merrivale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Mersey, V.

Wise, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wolfson, L.

Milverton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert:
("() Where—

(a) as a result of a review of the current assessment, a fresh maintenance assessment is made which results in a reduction in the child support maintenance being paid to the person with care, and

(b) that person with care is in receipt of family credit

the amount of family credit shall immediately be re-calculated to take account of the reduction in child support maintenance.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I speak also to Amendment No. 46. The amendment refers to the issue of family credit. The income of many lone parents in low paid work will come from three quarters in future: their earnings; their

1263
maintenance; and their in-work benefit, family credit. There are 250,000 parents with care who are on family credit. However, unlike income support, family credit is calculated for six months at a time. There are perfectly sound advantages in that approach but in the context of child support there is one major disadvantage. I suspect that the Government recognise that it is a major disadvantage. I believe that we should, if we can, overcome it.
If family credit is fixed for six months at a time to top up the low pay plus maintenance to the prescribed figure and the maintenance falters or falls, then, because family credit is fixed for that period the sum will not rise to compensate for the loss of maintenance. Therefore the parent with care, struggling with small children, in low paid work, will find herself without the full family credit that she needs.
Why would family credit falter? Why would maintenance falter? For two obvious reasons. First, the absent father may fail to pay regularly because he seeks to avoid his responsibilities and, secondly, because his situation has changed. For example, he may have lost his job or taken a different job with lower pay and his maintenance contribution falls. But because the family credit is fixed for six months at a time, the woman may be stuck for five months on family credit which is lower than it should be because it was calculated when her maintenance was higher than it is. We believe that that is deeply unfair; hence this amendment which would uncouple family credit from maintenance payments. In other words, in addition to the woman's low earnings, she would receive family credit as in-work benefit. In the amendment we ask that the CSA should collect and keep from the absent father the maintenance to which the woman is entitled. The CSA would instead pay it all to her.
Thus, as with income support, the CSA would hand over the £15 disregard and keep 70 per cent. of the maintenance collected over and beyond the income support level. In an age of computers it would not be difficult to calibrate the family credit calculations. The proposal means that the CSA would pay the family credit plus maintenance jointly and assume that the maintenance remained constant at the figure first thought of when family credit was set. The CSA would then be responsible for collecting the maintenance from the father just as with income support arrangements. There would be no difference. That would protect the six month rule but would ensure that the parent with care was not penalised should maintenance falter. It need not be compulsory and provided that the Child Support Agency collects maintenance efficiently, the only cost would be administrative. If the agency does not collect efficiently, then it is not fair that the burden should fall on the parent rather than the CSA.
In such a situation, knowing that the additions to the woman's income are secure and in addition to her earnings from work, she can rely on a family credit and maintenance figure that remains unchanging. Provided the mother knows that, then, as the parent with care, she would try to remain in work. But without the amendment, should her maintenance falter and her
1264
family credit not float up to reflect it, the wise woman will leave work and go back onto income support to obtain a new adjustment of benefit. None of us would wish to see that, but it would be entirely sensible and rational for the woman.
I believe that the Government understand the problem because they have made adaptations to family credits following their own change in regulations so that the woman is not worse off. We are saying that the woman should not be worse off if the husband's circumstances change and, as a result, the family credit is frozen at an unrealistically low level for six months at a time. The amendment would take away the problem of the six months rule. It is sensible, not expensive and would make the Bill work better. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the basic case for the amendment is one which the noble Baroness and I both made in response to the regulations of February 1994. The case is a strong one. The Government's response to it in Clause 24 of the Bill, though better than nothing, is definitely not adequate. The amendment will make it a good deal better. We are happy to support it. I shall not gild the lily because the noble Baroness put practically all the arguments in favour of the amendment.
However, I ask the Minister one crucial question. Is it the purpose of the 1991 Act that the parent with care should benefit? If the answer is yes, then the Minister must accept the amendment. If the answer is no, then it would be a strong argument in favour of the repeal of the 1991 Act.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these two amendments are both concerned with the way in which child maintenance is taken into account in awards of family credit. Amendment No. 3 is concerned with the fixed award period of 26 weeks. This is a very important feature of the family credit scheme because it ensures that the working family has a stable source of income for the 26 weeks. It works to the advantage of most families because increases in earnings during that period are not eroded by reductions in the benefit. The amendment would breach that fundamental feature of the scheme by providing for the family credit to be reassessed when the maintenance is reduced. But, of course, maintenance can go up or down. If the amendment were accepted, it would not be reasonable to take account only of reductions in maintenance without also taking account of increases of maintenance or where maintenance is awarded for the first time.
At present, persons with care gain the full advantage of new awards of maintenance or increases of maintenance until their family credit becomes due for renewal. There is no reason why maintenance should be treated any differently from any other income taken into account in the family credit assessment. It could be argued that any other income would be likely to increase or decrease. Changes in maintenance are part of the usual pattern of income which can increase or decrease throughout the award and do not warrant special provision.

1265
Furthermore, it is difficult to see quite how the amendment would work. Because compliance is not 100 per cent., family credit needs to be based on actual maintenance being paid rather than on the maintenance assessment itself. If the maintenance assessment reduces, it is likely to be several weeks before a clear pattern of compliance emerges. It would not therefore be feasible to provide for an immediate reassessment of the family credit.
Taking account of changes in circumstances turns a simple scheme, the family credit scheme, providing a guaranteed source of income, into a much more complicated scheme with the inherent problems of delays and mistakes. We have recognised that there is a particular problem when maintenance is reduced because of a change in the child support legislation. That is why we have included in Clause 24 of the Bill provision for compensation to be paid to parents with care in this situation. In fact, we have already, in advance of the Bill, paid compensation to parents with care whose maintenance assessment was reduced as a result of the changes in child support regulations which came into force in April.
Amendment No. 46 builds on a long-standing arrangement whereby a single payment is made to people on income support which represents the total of their maintenance and their income support. It seeks to extend that arrangement to family credit and disability working allowance. The amendment is complemented by Amendment No. 3 which provides for the review of an award of family credit or disability working allowance when maintenance is reduced.
This payment arrangement is entirely suitable for income support, and for income-based jobseeker's allowance when it is introduced, because income support is calculated according to the amount of income received each week and takes maintenance fully into account. If the amount of maintenance due to be paid in any week is not received, the benefit recipient is entitled to receive an equivalent extra amount of benefit. Making one payment for the total of maintenance and income support avoids the problems for both the claimant and the Benefits Agency which would arise from the need for a revised assessment to be made each time maintenance was not received.
But the basis on which family credit and disability working allowance are paid is completely different. Both benefits are awarded for fixed periods of 26 weeks and take account of the amount of income being received immediately before the claim rather than the amount received week by week. The benefits take no account of fluctuations in any income during the 26 weeks of the award period. Non-receipt of the amount of maintenance taken into account in calculating the award does not result in extra benefit being due, as it does in income support. We should be getting away from the basic principles of these benefits if we treated maintenance within family credit and disability working allowance in the same way as it is treated in income support. An important further difficulty arises from the fact that—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Can he explain his reasoning further? He said that we should not treat maintenance within family credit in the same way as we would treat it within income support. I believe that that was the sense of it. Can he say why not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have explained that. I am surprised that the noble Baroness asks why. She knows that if income support is calculated at, to take an example, £50 a week it may represent income support of £30 and £20 maintenance. But that person in receipt of income support is still due £50 whether or not he or she is in receipt of maintenance. If the income support or the maintenance goes down, the person will still receive the £50.
The point of family credit is that it contains a £15 disregard. I shall come to why there is a significant difference between the two. As I tried to explain to the noble Baroness, with income support, maintenance is taken into account pound for pound against the benefit. But in family credit, the first £15 and at least 30 per cent. of the balance is disregarded. As a result, only the remaining balance can be provided for in any payment which represents the total maintenance taken into account, and indeed the benefit itself. For example, out of a maintenance payment of £20 a week, no more than £3.50 would be taken into account in the assessment and so be provided for in the benefit payment. If the payment is £20, a £15 disregard leaves £5; 70 per cent. of that is £3.50. It would simply not be possible to provide for the full payment of maintenance. To do so would mean the benefits system covering expenditure that was greater than the benefit entitlement. In comparing a person in receipt of family credit who has no maintenance with a person who receives maintenance, the noble Baroness asks us to take a road that could mean that if the maintenance were not paid the taxpayer would end up paying through family credit more than the person was entitled to, and more than was received by the next-door neighbour in the same circumstances except as regards maintenance.
Revising awards of family credit each—
Earl Russell: My Lords, it becomes important to ask the Minister whether he intends to answer my question: was it the purpose of the 1991 Act that the parent with care should benefit? If I do not receive an answer, I may find the Minister's silence eloquent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl, with his clever question, knows jolly well that the answer is that it is to benefit the parent with care. Earlier, I pointed out how family credit works. The parent with care, already on family credit and beginning to receive maintenance income during the—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. He said just before my intervention that it was wrong for a woman receiving maintenance to be worse off than a woman not receiving maintenance. If the purpose of the maintenance payment is to benefit the woman, why?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, either the noble Earl misheard me or I did not make my point about the neighbour carefully enough. I attempted to

1267
draw a comparison between two people living side by side, one of whom had no cause to receive maintenance but whose circumstance of work and family was the same apart from not being in a position to receive maintenance—perhaps, for instance, because her husband was dead—and in receipt of family credit, and a woman living next door, for example, doing the same job, in receipt of the same income and the same family credit but also in receipt of maintenance. I was trying to explain that the amendment could result in a situation in which, if the absent parent ceased to pay maintenance, one woman would receive a family credit payment of something like £66.50 in the example I am using, whereas the other woman would receive only £50. That was the comparison I was trying to make; it was not a comparison between one parent with care receiving maintenance and another not receiving maintenance. I know that this is a complicated issue. I hope I have made my point clear.
The important point is that, looking at family credit as a help for all people on low incomes who take low-income jobs and have family responsibilities—taking the whole field and not just the narrow field of people receiving maintenance—the great merit, the principle, of family credit is that it runs for 26 weeks. If we start to break it down only on the plus side, as the noble Baroness wants to do, and one section is eligible for family credit, it becomes very difficult to argue against the woman whose income goes down at work during the 26 weeks; and it then becomes very difficult to argue against recalculating family credit if the maintenance goes up, or indeed, as I mentioned in my speech, if the maintenance starts during the 26-week period. There is huge merit in the 26-week period being fixed. Leaving aside all the problems that I mentioned in relation to the arithmetic of family credit, I do not believe that it would be sensible and wise to go down either road that I am invited down by the amendments. I am afraid that I cannot accept either.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister—at least I think I thank him—for that reply. We have now debated two amendments. The first related to the fact that, as a result of this Bill, parents with care out of work can be worse off. We tried to remedy that in the previous amendment with a maintenance disregard. Noble Lords overwhelmingly defeated that attempt and accepted that parents with care out of work can, and perhaps should, be worse off when their maintenance displaces their benefit. That was the last decision of this House.
Now we are dealing with a second amendment which relates to the fact that the parent with care who is in work and on family credit can also become worse off by receiving maintenance because of the six months rule. The Government rejected the first amendment. I had hoped that they might not reject the second.
I believe that the Government misrepresented the function of this amendment—whether as the result of an error of draftsmanship on our part, which I hope is not the case, though perhaps it may be, or because they misunderstood its purpose, I do not know. But it is not the case that with this amendment we argue that family
1268
credit should be constantly reassessed in the light of maintenance. That is not our argument because we do not want in any way to impugn the principle of the 26-week rule. We are trying to uncouple family credit from maintenance arrangements. In other words, we are making use of the fact that the CSA could be a collection agency for family credit and maintenance, as it is for income support and maintenance. Just as, if maintenance falters, income support goes up, there is no reason, since the CSA is a collection agency, why, if maintenance falters, family credit should not go up.
The Minister says that that can also apply to earnings—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in the example I tried to give, I suggested to the noble Baroness that the payment could actually exceed what a person was due under family credit. So the noble Baroness asks us to go a great deal further than she tries to make out in her speech.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure the Minister would not want me to toss back at him the phrase that he often uses to me; namely, that if he could contain himself for just a moment I shall be very happy to come to that point. The Minister will perhaps forgive me; it was irresistible, and I promise not to say it again.
This amendment would uncouple family credit from payment of maintenance. The Minister made the point that if family credit were to float up and down according to maintenance, it might equally apply to earnings. That is not so. We accept that family credit is an in-work benefit associated with earnings level. The difference here is that maintenance is meant by government to displace family credit pound for pound, once the disregard and the 70 per cent./30 per cent. taper are taken into account. That is why it is in a different category from that suggested by the Minister.
The technical issues of the £15 disregard, the 30 per cent. balance, and even the fact that someone might appear to he paying more are all mechanical matters. It is perfectly possible to write into the programme that no one should receive more under this arrangement than they would if they received no maintenance whatever. That is perfectly easy to put into any such programme. It is a mechanical and technical matter which can easily be overcome.
The fact remains that, as it stands, if a woman goes on to family credit, goes back to work, receives maintenance and that maintenance falters, her family credit does not float up to compensate; she is worse off. At present she would be wise to do what neither the Minister nor we would want her to do; namely, to leave work, go back on to income support, float up the calculation and start afresh. If she did that, she would be financially very sensible. As the Bill is now structured, she would have a perverse incentive to leave work in the hope of—I give way to the Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness is very keen on the perverse incentives. All these systems have their difficulties at the margins. But does she agree with me that, if a woman comes in the second half of the 26 weeks and has a job, it would be puzzling and perverse of her if she were to leave

1269
work because of the problem illustrated by the noble Baroness. Just a few weeks later there would be a total recalculation on her new income which would last for the next 26 weeks and—dare I say it?—during that period her maintenance would backup and she would receive the benefit of that without her family credit being reduced.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister is entirely right. If she is towards the end of her family credit period and her maintenance is falling, she may very well make a rational calculation that she should stay where she is because the situation would improve for four weeks' time—but not, if it were to improve for five months. Nor, if she has the offer of a job and she cannot guarantee the flow of her maintenance or that family credit will sustain her if her maintenance were to drop in the future, can one expect her to go into work with the same confidence. She would not have the same surety of income that she has on income support.
The Government have structured the Bill so that family credit is fixed, even though maintenance may falter, whereas under income support, if maintenance falters, income support picks up the stress. For a woman with only marginal advantages from going into work—given childcare costs and that the work is part-time, say, 16 or 17 hours or so, so that she is over the income support threshold—that degree of irregularity of income, if that has been her experience, will deter her from going back to work.
It would not be difficult for the Government to ensure that the woman can rely on a combination of maintenance plus family credit, if they accept the amendment and the two are uncoupled in the way proposed. It would not threaten the six-month rule but would give her the surety of income to which she is surely entitled. I feel very strongly about this matter. In fairness to women who will be very vulnerable under a 26-week rule, if the Government do not accept this amendment, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dubs, L.

Avebury, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Foot, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gallacher, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Butterfield, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gregson, L.

Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

David, B.

Haskel, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Donoughue, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

1270

Jay of Paddington, B.

Ogmore, L.

Jeger, B.

Rea, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Redesdale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Judd, L.

Rochester, L.

Kennet, L.

Russell, E.[Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Seear, B.

Longford, E.

Stedman, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Tope, L.

Molloy, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Monkswell, L.

White, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Nicol, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Goschen, V.

Abinger, L.

Gridley, L.

Addison, V.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hardwicke, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harmsworth, L.

Arran, E.

Harrowby, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Henley, L.

Balfour, E.

Hogg, B.

Barber, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hooper, B.

Birdwood, L.

Hothfield, L.

Blaker, L.

Howe, E.

Blatch, B.

Inglewood, L.

Blyth, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Killearn, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Kimball, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Knutsford, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Burnham, L.

Leigh, L.

Cadman, L.

Lindsay, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Long, V.[Teller.]

Chelmsford, V.

Lucas, L.

Chesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cranworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mersey, V.

Daventry, V.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Davidson, V.

Milverton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Denham, L.

Munster, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mutton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Newall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Donegall, M.

Norfolk, D.

Downshire, M.

Norrie, L.

Dudley, E.

Northesk, E.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Elles, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Orkney, E.

Elton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Finsberg, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Flather, B.

Pender, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gainford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rathcavan, L.

Geddes, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gisborough, L.

Rees, L.

1271

Renton, L.

Swansea, L.

Renwick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Romney, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L

St. Albans, Bp.

Torphichen, L.

Salisbury, M.

Torrington, V.

Seccombe, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Sharples, B.

Westbury, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Windlesham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wise, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Wolfson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

Suffield, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 4 [Determination of applications]:
5.10 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert:
("() Where the chairman of a child support appeal tribunal directs that documents are to be produced to the tribunal by any person concerned with a departure application he shall have the same powers to enforce that direction as a district judge in a county court would have were he dealing with the application.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with a matter which has been drawn to our attention by the Law Society regarding the production of documents at the child support appeal tribunal. It was discussed in Committee in the other place. The Minister there, Mr. Burt, was interested in the amendment. However, nothing has happened since and so this amendment is a genuine probe to hear what the Government's views are.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the chairmen of child support appeal tribunals have the same powers to enforce directions that documents should be produced as a court would have. Failure to make provision for this will mean that tribunals may be unable adequately to deal with appeals because they cannot ensure that full documentation is produced to them. There have been some concerns about the way in which the child support appeal tribunals are operating. That is relevant to the amendment.
We are advised that they already have a substantial backlog of work in dealing with appeals which have already been lodged. Legal aid is not available to individuals appearing before the tribunals. That impedes individuals' ability to put their cases forward. In Committee we discussed the fact that the chairmen of the appeal tribunals are legally qualified but they are by no means all family lawyers and they may therefore lack an understanding of how an award of child support maintenance relates to other financial provision made on divorce or separation. As we know, the lay members of tribunals are, by definition, not legally qualified and their experience of family law as a whole is likely to be limited. The tribunal system also fails to provide continuity between sittings. We are advised that the Law Society fears that the effect of those factors will be an unpredictable exercise of discretion, even though that discretion will be circumscribed.
When the matter was debated in Committee in another place the Minister, Mr. Burt, said:
"I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment on the basis that I shall give the matter active consideration. He has raised an issue and, after discussion with officials, I am not sure about it. I need to talk to the independent tribunal service and, possibly, to the Lord Chancellor's Department about the full implications of the amendment. We may return with an amendment confined to the production of necessary documents without extending the powers too far".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 30/3/95; col. 71.]
I think I am correct in saying that we have heard no more. If would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what the Government's view on this matter is. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has explained, this amendment seeks to give new powers to the child support appeal tribunal chairman to enforce any direction he may make concerning the production of documents in relation to a departure application. The amendment proposes that he should have the same powers as a district judge would have in a county court.
Your Lordships will have noticed that the amendment seeks to give these new powers only to tribunals hearing applications for departures. However, if I listened to the noble Lord correctly, that is unintentional and he is probing me about any child support tribunal. On that basis, I shall try to explain what the position is and why, when my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt looked at this, he was persuaded that he did not need to take any further steps. In order to do that it may be helpful if I explain that the powers of a district judge in a county court broadly allow him to strike out pleadings, to dismiss an action altogether or to commit the offending party—that is, send him to prison for a short period for contempt of court.
For the purposes of comparison I should explain that a tribunal chairman may by summons, or in Scotland by citation, require any person to attend as a witness at a hearing and to answer any question or to produce any documents requested at the hearing. Where a tribunal chairman directs someone to produce documents and that direction is not complied with, it is possible under the present rules of the High Court to obtain a subpoena in aid of an inferior tribunal. If the person still does not comply he may be held in contempt of the High Court and committed to prison. That course is currently available but, clearly, it is not an attractive option. Imprisonment would really serve no useful purpose. I do not believe it is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in proposing the amendment to be so extreme as to allow for the imprisonment of an uncooperative parent in these circumstances. But that, ultimately, would be the effect of the amendment.
The powers given to the Secretary of State under Section 15 of the 1991 Act can, and will, be used to obtain information for a tribunal if required. These powers, as your Lordships are well aware, are substantial and should mean that any information which is being withheld from a tribunal can be obtained. Anyone who continues to obstruct an inspector intentionally or who refuses to comply with requests for documentation can be taken to the magistrates' court

1273
and, on conviction, may be fined up to a maximum of £1,000. I think your Lordships will agree that that is a considerable deterrent and in the circumstances more appropriate than imprisonment.
I should also explain that the provisions in the new Schedule 4A, as introduced by Schedule 1 to the Bill, enable both the Secretary of State and a child support appeal tribunal to decide an application on the basis of the evidence before them where information is not forthcoming. There is therefore no question of an application being left in mid air, so to speak—a decision one way or the other can always be made. Someone refusing to give documents to a tribunal cannot stop the tribunal coming to a decision.
We believe that there are adequate powers available to enable information to be obtained in connection with departure applications and that the proposed new powers are unnecessary. With that explanation of how the system will work, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. The intention of the amendment was to get the Government's views on record. I am not sure about the amendment being extremist It was the extremists of the Law Society who actually drafted the amendment. They were anxious to probe the point. The Minister has given a satisfactory answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Departure directions]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, leave out lines 36 to 43.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 10. This is a consequential and interrelated group of amendments which is put down with both drafting and policy intentions. Amendment No. 7 deals with a Humpty-Dumpty clause—that special expenses are whatever the Minister says are special expenses. Amendment No. 5 deals with what I think I might christen a Cambises clause. Cambises, King of Persia, had a law saying that he might do whatever he liked. Clause 6(3), to which it refers, says that the Secretary of State may lay down by regulations any factors which are to be taken into account in departure directions or any factors which are not to be taken into account. It really does say that he can do whatever he likes.
With the amendment I should like to consider Amendment No. 10, which is replaced by the draft of my Amendment No. 8, which is what I might call a matron's clause—any child of a prescribed kind. I am becoming a little tired of these unsatisfactory prescriptions. But it is not only concerned with the drafting. It is also concerned to lay down some clear policy grounds to govern the drafting of departures under the Bill.
The Secretary of State believes that he can lay down the grounds of departure in detail, piecemeal, and by regulation. That will prevent any parliamentary control of the grounds for departure and will stop any attempt
1274
to amend them. Since the grounds for departure are the heart of the Bill, that will prevent us from exercising our revising functions where they are most likely to be needed.
Following the principles of the Renton report, we do not attempt to enshrine all the grounds of departure in primary legislation in a sort of exhaustive list. We recognise that there is a need for flexibility, but what we argue is that regulation is the wrong way to exercise that flexibility. It is, of course, of the essence of the case for the system of departures which is now being introduced that it is designed to deal with unforeseen cases, for which the 1991 Act did not provide and where the formula failed to work equitably in a particular case.
But it is of the essence of the Secretary of State's regulation-based approach that it cannot, by definition, provide for the unforeseen: it can only allow for departure in cases the Secretary of State has foreseen, before they happen. Therefore, the approach must always involve injustice the first time any unforeseen problem comes up. Since Secretaries of State are not equipped with a crystal ball, any more than that enjoyed by the rest of us, such cases will be frequent. There will be no way of dealing with the child support equivalent of the man who was condemned for an incestuous marriage because he had married his deceased wife's sister's niece by the father and not the mother. It took the discretionary power of the prerogative of mercy to deal with that. No regulation could possibly have foreseen it. The Secretary of State, even with the flexibility of a contortionist, cannot lock the stable door unless the horse is already stolen.
In fact, the attempt to deal with extraordinary cases by total enumeration is necessarily doomed to failure. It is that approach which explains why, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has pointed out, the number of pages of regulations each year increases so alarmingly. But that is a labour of Sisyphus: it will never achieve its objective.
The only way to provide a discretion for extraordinary cases in which the formula does injustice, which is what the Government wish to do, is to adopt the principles of the Renton report: to lay down a series of general principles and to leave it to a court or a tribunal to decide whether the individual unforeseen case is covered by the principles.
In this case, unless the Secretary of State wishes otherwise, the task will presumably fall to a child support appeal tribunal. That means that the Secretary of State must make the painful sacrifice, at some stage, of losing control of the evolution of his legislation. He may find that distasteful, but the parents of laws, like the parents of children, must accept that in the end they acquire a life of their own. That is inevitable. So that is why Amendment No. 8, which is the key amendment, attempts to lay down general principles. I do not know whether they are the ideal general principles; I am not wedded to every detail of them.
If the approach is accepted, but the detail is not, I shall be very happy to engage in discussions between now and Third Reading about how it could be made more acceptable. Paragraph (2) (a) of the amendment lays down, first, a mandatory series of general principles

1275
for which the Secretary of State shall give a departure direction. The Minister will no doubt object that these have the effect of lowering the priority given to child maintenance. If he does that, we shall join issue with him.
The Government were right, in 1991, that the priority given to child maintenance needed to be increased, but they are not right in arguing, as they did in Committee, that child maintenance needs to be given priority over all other expenses whatsoever. That is an obsessive view and simply not in the real world. The protection it purports to give—and I say "purports" advisedly—to children subject to the 1991 Act is one which children of two married parents, living in ordinary conditions, have never enjoyed and never will enjoy.
The first category in the amendment covers expenses on which it would be unlawful for the absent parent to default. I find it very hard to see how a government committed to the rule of law could oppose such a provision; and if they do oppose it, they contribute to an erosion of respect for the law. That is a matter on which governments of all complexions must set a good example. To be told that we are bound by law to break the law, tends to invite the famous response that "the law is an ass". I would not wish to be a party to using this Bill to do that.
The second category in the first part of Amendment No. 8, covers expenses the absent parent could not cease to meet while remaining in employment. If the Government really want to increase child maintenance they must accept that if fathers cannot work they cannot pay maintenance, and therefore anything which prevents the absent parent from working defeats the object of the exercise and, incidentally, it is against the interests of the taxpayer because it reduces the number of taxpayers and therefore increases the burden on those remaining.
The third general principle, which to me is a basic part of the equity of child upbringing, is that all the children of one person should have an equal call on him. The Act should not lay down any standing division between Cinderella and the ugly sisters; such divisions do have a reputation for being self-reversing. In fact, the proviso that I have added gives that principle a paramountcy over the others. Children who are the subject of an assessment under the Act may not be left worse off by the effect of departures than other children whom it is the absent parent's duty to maintain. That may possibly assure the Minister that maintenance under the Act will not be allowed to slip too far down the list of priorities. It puts a brake on the operation of this amendment.
The amendment deliberately uses the general principle,
"other children whom it is his duty to maintain"
rather than the matronly phrase,
"other children of a prescribed kind"
which is now made unnecessary. There is no need to wander through a burgeoning maze of regulations, enumerating stepchildren, stepchildren-in-law, adopted children, orphan children taken on, and all the rest. Some are bound to be missed out. The question of whether it is a person's duty to maintain a child is
1276
precise enough: it is legally verifiable. It does allow for all the other cases, like the child of the next-door neighbour whose parents are killed in a car crash. The child is taken on so that someone shall look after it. If we discourage people from doing that sort of thing, we diminish ourselves as a society and put a burden on the taxpayer, for which there is no need.
Paragraph (3) of the amendment, on the other hand, is permissive rather than mandatory, and reads:
"The Secretary of State may give a departure direction [if it appears to him] unreasonable, impossible or against the public interest, to require [an absent parent] to withdraw"
from a particular expense.
There is one case to which I would like that to apply, which I have found many times in my postbag. I refer to people who are maintaining their aged parents, often keeping them out of the clutches of care in the community by doing so. It is not in the taxpayers' interests to stop them doing that. I shall not go on enumerating cases. It is of the essence of Paragraph (3) of Amendment No. 8 that, by giving the Secretary of State a discretion bound by a firm general principle, it obviates the need for regulations. It saves the need for the telephone-directory style of legislation and it gives us something which might just work, unlike the Bill as we have it. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I support this amendment for the reasons given by the noble Earl, which need no expatiation. I only add this and I do it at the risk of annoying equally the noble Baroness and the Minister, which would be a formidable combination to antagonise. I merely emphasise that the considerations which are set out in Amendment No. 8, upon which the noble Earl enlarged, would be just the sort of considerations that a magistrates' court would have weighed. Such courts would also no doubt weigh the objections which the Minister may be about to urge and, with the infinitely different circumstances between one case and another, they would have made an order which would be far more satisfactory than anything thrown up by the formula. I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for saying that, in the circumstances, this is second best, but, given the circumstances, it is something that we should adopt.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these amendments concern provisions in Clause 6 and in the new Schedule 4B as introduced by Schedule 2. All of the amendments remove the right to make regulations, which I do not suppose will surprise those of your Lordships who have been with us during our deliberations on three or four of the Bills with which we have dealt this Session.
Amendment No. 5, which seeks to amend Clause 6, will be familiar to those of your Lordships who attended our debates in Committee. It concerns the power to make regulations to clarify those factors which should or should not be taken into account in considering whether it would be just and equitable to give a departure direction, and it provoked a lively discussion about the need to afford Parliament the opportunity to

1277
consider both the general principle behind, and the detail of, any legislation before it. The remaining amendments deal with special expenses which may be cited as grounds for an application for a departure direction. It is appropriate to take them together, but I shall speak first to Amendment No. 5.
I have already mentioned that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, expressed concern at Committee stage that the use of delegated powers in effect made it impossible for Parliament to have any input. I do not accept that—and I hope I can reassure your Lordships on that point. As I explained during the earlier discussion, the purpose of the regulations which will be made under the delegated powers in the new Section 28F, as introduced by Clause 6 of the Bill, is to prescribe particular factors which ought or ought not to be taken into account during the consideration of whether it would be just and equitable to all concerned to give a departure direction. For example, we do not intend that the question of who left whom, and in particular any apportioning of blame, should colour the judgment of the officer who is considering the departure. We may well, therefore, introduce regulations to provide that no regard should be had to the circumstances of the parents' separation.
Perhaps I may offer your Lordships a further example. We may prescribe that regard should be had to the level of any previous court order in deciding whether to give a departure direction. If the departure would reduce the maintenance payable to an amount less than the court order, it is right to ask whether that is fair.
Your Lordships may have noticed that the effect of this amendment, which does not remove the preceding paragraph of the clause, would be to focus the consideration of what was just and equitable exclusively on the financial circumstances of the absent parent and the person with care and the welfare of any child likely to be affected by the direction. For the reasons I have explained, we believe this is to give it too narrow a consideration. There is a need to specify other factors, and setting those down in regulations provides the necessary flexibility to add to or adjust them in the light of experience.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is always asking me about the need for regulations and about how they will be dealt with. These regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure and so will be debated by Parliament before they come into effect. Setting down specific factors in legislation will guide decision-makers at all levels. Not only staff acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, but also child support appeal tribunals, will apply the regulations in reaching a determination. That would not be the case if, for example, the factors to be taken into account were simply set down in guidance, which would be guidance only for staff acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.
We do not intend that any regulations will be overly restrictive or will constrain the decision-maker's ability to exercise proper discretion. Certainly they will not attempt to give comprehensive guidance as to the correct course of action in any particular case or set of circumstances, but it will be right in some cases to provide clear guidance on what should or should not be relevant to a decision.
1278
The next amendment, Amendment No. 7, which was also discussed in Committee, would make it possible for an application for a departure application to be made by any absent parent who had an expense not taken into account in the formula assessment. Your Lordships will be aware that the departure system is intended to allow for some flexibility in the small number of cases where the application of the maintenance formula causes genuine difficulty. But we must be able to prescribe the circumstances in which a departure can be requested; otherwise we risk a return to a totally discretionary system where it would be possible to place virtually any expense before the duty to support one's own child.
During the Committee stage of the Bill in another place, there was considerable discussion of the categories of expenses which should be included in the list and my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security gave an undertaking that we would be keeping the list of special expenses under review and would make adjustments if that proved necessary in the light of the piloting exercise. I am happy to reiterate that before your Lordships.
As I have already said in relation to the previous amendment, any regulations made under these delegated powers will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will be brought before Parliament for further consideration. Because the particular grounds will be set out in regulations, we shall be able (with the consent of Parliament) to fine-tune the system once it is up and running, should practical experience suggest that that is necessary.
I turn now to Amendment No. 8 which not only removes the power to make regulations but also substitutes a new sub-paragraph (2). I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the new sub-paragraph appears to relate only to absent parents' circumstances. It is the Government's clear intention that both the absent parent and the person with care should have equal access to the departures scheme, provided of course that their circumstances were appropriate, and this amendment would cut across that. It would result in a very unequal scheme which would favour the absent parent and reduce maintenance payments by allowing the absent parent to place any of his other expenses above his children's needs.
I also find it strange that the amendment requires the Secretary of State to make a departure direction in respect of the full amount of certain expenses. This approach seems at odds with the whole concept of the new system of departures which is designed to permit people's detailed circumstances to be taken into account and to allow the position of both parties to be weighed carefully. The upshot might well be that some, rather than all, of an expense might be allowed. The noble Earl himself has railed against the rigidity of the formula, but when flexibility is offered (as it is here) he chooses to hem it in with restrictive provisions.
We spoke about these amendments at considerable length in Committee, and although I am happy to rehearse all those arguments again, perhaps I may concentrate on one or two of them. In doing so, I turn to Amendment No. 10. The noble Earl has explained that his main purpose in tabling this amendment once

1279
again is to prevent the Government taking delegated powers to provide for the detail of this ground for a departure from the formula in regulations. I hope that once I have explained the reason for this provision and why it contains a power to make regulations, the noble Earl will recognise that the provision is intended to widen the scope of the departure scheme and that the regulation-making power is necessary in order to prevent the Bill becoming cluttered with detail.
This amendment relates to the provision for special expenses departures, in this case on the grounds of previously incurred debts. As your Lordships will be aware, debts incurred during the former relationship between the parents which are the responsibility of one of the parents will be one of the grounds for a departure from the formula. A departure will be considered where the debt was incurred while the absent parent was still living with the parent with care and the child to whom the assessment relates and the debt was incurred for certain specified purposes.
The principal situation we have in mind is where debts were incurred for the benefit of a child who was a dependant at the time but is no longer dependent. Such a child is not included in the current assessment and, without this provision, debts incurred on his or her behalf would not be eligible for consideration. However, we recognise that there may be a number of further situations where we would want to provide for a departure direction to be given, and those would be too complex to detail in primary legislation, which is why the provision contains a power to make regulations.
There may, for example, be situations where we might want to provide for a departure in certain circumstances where debts were incurred in respect of step-children. As step-children are not allowed for in the maintenance assessment, except by virtue of a departure direction, this amendment would exclude debts incurred for their benefit. I doubt very much whether the noble Earl would like that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister will forgive me, I do not believe that he has read subsection (2) (b) of Amendment No. 8 which gives the Secretary of State full discretion to deal with such things if he wishes, which I presume he will.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says, but I believe that the point that I am making about these debts is the proper one. If we leave the Bill as it is and do not make the amendments, those situations can be taken into account. I do not see the need—if I understand what the noble Earl is saying—to take out a lot and then, so to speak, put back a little, because the provision which the noble Earl seeks to amend, together with its delegated power, is one that seeks to widen rather than narrow the scope for departures on the grounds of previously incurred debts, and secondary legislation is essential because of the many different circumstances that can arise.
I have spoken at some considerable length, for which I apologise. But these amendments raised some important issues and I hope I have explained the Government's position fully. I hope that the noble Earl
1280
can withdraw the amendment, but I know from our debate today, and the longer debate we had in Committee, that he feels strongly about these matters. If he decides to put one or other, or all, of the amendments to the test, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care of his reply. It was thorough and full. I cannot say that I found it persuasive. I do not think the Minister expected that I would. He is of course right, but I was led into this issue by the effect of regulations in restricting the power of this House. I have realised, as I thought more about it, that that is an entirely inadequate expression of the criticisms of the regulation-making way of legislation. That is since a re-reading of the Renton Report on the night before the Committee stage of the Jobseekers Bill, because I now see that the regulation-making way of legislation is intended not only to restrict Parliament, or even necessarily primarily to restrict Parliament; it is intended also to restrict the sphere of decision which is left to the courts. That is perhaps the most important thing about it and the most important reason why we should deplore it.
Let us listen to the language that the Minister has just been using. He said "We" may prescribe, or "We" do not intend. The entire assumption is that his will is law; that he is operating a civilian system—he can make the law mean whatever he likes. I do not believe that the Minister has yet understood the criticism developed ably—far more ably than I could ever do it—in the Renton Report that the draftsman cannot foresee all circumstances.
It is no use listing all these circumstances in regulations. You are bound to get it wrong. You must lay down a principle and lose control of the crucial stage. Give it up. Let the legislation grow up and let the courts decide what it means. If you cannot do that, then the law has never fully been accepted. It has not been left to go through that process of evolution and growth which any law ought to do on its own account.
The Minister was most resistant to dealing with any expense which was not foreseen. He knows that he will do injustice by that. There will be expenses which were not foreseen and which ought to have been foreseen. He says, "If we allow any unforeseen expense, we may return to the discretionary system". It makes the 1991 Act sound so vulnerable. This is one of those creatures that cannot abide the light of day. It is a Bill that cannot abide evidence; that cannot be brought into contact with real cases. I do not believe that that is the mark of good legislation. If it does bring the Bill into line with real cases, is not that a good thing rather than a bad thing? If it is designed to fit the real world, and not just to assert one single and lonely principle, is not that an improvement?
But the Minister did make one single criticism in which I see force. He said that the amendment dealt only with departures for the absent parent and not for the parent with care. He is right about that. Before I push the amendment to a Division, I should put that right. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 6, line 29, at end insert (", and
(c) of the consideration which has taken place under section 2 as to the welfare of any child likely to be affected by his decision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16, 20 and 32 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. With this group of amendments we return to the crucial question of the welfare of the child. I do not intend to repeat the whole of the debate we had in Committee, but we felt the issue was important, and we are not satisfied with the answer that the Minister gave in Committee. It is an important point to which we should return to see whether we can press the Government to go a little further than they seem prepared to in Committee.
All the amendments deal with the welfare of the child. It is a concept with which all of us involved with the 1991 Act are familiar. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the parties are notified about the ways in which the welfare of any children involved is being considered when departure directions are being formed. We are trying to stop the business of an official just having to go through the motions as regards the child's welfare and to try to sharpen up the whole concept.
I pointed out in Committee, as did the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that when we were dealing with the 1991 Bill we moved successive amendments at each stage—in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading—to try to meet the points that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made in relation to the welfare of the child. We accepted his assurance that if he accepted our amendment on Third Reading it would be changed in another place. It duly was, and the provision became Section 2 of the 1991 Act.
As we know, under that section the welfare of any children has to be taken into consideration when discretionary decisions are made. I underline that it is the "welfare of any children", but only when the people concerned are involved in discretionary decisions. In this case, the amendment deals with those affected by departure directions.
What aroused our concern—I do not apologise for returning to the point which was made in Committee—were the remarks of the counsel representing the Secretary of State for Social Security in the Biggin case who said:
"As long as the agency notices welfare in passing it cannot be challenged on the ground that it did not attach sufficient weight to it. Welfare is not a paramount or even particularly significant consideration".
Perhaps I may examine those words and consider the assurances that we were given in our discussions on the 1991 Act. Counsel, who was presumably advising and representing the Government in the Biggin case, said that provided the agency notices welfare in passing it cannot be challenged that it did not attach sufficient weight to it. As I pointed out previously, he said that welfare is not even a particularly significant consideration.
For all those reasons, we must ask the Minister to spell out in greater detail the way in which he believes that officials, when considering such matters at tribunals
1282
and so forth, will meet the requirements of the 1991 Act and assure everyone that they are taking the welfare of the children into account. Reference was made to guidance notes and to a code of practice. It is extraordinary that the code of practice is not already in place on this issue which has been on the statute book since 1991.
We are advised that in practice the welfare of the children is not taken into account. It appears that officials are working on the basis of the wording which counsel gave in the Biggin case rather than the requirements of the 1991 Act. For those reasons, we are anxious to ensure that the welfare of the children, which I am sure we all agree is most important, is taken into account. I am deliberately avoiding the word "paramount" because I understand the legal problems that arise. We want the Government to explain exactly how it is proposed that the welfare of the children should be taken into account.
I do not intend to speak in detail on the amendments in the group tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I am sure that he will do that most adequately. However, perhaps I may ask him to explain a matter which arises in Amendment No. 20. Subsection (2) of the new clause states:
"in this section 'ordinary circumstances' include any circumstances which are not extraordinary or amazing".
We have heard many remarks—perhaps I dare say lectures—from the noble Earl about the need for accurate definitions. Perhaps he will give examples of circumstances which are extraordinary or amazing. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in supporting the amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 and 32. I believe that they are a great deal stronger than the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. When we discussed the matter in Committee the Minister did not seem to think there was much of a problem. He assured me most earnestly that the welfare of the child was taken into account. Perhaps it is, but I do not see exactly what changes because of it.
In Committee I quoted to him a good deal of information about cases which are being heard in court. I am told that more information is on its way to me and he may hear more of that on Third Reading. I wish to draw his attention to the recent report by the Children's Society, Losing Support. It draws attention to the effect that the Act is having on the welfare of the child. It states:
"Many of the lone mothers criticise the negative impact of the legislation both on the relationships between former partners of first families and on second families. The lone mothers contrasted these actual effects of government policies with the rhetoric of family values and back-to-basics which were current at the time these interviews were carried out. They did think it was causing a great deal of difficulty in keeping up contact between the first and second families".
Of course, the requirement to take account of the welfare of the child, if it is to be of any force, must bite on more than just the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State. Speaking as a taxpayer, and I stress that, I do not want to impose maintenance which is contrary to the welfare of the child. It is not the kind of thing from which I want to benefit.

1283
Amendment No. 32—which is placed, as the Minister advised me in Committee, in Section 52 of the 1991 Act—makes the welfare of the child bite on the regulation-making powers so that the Secretary of State shall not make regulations which are contrary to the welfare of the child. There is a very strong case for some action on that front. When we discussed the matter in 1991 we believed that the amendment, which I recollect was tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David, but to which we all spoke—
Lord Carter: My Lords, it was tabled in my noble friend's name in Committee but I took it on for Report and Third Reading.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon and I congratulate him on it. We thought that it would make more difference to the welfare of the child than in the event has been the case. We thought that the child would be the better for it. Unless there is power to vary the assessment because it is acting against the welfare of the child that section is nugatory. It was not our belief when we passed the provision in 1991 that it was as nugatory as it has turned out to be. I believe that it needs strengthening.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, surprised me by speaking for a shorter time than I anticipated and certainly for a shorter time than he spoke in Committee. I hope that that augurs well for the rest of the evening and that he has decided to make shorter speeches.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, propose in their amendments to make all the decisions in relation to child support subject to the welfare of any child concerned and not just discretionary decisions. Of course, discretionary decisions are subject to the welfare of the child. The overall effect of the amendments would be to return to a discretionary system for determining maintenance and for dealing with other aspects of child support. I know that that is not the intention of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but it is certainly the intention of those tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I do not believe that he would deny that.
Section 2 of the 1991 Act exists to ensure that the welfare of the children who may be affected is given due weight when discretionary decisions are taken on cases. I have no evidence, and I do not believe that any evidence was laid, to suggest that officials are failing to do that. Therefore, we should be clear that the 1991 Act already ensures that proper consideration is given to the welfare of the children concerned.
Several references have been made to the debate on amendments tabled on this issue in 1991. I wish to return to that Act later. As the noble Earl reminded the House, I was not present at the time and he kindly suggested that I can, so to speak, escape responsibility. I must tell him that it is kind of him but I do not particularly wish to escape responsibility. I believe—and the noble Earl has heard me say so previously—that it is right, proper and just that absent parents should pay for the children of their first marriage if they can afford
1284
to do so. That should not become a cost on other taxpayers, many of whom have families and will be no better off than the absent parent.
My noble and learned fellow clansman the Lord Chancellor said in 1991 that it is an underlying objective of the child support. scheme to provide for the welfare of children and one of the most important issues which affects them; namely, the provision of maintenance by the parent who is not the person who has care of the child. Your Lordships will not be surprised to learn that I totally and completely endorse the words of my noble and learned clansman. In this case, not only am I being loyal to the Government, although I was not a Member at the time, but I am following that good Scottish trait of being loyal to my clansman. In this case, he is a slightly superior clansman, so that is further reason for being loyal to him.
Lord Carter: My Lords, surely it should be "clansperson" and not clansman.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that in the days when the language of the Scottish clans was devised, political correctness had not yet entered the landscape. "Clansman" also encompasses—and for my part will continue to encompass—clanswomen. All your Lordships will have heard of the major endeavours of that famous clansman, or clanswoman, Flora Macdonald, when she helped Bonnie Prince Charlie to escape. But that is a story which is a long way over the sea to Skye from this discussion.
The whole purpose of the legislation is, self-evidently, to benefit the child in that it provides for the assessment of the parents' financial liability for their children. The formula takes proper account of the financial needs of the children, both of the children for whom maintenance is an issue and of other children in the households concerned through the various allowances in exempt and protected income. As your Lordships will know, in the exempt income total housing costs are taken into account as are the children of the second marriage or relationship. In the protected income, any children of the second household are also taken into consideration in relation to calculating protected income. The aim of securing the welfare of the child is achieved by introducing a formula based on objective criteria rather than on discretion. The formula takes account of all the circumstances of all the children involved in the case. It considers the children of the absent parent—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers to the formula, is he referring to the formula in Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act or some other formula?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am referring to the formula used by the Child Support Agency, which comes from the 1991 Act. It considers the children of the absent parent as well as the children for whom maintenance is being sought through, in relation to the absent parent, the calculations to arrive at the exempt and protected income.

1285
It is important for Parliament to consider the position of all the people with an interest—and I know that it sometimes irritates at least some of your Lordships, including the noble Earl, when I say that—for example, the children, their own parents and the wider community of tax payers. I do not believe that those of us who want to see the child support scheme working effectively would wish to see a return to wide discretion in the calculation of maintenance, or in other aspects of the scheme.
At Third Reading, in 1991 the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that there were certain parts of the 1991 Bill, such as the calculation of the maintenance formula, where it was evident that the welfare of the child was taken into account. If he will allow me to remind him, at that time the noble Lord had particular concerns about the requirement to co-operate with that provision as it was then drafted. The Government listened to what was said at that time and strengthened that provision to ensure that parents with care would not be required to co-operate if to do so would lead to a risk of harm of undue distress for them or any of the children living with them. We shall return to that matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, challenged my authority to describe Parliament's intentions in 1991 because he rightly pointed out to me that I was not there. That is the classic defence of the Glasgow man lifted by the police: "It wasna' me, I wasna' there". But it is clear from the Official Report—not from my recollection or interpretation, because I was not there—that, as I said in Committee, it was never the intention of Parliament that Section 2 of the 1991 Act should be used to undermine the basic principles of that Act. Yet the noble Earl's amendment would import substantial discretion into the scheme, and would make it extremely difficult for staff to make decisions. It would have the effect of undermining the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, speaking in Committee, expressed his concerns about what was said in a recent High Court case. I shall call it the B case in order to preserve the anonymity of those involved. We must look at that case in its context. That was a case in which Judge Thorpe commented. In that case, the original appeal to the magistrates' court was principally on the grounds that the CSA had failed to consider the welfare of the children of the absent parent's second family and that the magistrates should, therefore, quash a deduction from earnings order against the absent parent. The magistrates held that the agency was bound to consider the welfare of the children and that there was no evidence that it had not done so.
The absent parent made an appeal to the High Court and it is comments at the appeal hearing made by counsel for the Secretary of State which were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in Committee. Counsel pointed out to the judge that in his view the Secretary of State could not be challenged on the weight to be given to the welfare of the children in this case. The welfare of the children was not the paramount consideration. He also said that issues relating to the breach of Section 2 by the Secretary of State were in
1286
any event matters for judicial review rather than for the magistrates. In that case, the judge agreed with the Secretary of State.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, alluded to other cases. In one case, the commissioners said that the welfare provision was applicable only in relation to the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State or a child support officer. The making of a maintenance assessment was an absolute duty, not a matter of discretion, and so Section 2 had no application.
The commissioners went on to say that even in discretionary matters, Section 2 provided only that the Secretary of State or the child support officer "shall have regard" to the welfare of any child rightly to be affected by the decision. The provision did not say that the child's welfare should be a paramount concern, only that it should be taken into account. Those cases illustrate that the welfare of children is not the paramount consideration. The Section 2 provision in the 1991 Act is, therefore, working as Parliament intended.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the issue of notifications to the parties in cases concerning a departure from the formula assessment. When we discussed this amendment in Committee I was able to tell the noble Lord that staff are asked to keep a note of any information relevant to the welfare of the child which comes to them, and to consider it when they make their decision. If it affects their decision, the matter will already be covered by the existing wording of the clause. Where it does not affect the decision, the amendment would lead to gratuitous information about the parent's family circumstances being passed to the other parent. We shall have to give a great deal of information to each parent about the other. I do not want to add unnecessarily to the information about the family circumstances of one parent that is conveyed to the other parent. I believe that that concern was raised in Committee. Clearly, at least a number of your Lordships share my concern that we really want to keep the amount of information which flows down to a minimum.
I will turn now to Amendment No. 32. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has again returned to an issue that he raised in Committee. The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State to have regard to the welfare of the child when they make legislation under the 1991 Act.
We have discussed issues relating to welfare of the child at some length, both today and in Committee. I do not intend to repeat all that I have said previously. However, as I said in Committee, I do not believe that it would be right to import such a requirement into regulation making powers. Parliament has decided that child maintenance should be dealt with through a formula which takes due account of the needs of all the parties involved: the children, their parents, and the taxpayer. As I said when we last discussed the matter in Committee, Parliament also decided that, fundamentally, the welfare of the child is best served through the support of his own parents based on their ability to pay. The House is aware that there are already safeguards to ensure the proper use of regulation making powers.

1287
As I have explained, consideration of the welfare of a child is already given due weight in maintenance matters. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to insert into the Bill the amendments as proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
I turn now to deal with the two very much longer amendments tabled on the basis of proposed new clauses by the noble Earl. Again, Amendment No. 19 was discussed in Committee. Amendment No. 20 offers a small variation on the text of Amendment No. 19 but does not alter it in any significant way. Both amendments introduce a new clause to set down all the children whose welfare should be considered when discretionary decisions are made by the Secretary of State or child support officers. Its meaning is not entirely clear, since it seeks to transfer a definition of welfare from the Children Act 1989 which does not actually exist.
Therefore, as I said, the noble Earl's amendment seeks to incorporate the definition of "welfare" from the Children Act 1989 into this Bill. In Committee, I explained that Section 1 of the Children Act relates to specific limited circumstances and to the decisions of courts in those circumstances. The wording of the Children Act section does not readily translate across into child support legislation.
From the words that he used in Committee, I rather inferred that the noble Earl wishes to make the welfare of the child paramount. The latter is the word used in the Children Act. However, as the amendment stands, it is difficult to establish precisely what the noble Earl hopes to achieve. As I said, it would mean that the welfare of the child would have to be paramount in the drafting of any regulations. The amendment includes amending regulations, but Amendment No. 20 does not. Any breach of the duty to consider the welfare of the child or children would be actionable in the civil courts, with the Secretary of State being liable for breaches by child support officers, rather than the child support officer himself having that liability.
I indicated earlier in my response that it would not be right to make consideration of welfare the paramount issue. If it were paramount, it would be above any other consideration and would mean that the needs of all the other parties to the process would become secondary. Where there were children in both the households involved, it would be extremely difficult to make a decision in a case.
I know that the noble Earl is especially concerned with second families. However, we must remember the position of first families. I should like to share with your Lordships some statistics which I believe underline my case. Frankly, no matter how far the balance is tilted, the first family is almost inevitably always in a worse position than the second family. For example, 84 per cent. of parents with care are on income support. It seems to me that their children will always be worse off than the children in the absent parent's new family. Moreover, 11 per cent. of parents with care are on family credit. In the majority of those cases also the children of the assessment will be worse off than those in the absent parent's new family. That fact is stark but
1288
true. It should give us pause for thought about the relative position of absent parents, even those with unavoidable expenses, and the children for whom they pay maintenance.
I should remind your Lordships that the Child Support Bill was introduced to redress the balance, which had become heavily weighted in favour of the absent parent and the second family and to restore some of the position of the first family by ensuring that they had a fair share of the absent parent's income. But even the current formula does not result in children of the first family being as well provided for as those in the second family. The children of the second family, even where the protected income calculation is appropriate, will be better provided for than those in the first family in the vast majority of cases. To do as the noble Earl is consistently chipping away and urging me to do,—namely, to change that balance even further in favour of the absent parent's family and against the first family—would, at least in my judgment, be totally and completely unfair.
In his two major amendments, the noble Earl wishes to make a breach of the duty imposed by Section 2 actionable by means of civil action. As your Lordships know, people who are aggrieved by discretionary decisions by the Secretary of State may already seek judicial review of the decision. On previous occasions the noble Earl has cast doubts on the integrity of the people who—
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister once again, but he will know that judicial review is a very limited remedy. To succeed, one has to show that the Secretary of State was behaving quite unreasonably.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords; of course I accept what the noble and learned Lord has to say on the matter. That is indeed the case. However, the suggestion being made relates to the Secretary of State. As we all know, the position of the Secretary of State is a little like that of man encompassing woman, in that he also encompasses the officials of the CSA. The accusation being made is that they are bound to act unreasonably, almost as if it is in the nature of the beast to do so. It is my contention that the people in the Child Support Agency are doing their job to the very best of their ability. Indeed, they often do it in the face of quite deplorable behaviour from some of the people who have organised themselves in the campaign on behalf of absent parents. It is quite deplorable behaviour.
It is one thing—although, perhaps, it is not even one thing—and bad enough when some of my honourable and right honourable friends find their houses surrounded by absent parents causing a great deal of mayhem; but it is quite another thing when officials of the CSA find themselves in exactly the same position. That is absolutely unfair. As I said, the CSA officials are doing their best to run the system in difficult circumstances and, in fact, they do put many maintenance payments through to the parent with care and the children of the first marriage. It is largely the

1289
man in such cases—and, indeed, I am sorry to say it as a man—who feels that he no longer ought to have the proper financial responsibility for his own children in the first family.
Although the noble Earl's amendment would make the Secretary of State liable for the actions of child support officers in that context, it would, nevertheless, create a quite intolerable situation for individual staff members, who would be fearful that their reasonably made decisions would be subject to court action simply because one or other of the parties objected to them. I do not suppose that the parents with care would object very often, but, having read the literature of the organisation called NACSA, I have little doubt that a whole army of people would be encouraged to do so. Indeed I suggest that this document in a kind of quizzical way by deploring what steps people may take lays out the steps it would like them to take to upset the workings of the agency. To give them any more routes to frustrate the work of the Child Support Agency would simply add to the difficulties the agency has in carrying out what the great majority in Parliament, with the exception of course of the Liberal Democrats, wants; namely, for the agency to collect money from the absent parent and pass it to the parent with care. I am sure that the population at large is equally determined to ensure that that will happen.
Of course the debate has centred on the difficult question of the welfare of the child. Every child has a right of care from his or her parents. Parents generally have a legal and a moral obligation to care for their children until they are old enough to look after themselves. Unfortunately, in today's world the parents of a child may separate and in some instances the parents may not have lived together as a family at all. Although events may change the relationship between parents, for example when they part or when they divorce, those events cannot in any way change their responsibility to the child or the children who are, so to speak, left behind by that relationship. The payment of child maintenance is one crucial way in which parents fulfil their responsibilities towards their children and towards the welfare of their children. That is why in the 1991 Act we proposed a new system which was part of a wide-ranging series of measures to tackle these difficult issues of the breakdown in relationships and what happens afterwards.
It is relatively simple—however, I use the word "relatively" advisedly—to deal with the problem when there are no children. However, your Lordships will understand why I used the word "relatively" because there were difficulties when we discussed the Pensions Bill as regards the payment of pensions on divorce. However, when children are involved, this matter becomes doubly difficult. We wanted to make sure in the review in 1991—Parliament agreed with the Government—that it was in the interests of the child to emphasise parental responsibility and the need for one parent to help with the maintenance and the finances of the parent with care.
That is the situation. I am more than reluctant. I am unwilling to accept the various amendments which would incorporate further difficulties into the legislation
1290
and which would try to tie down further the definition of welfare of the children. I shall not discuss who the children are whose welfare is to be taken into account; that was discussed in Committee. I believe I have probably spoken for too long, or perhaps for long enough depending on one's point of view. But dare I say that I am gently trying to get my revenge on some noble Lords who make me listen to their rather long speeches? I hope I have tried to explain where we are coming from and why I cannot accept the amendments. I hope that, with that explanation, the amendments will be withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, this is an extraordinarily difficult and important issue. Perhaps I may say that it is one I have had to live with for many years. I am far from convinced that any of the formulae that have been put forward meet the case. However, I think it may be possible to find one. Is the Minister prepared to go so far as to say that he will consider the matter with those who are interested in it between now and Third Reading?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for agreeing with me that this is an extremely complex matter. As I said and as will be obvious from previous amendments, we reflect on the issues that are raised in Committee before we reach the Report stage. We shall reflect on what has been said today in looking forward to the debate next week. However, I would be leading the noble and learned Lord up the proverbial garden path if I were to suggest to him that I had any reasonable hope of satisfying him or others on this issue by offering to discuss it with them. I must politely stand my ground and decline his suggestion.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, it would not just be a question of satisfying us; we would hope to be able to satisfy the Minister and meet the arguments that he has brought forward.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister has certainly given a full reply and I was moved by his eloquence, particularly when he appeared to find it inconvenient that children should be involved in the Child Support Bill. I found that argument a little hard to follow. On reflection it might have been better if we had, as it were, degrouped and taken the amendment that is in my name alone and then perhaps dealt with the noble Earl's amendments. They are in the same group and they deal with the same subject but the Minister made a fair point on that matter. My amendment is intended to deal only with departure directions whereas the noble Earl's amendments are much wider. I emphasise that it is only in the case of departure directions that the welfare of the children would have to be notified to the parties as regards how that had been taken into account.
I was disappointed that the noble Earl did not give the definition of extraordinary and amazing circumstances that I had asked for; perhaps we can try again at a later stage. I congratulate the Minister, or at least his officials, on their assiduity in looking up what I said on Third Reading of the 1991 Act. I should warn the

1291
Minister that if we return to what various people said on the 1991 Act he may come to regret it. The Minister also referred to what I had described as the case of B and mentioned the decision of Judge Thorpe. I was surprised because I am sure that the Minister knows what Mr. Justice Thorpe said with regard to that case, as I quoted in Committee:
"If it [Section 2 of the 1991 Act] has so little influence on the discretion to enforce the formula assessment, the heading words of the section seem hollow indeed. I am not convinced that the agency is at liberty to decide whether or not to issue a deductions of earnings order without giving considerable weight to the welfare principle".—[Official Report, 19/6/95; col. 87.]
I also quoted, again at col. 87, the words of counsel in that case. It was an extract and so perhaps misleading; one would need to read the whole transcript. But he did not say that welfare in this particular case is not paramount or even of particular significance; he simply said it as an absolute:
"Welfare is not a paramount or even a particularly significant consideration".
It may be worthwhile the Minister reconsidering those words to see what counsel was driving at. I accept the point the Minister made. We certainly discussed the matter over a long period during the passage of the 1991 Act, and we discussed the legal effect of "paramount". I can see that in the Children Act, which is obviously all about children, one can make the welfare of the children paramount. However, in this case there are other people besides the children who have to be taken into account and therefore that welfare cannot be paramount.
I wish to make it entirely clear from these Benches that we agree that absent parents should face their responsibilities. NACSA, the organisation which the Minister mentioned, is perfectly entitled to protest legally and to express its views about the Child Support Agency. However, I agree with the Minister's strictures as regards the behaviour of some of the members of NACSA towards officials and others.
I did not think that we would convince the Minister but we have had a useful debate. We may want to return to the matter on Third Reading to see whether we can press the Minister further. However, the Minister has given a full reply which I shall wish to read. I believe that I can detect what the Government feel. However, we will need to be convinced that the officials have been given enough guidance in the form of the code of practice and other guidance. The Minister said that the Government are determined that the welfare of all children in these cases should be taken into account. We have to make sure that the officials know that and that the guidance and codes of practice are sufficiently strong to ensure that that happens.
I shall read with care what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Departure Directions: The Cases and Controls]:
6.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 26, line 22, at end insert ("including the costs of car ownership when it is impossible or unreasonable to expect the applicant to travel to work by any other method.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9, I hope that I shall be a little more brief than we were with the last amendment.
The amendment allows for departure in respect of the costs of car ownership where it would be unreasonable or impossible for the parent to travel to work by any other means.
The basic argument is simple. There are many places where a person without a car cannot work. If he cannot work, he cannot pay maintenance, which is not in the child's interest. If he cannot work, he cannot pay taxes, which is not in the taxpayers' interests either. Therefore, priority must be given to allowing people to continue working. A formula which does not achieve that is not achieving its object.
The Minister gave me a little ground for faint hope when we discussed this matter in Committee. I am not building too much on that, but I should like to know how far the Minister's thoughts have progressed. He said:
"we are looking at how to deal with the costs of travelling to work if the person concerned must go by car".
He said that he was concerned with the problem of,
"how to define car costs as opposed to petrol costs when it comes to how much use a person makes of the car for one purpose against another",
and:
"I hope that I have indicated to the noble Earl that we are looking carefully at how we can make some allowances for those costs".— [Official Report, 19/6/95; col. 98.]
If that is an invitation to further discussion I should be happy to accept it. If he has any specific form of words in mind I should be very glad to hear it. If he has nothing in mind I suggest that there is a case for allowing the whole of the road fund licence and the insurance as a basic cost, because without that a person simply cannot work at all. If one possesses a car one may use it for other purposes, but the essential factor in these cases is the need to allow people to work. That is the hub of the whole argument and, in the hope of hearing the Minister's further thoughts, I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I intervened briefly when we discussed the matter in Committee, and I shall be brief again. The noble Earl has a point when he refers to the costs of car ownership. One could be pernickety and say that this is a running cost and the ownership of a car is a different matter from the running costs, and so on. However, the noble Earl has a point. Perhaps I may repeat what I said in Committee. It is possible to separate from the costs of car ownership that proportion which applies to travel to work. I hope that if he is not happy with the wording of the amendment the Minister will be able to suggest wording that will meet the point that the noble Earl has made.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this is the same amendment as the noble Earl tabled in Committee. He wants to hear my further thoughts on the subject. In order to give him my further thoughts, perhaps I should for completeness remind the House of what I said in Committee.

1293
I said then that the Government intend to bring forward regulations for each of the grounds for departure listed under the category of special expenses. The detailed criteria for the granting of departure directions for each of the grounds are being considered, including the possibility of making some allowance for the costs of car ownership, at least in limited circumstances. The report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee explicitly approved our approach of secondary legislation to provide the detail of the departure scheme.
The issue of whether some account should be taken of the costs of car ownership where use of a car is essential for the purpose of travelling to work raises issues that need careful consideration. Most people—and I emphasise "most"—have the option of using public transport to work, although I acknowledge that there will be instances where individuals have no option but to travel to work by car, for example, where there is no public transport or perhaps in the small number of cases where a disability makes use of public transport impractical.
The noble Earl's amendment highlights the high cost of car ownership. Indeed, he narrowed that down in his contribution and referred in particular to the road fund licence and insurance costs, which are two costs that we all recognise as being considerable. I recognise that the costs of car ownership can be high. However, it would be rare for someone to run their car for the sole purpose of travelling to work and not use it for other social and leisure purposes. Would it be right, therefore, to make allowance for the costs of car ownership ignoring that fact? It is easy to narrow down the cost of fuel used in the journey to and from work. Where people travel by car purely as a matter of personal preference there is a strong argument that petrol costs in excess of the cost of public transport should not be considered for the purposes of the departure scheme. I believe that the noble Earl will agree with me about that.
I am asked whether I have some specific words in mind. At this stage I do not. However, I can make it clear that at this stage nothing is ruled out. There may be a case for including in the departure scheme some recognition that in a small number of cases individuals will have no choice but to travel to work by car. If that is so, details will be brought forward in regulations and your Lordships will have the opportunity to consider our proposals then. I take on board the point made by the noble Earl that the road fund licence and insurance are clearly identifiable costs. Insurance varies with the type of car but is fairly independent of the car you have and its value.
At this stage we wish to preserve the flexibility to develop the system in a way that is fair to all concerned. I am sure that the noble Earl appreciates that his amendment would erode that flexibility. I appreciate that I have not gone much further, if any further, than in Committee, but I have underlined the fact that we are looking seriously at this issue. I understand the point made, but there are some difficult issues to be addressed. How does one determine that it is essential? There could be an argument about that. How does one determine the costs?
1294
The noble Earl has made his point forcefully on two occasions and in today's debate has made a suggestion concerning the road fund licence and insurance. I hope that he will leave the matter on the basis that we shall try to deal with these issues in secondary legislation which at some stage, probably next Session, I (certainly after yesterday) shall bring before the House. We can then have a discussion on those proposals. I hope that we shall be able to look seriously at these points.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. He is saying in effect that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. I remember those words. I gave them the benefit of the doubt before. I turned out to be right. If I give them the benefit of the doubt again, I hope that I shall once again turn out to be right. However, I ask the Minister not to wait too long, because once a person has to sell his car then for him work is ruled out. We do not want that to happen too often.
With that one final thought, and with warm thanks for the Minister's care in working out the arguments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 26, line 40, at end insert:
("() child care costs incurred by a person with care who is in full-time or part-time employment;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, who is not available at the moment to move the amendment, I want to make the fairly obvious point that we are all agreed that we want to encourage people to take employment if they possibly can when they have care responsibilities. However, the amount of money that is allowed under the government scheme to help with child care does not meet all the costs of child care which can be incurred in many cases. To have to pay that additional cost may well stop someone taking a job which, if they wished, they would be able to take. Therefore, in calculating the amount of money which should be paid by the absent parent, the child care costs should be taken into account. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I had not noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had left the Chamber.
The noble Baroness outlined the purpose of the amendment. As she said, its effect is to allow child care costs to be included as grounds for a departure. The amendment would allow lone parents access to the departure system where they have increasing work-related expenses. The maintenance formula is such that it takes the lone parent's work gains into account but not the costs. When a parent with care returns to work and/or increases her working hours, her increase in income will be taken into account and at a certain point will begin reducing the level of maintenance which is payable by the absent parent. However, the formula does not currently include the work-related costs in exempt income.
We believe that there is a strong case for including child care costs in exempt income in the formula, which we would prefer. However, the Minister might like to

1295
touch on another option when he replies: to allow those with particularly high care costs access to departure. When we discussed the matter in Committee, the Government argued that existing legislation already covers child care costs. We are advised that many lone parents who want to work have prohibitively high child costs. For example, parents with care who have more than one child or whose child care is significantly higher than the average of £40 commonly referred to may be prevented from taking employment. In addition, it is also true that a relatively small percentage of lone parents are expected to benefit from the child care disregard; and certainly those who are in greatest need—for example, those on maximum family credit—will not benefit from the disregard. Even though the current legislation may offer some help to some people, the departure system should be available where that is not the case.
As we have already mentioned in Committee, the increase in maintenance would be granted only if the absent parent had the resources and it was fair and equitable to do so. If he has the resources, we believe that it would be fair to allow the parent with care to seek an increase in maintenance on the basis of work related expenses, including child care costs.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, proposes that child care costs of a person with care should be eligible to be treated as a special expense for which a departure direction could be given. The Government, of course, recognise the importance of child care in the context of assisting lone parents back into employment. However, although at first sight this would appear to be a reasonable amendment—it is one which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, indicated that he supports—there are strong arguments against allowing a departure on these grounds.
Current legislation makes substantial provision for child care costs. The first provision is in the child maintenance calculation itself. The first stage of the assessment process is to calculate the "maintenance requirement", which is the amount deemed necessary to meet the basic needs of the child or children. The maintenance requirement is based on income support rates and includes an amount intended to reflect the fact that there are costs associated with child care. This so called "carer element" is currently set at £46.50 if the youngest child is under 11 years of age. Where the youngest child is aged 11 but under 14 years of age, the amount of the carer element reduces to £34.88 on the basis that the need for day-to-day care lessens as children grow older. The amount reduces still further to £23.25 when the youngest child is 14 or 15, and is removed completely when the child reaches age 16.
It is important to understand that the carer element was specifically included in the formula in recognition of the fact that persons with care have costs, mainly in terms of earnings that they forgo, if they stay at home to provide care for their children, or conversely that they incur costs in providing for care if they decide to go
1296
out to work. Therefore the formula assessment already provides a significant sum that can be put towards child care should such costs be incurred by the person with care.
Additional help is available where the person with care is working and is eligible for family credit. In such cases up to £40 of child care costs can be offset against income before any entitlement to that benefit is assessed. Furthermore, the first £15 of any maintenance received is ignored when family credit is assessed. A person with care whose income is above the level where she will qualify for family credit should be better able to meet the costs of child care and will still benefit from the carer element in the formula. To make a specific allowance in child support would be to duplicate the child care provisions in family credit by allowing for the same cost twice.
I ought to reiterate that the departure system is designed to deal with issues that have been of major concern since the Child Support Act came into operation. Child care costs of the parent with care in the context of child support were not an issue on which we received significant representations when the review was taking place. I do not accept the need for the amendment.
The carer element in the formula and the maintenance and child care disregards in family credit provide, I believe, sufficient help with those expenses. With that explanation of how we understand the answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I follow the argument of the Minister that an element of child care is included in the original estimate. But child care costs vary considerably. For example, a child may have some disability, or may need very close attention because of some handicap from which he or she suffers. Those children cannot be given child care at the price included in the maintenance grant or in the amount that the Government allow towards child care costs for someone in employment.
The Minister stated that in the majority of circumstances the child care costs would be covered by the other elements to which he referred. However, in saying that he implies that there is a minority for whom it would not be the case. In such circumstances, surely it is not unreasonable for the absent parent to make the additional payment, and therefore justify the departure. It would enable the caring parent to take a job and to be satisfied that a child who may have some specific difficulty is in good care for which she or he has to pay more money. In those exceptional circumstances, would it not be possible to make a departure?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. She referred to disability. Departure is available if there are extra costs arising from disability. While I know that that response does not address all her concerns, for that specific group the departure system is available.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my point. There can be other exceptional circumstances. He said that disability is covered. The important issue is that the caring parent should feel free to take employment and should not be inhibited from doing so because of exceptional costs of child care.
However, from what the Minister said, and thin as the House now is, it would be absurd to press the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 26, line 40, at end insert:
("() costs incurred to support a young person in further or advanced education;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an amendment on which I asked for consultation between the Department of Social Security and what will now be the Department of Education and Employment. I bring it back chiefly in order to find out whether that consultation has taken place; and, if so, to what effect.
The amendment concerns the costs of the parental contribution to higher education interacting, as it must do. with child maintenance. Depending on who is paying the parental contribution, it may affect either the parent with care or the absent parent. If one of them is paying the parental contribution to university—it is quite heavy—some allowance must be made for that in terms of a departure direction for maintenance paid, or, as it might be, received, under the formula. If an allowance is not being made, then any child of a family which is subject to the Child Support Act will not be in a position to obtain higher education. To put it mildly, that would be a pity and capable of being regarded as unfair.
It is possible for consultation which might avoid the problem. I move the amendment again simply in order to ask whether it has taken place. I look forward to the reply and I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Earl explained, the amendment would provide for a further ground on which an application for a departure could be made; namely where special expenses are incurred in supporting a young person in further or advanced education. The provision would apply where, for example, a student is living with an absent parent who is therefore assessed for student grant purposes and he is also paying child support maintenance for younger dependent children who are not living with him. It could also apply where a parent with care of dependent children also has a child in further education living with her for whom she is assessed for a parental contribution to the grant.
We all acknowledge the importance of educating our young people. However, the amendment would have the effect of placing expenses incurred by a parent for that purpose above the responsibility to meet the basic needs of their dependent children. I cannot accept that that would be right. I shall not go into whether it would happen all that often because, as William in Just William said, it stands to reason that the children in the first family are likely to be older than the children in the second family. Although I freely accept that the noble
1298
Earl will be able to give me examples where such a case might arise, we must recognise that where a parent with care has young children for whom she receives child maintenance under the formula, as well as an older child in college, she would receive no additional maintenance in respect of the student. The maintenance she received for her dependent children would be added to her other income when her ability to make a parental contribution to the student grant was assessed.
If an absent parent is allowed to apply for a departure on the grounds that he is supporting a young person in further education, the corollary would seem to be that he should also support any other child of his who is in full-time education: in other words, he should pay maintenance for a student child who lives with his former partner. Nor does the grant system require an absent parent to make a parental contribution towards the grant for his child who is a student, if the young person lives with the person in care.
We have always made it clear that a parent's first duty is to provide for the basic needs of their own dependent children, whenever they are in a position to do so. It would be quite wrong to let the costs of higher education for an older child take precedence over the basic costs of supporting a younger child.
When this amendment was debated at Committee stage the noble Earl highlighted the interaction between child support maintenance assessments and the way parental contributions to student grants were assessed. He expressed a hope that the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education would consult with a view to ensuring that the two systems were not in conflict. I can assure him that consultation with officials from the Department for Education has taken place and that we are satisfied that there is no inconsistency in the way the two systems operate.
I should explain that, when a parent is assessed for a contribution to a student grant a standard allowance of £75 is made for any other child who is wholly or mainly dependent on that parent. It is irrelevant whether the dependent children actually live with the parent or not. The allowance applies, whether it relates to children in the parent's current family or children living apart from him but for whom he pays maintenance.
It is worth considering what the consequences would be if the amendment were to be accepted. Two-parent families who have a child in further education as well as responsibility for dependent children qualify for an allowance of £75 in respect of each of those dependent children. An absent parent would qualify for the £75 allowance for the children for whom he pays maintenance but on top of this he would also see a reduction in the maintenance amount he is liable to pay. So he would gain twice compared with parents who had stayed together to raise their children.
The result in the case of a parent with care who qualified for a departure on these grounds would be an increase in the maintenance due from the absent parent, in effect making him pay for a child who is no longer dependent under the terms of the Child Support Act.
The Government's proposals for the departure system are, as I have explained, the culmination of a thorough review of the system during which representations were

1299
received from all quarters. After careful consideration a list of special expenses was drawn up which reflect the areas of major concern raised during the review. I must stress that the departure system is designed to deal with the kind of expenses that have created the greatest difficulty since the Child Support Act came into operation. It is not our intention to allow a long list of expenses to be cited as grounds for a departure order.
As I said this afternoon in relation to another subject, in this case also the issue of costs associated with supporting young people in further education was not raised as a major area of concern in the context of child support.
I remain of the view that there is no strong case to include those costs in a scheme intended to relieve areas of greatest pressure. Indeed, it would have the effect of introducing an inequity, for the reasons I set out a moment ago. With that explanation and the assurance that we have talked to officials in the Department for Education, I hope that the noble Earl can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, in view of what the Minister said about the ages of children, he might be interested to know that my youngest child is considerably younger than my four grandchildren.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must declare an interest in the field. If the Minister believes that children at university are not dependent children, he is severely mistaken. They are certainly dependent children because they cannot pursue their chosen path without parental hacking, save in the case of parents in quite considerable poverty.
I must also ask the Minister to check how many parents affected by the CSA are paying more than £75 a year per child. I would bet that many assessments are extremely low, unprofitably low, but he will find that many people pay a great deal more than that.
The matter of priorities which the Minister argues is in the end self-defeating. He will produce a situation where, if he gets everything the way he wants it, children are maintained until they get to the point of needing higher education. Then, just when they are about to be able to reach the kind of career for which they may be suited and which they may want, all support will cease. That will produce large numbers of people who do not go to university at the proper time, who wish to go later as mature students and defer regular earnings until they are well into their late twenties or occasionally even their early thirties. In Germany, Chancellor Kohl has found that the prolonging of higher education has done a great deal to undermine the funding of pensions. If the Minister produces that kind of situation, he will find it has much the same troublesome effect.
At the very least, we must consider uprating the £75. However, before deciding what to do with the amendment, I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me in what Act, regulations, guidance or other document the limit of £75 is to be found. If he can tell me that now, it would materially assist me.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Earl that now. I do not know quite what "now" means, but I shall be happy to write to him as soon as I can about where in the legislation, secondary legislation, or whatever it is, the £75 is lodged.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I too have a pile of paper and I understand his difficulties. However, if he were able to address the point in time for us to table an amendment on Third Reading, I would much appreciate it. This is not a satisfactory situation. I do not think that we can leave matters there. However, as we cannot pursue the issue any further tonight, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 13 not moved.]
Clause 10 [The child maintenance bonus]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
7 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Child Support Advisory Committee
(".—(1) There shall be a body to be called the Child Support Advisory Committee, referred to in this section as "the Committee".
(2) The Committee shall consist of not less than eight and not more than fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State shall appoint one member of the Committee to chair its proceedings.
(4) In appointing the members of the Committee, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing persons with experience and knowledge of—

(a) family proceedings and the work of family courts;

(b) child support legislation; and

(c) the welfare of children.

(5) It shall be the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of State on the working of child support legislation, and to make recommendations, when it sees fit, for amending such legislation.
(6) It shall be the duty of the Committee to prepare an annual report and to submit it to the Secretary of State.
(7) The report prepared under subsection (6) above shall include—

(a) details of the number of child maintenance assessments made in the year, and an analysis of their effect on child welfare;

(b) details of the number of departure directions made in the year, and an analysis of their impact on the effectiveness of child maintenance;

(c) details of the number of reviews undertaken by child support officers in the year, and an analysis of the results of those reviews;

(d) details of the number of appeals made to child support appeal tribunals in the year, together with an analysis of the grounds of appeal and the findings of the tribunals, and the Committee's assessment of any implications of that analysis for the reform of child support legislation; and

(e) any other matters which the Committee considers appropriate.

(8) The Secretary of State shall lay copies of each report made to him under subsection (6) above before both Houses of Parliament.
(9) Any expenses incurred by the members of the Committee appointed under this section may be reimbursed by the Secretary of State out of moneys provided by Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this amendment is rather long, I shall be quite brief in my remarks. I should simply like to have the views of the Minister on record regarding the proposals that have been made, and of which I am sure he is aware, for the child support advisory committee. There was a debate on this amendment in the other place at Report stage. Although it was fairly long, it was quite hard to pick out of it much about the child support advisory committee. It seemed to cover a large number of other issues. I felt that it would be helpful if in this House we could hear the views of the Government.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that a consultative and evaluative committee is established, similar to the one that exists in Australia, continually to monitor and evaluate the operation of the child support scheme and to make recommendations for its improvement.
At present, the only ways in which child support legislation is examined are by the House of Commons Social Security Committee and by the Department of Social Security through its day-to-day monitoring of the scheme; through research studies; and by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman). We know that the Social Security Committee's reports are extremely valuable. However, given the committee's workload, it is not able continually to monitor the child support legislation in detail. The research studies that the department organises will also no doubt be valuable, but they are designed to be of a long-term nature and, as they are not independent of government, may not cover all the aspects of the child support legislation and its effects which they should. The Ombudsman also performs an extremely useful role in examining individual cases where maladministration has occurred. However, he too is unable to provide truly comprehensive long-term reports into the operation of the scheme. We therefore believe it to be essential that an independent expert body is established continually to monitor child support legislation and standards of work in the Child Support Agency, and to make recommendations for improvements. I believe it is correct to argue that, had such an advisory committee been in existence when the 1991 Act came into operation, we might well have avoided a great many of the problems that led to this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord explained, this clause provides for an advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State on the workings of the child support scheme. Let me say straight away that we value consultation. That is why there was a wide-ranging consultation exercise before regulations were made under the 1991 Act, and why we took careful note of the advice in the 5th Report of the Social Security Select Committee, and of the views of other interested parties, in developing the improvements to the child support scheme of which the provisions in this Bill form a key part. We also have a constructive dialogue with many representatives of absent parents, parents with care, and those with experience of family law issues.
1302
In developing the changes that we announced in January, we consulted with eminent family lawyers and we corresponded frequently about the child support scheme with many organisations, including the National Council for One Parent Families, the Child Poverty Action Group and the Law Society. Whatever problems we have had with child support, I do not think that they have arisen for lack of consultation. Therefore I am not sure how this particular clause could assist.
In addition to the function of overseeing legislation analogous to that of the Social Security Advisory Committee, the proposed child support advisory committee would be required to monitor operational aspects of child support. It is in this area that the proposed annual reports of the committee would focus. In this respect, the committee would duplicate the role not only of the Social Security Select Committee of another place, but also of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the National Audit Office, and the Chief Child Support Officer.
Both the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the National Audit Office reported on the operation of the child support scheme. They drew attention to problems with these operations and Ministers have indicated the steps that are being taken to address these problems—in particular by improved methods within the agency for measuring accuracy, additional checking and enhanced training for staff. Many of the changes announced in the White Paper, Improving Child Support, are also aimed at improving the operation of the scheme. I have no doubt that both the Parliamentary Commissioner and the National Audit Office will continue to provide valuable information on the areas where we can improve the scheme, and Ministers will continue to respond positively to this feedback.
Noble Lords will be aware that the post of Chief Child Support Officer was set up under the 1991 Act to advise child support officers on the performance of their duties. His functions, which he discharges independently of Ministers or the Department of Social Security, include monitoring child support adjudication and reporting annually on performance. His annual reports contain much that is of use in identifying areas where further work is needed, and I know that he and managers in the agency are committed to working together to improve performance.
As noble Lords will recognise, the department and the Child Support Agency itself are involved in an ongoing process of evaluating the effectiveness of the policy and of the operations. This goes beyond responding to external comment and advice. The agency is seeking the views of key stake-holders by means of regular meetings and has set a challenging charter standard which will be monitored carefully. Officials will continue to monitor the policy, and particularly the changes introduced in April and through this Bill. The departure system will be piloted before full introduction to identify and solve any unforeseen complications.
So there is clearly considerable overlap between the functions of those who already advise on child support and the tasks for the proposed child support advisory committee. In my view, this inevitable overlap would

1303
seriously hamper the effectiveness of an advisory committee in this field. I believe that there is quite simply no distinct role for such an advisory committee, either in advising on areas where legislation could be improved, or in monitoring the performance of the agency.
I have explained in some detail what happens at the moment and the kind of way in which the current system responds to the sort of things that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would like to see his child support advisory committee do. In addition, I am perfectly happy to give a clear commitment to continue to respond positively to constructive suggestions for improvements in child support from wherever they come. I hope that, with that explanation of how we look for advice and who is there, set up statutorily, as some of the bodies in question are, to look at the Child Support Agency and advise us—sometimes in quite robust reports, it has to be said—the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that very full reply, which is now on the record as we wanted. Without attempting to turn the knife too hard, if the consultation and dialogue that the noble Lord describes had taken place in the run-up to the 1991 Act and after, we should perhaps not have needed this Bill. Not all the problems that have arisen, but certainly a large number of them, could perhaps have been avoided. However, we are all grateful now for the consultation machinery that is available. The object in having an independent committee was to formalise the procedure, to make it independent of government and to make it objective. However, considering the range of the consultation in which the Government are now engaged, perhaps the committee is not required. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Women's Refuges
7.8 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans to improve the provision and funding of women's refuges.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should first like to offer my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for their help in getting this Question arranged and on the Order Paper.
It is a relief, after the business in which we have been involved, to be discussing a completely non-party subject. So far as I can see, the sympathy and concern on this issue are shared among all three parties and those of none at all. The only division—and it is one that runs
1304
through all parties—is between those who are familiar with the priorities of these issues and those who are not; and that can very easily be dealt with.
Recently I came across a letter dealing with this subject. Since it deals with a lot of the issues that we come across over and over again, perhaps I may quote it:
"This morninge, about the breake of daye, there come to my gates the ladye Kennedye in very straunge and wreached manner, bare legged in hyr petycott and an olde cloake, and hyr nightgeare in greate fryght and almost starved for colde. Shee desired houseroome and fyre of my wyffe hyr coosen in this extremitye, beinge as shee sayde dryven oute of hyr house by Sir Jo. Kennedy and with greate violence breake in upon hyr, and shee stole awaye in this sorte at a back doore. Much terrefyed with his furye and violence in forcinge hyr house with a greate companye as shee sayes [and] left hyr with my wyffe; untyll hyr mother sende for hyr … and my selfe unwyllynge to deale in a matter between man and wyffe but could not turne hyr away".
Your Lordships may have noticed something a little unusual about that letter. It was written in 1609. It was addressed to Robert Cecil, first Earl of Salisbury and first Viscount Cranborne. The sister of the unfortunate woman concerned happened to be my ancestor.
That letter illustrates two points that we too easily forget. First, this is not a new problem. Secondly, it is not confined to any one social group of people; it may be found anywhere.
Again, your Lordships will have noticed the visible reluctance in the voice of the lady's host. The lady clearly could not remain there very long. That is why it is important in any review of the homelessness legislation which may take place that a woman who has been the victim of domestic violence, even when she has temporarily taken refuge elsewhere before going to a refuge, should not be regarded as intentionally homeless. There is nothing intentional whatever about that situation.
In that case, the man concerned was not only a batterer but also a pursuant. Unusually, he chose not to pursue the lady but the man with whom he believed, perhaps wrongly, that she had been having an affair. With a company:
"of furious Scots armed [and with] snippers and searing irons",
threatening to use him "worse than a Jew" he turned up outside the man's house at break of day. Fortunately, the man was virtuously in bed with his own wife and, even more fortunately, he woke up. They escaped across the fields, he leaving his breeches and his lady by his side in her smock with her petticoat in her hand.
People sometimes think that refuges are too worried about concealing their location for reasons of security. But that kind of story still happens and has continued to happen for a long time. So long as it happens, security will be necessary.
Again, as we have seen from those letters, there is a need for co-ordination. This issue cuts across every departmental boundary in Whitehall and every departmental boundary in a local authority. Sometimes that is very serious. In local authorities, refuges tend to rely on housing services for capital funds and on social services for running costs. Although there are areas where social services and housing departments communicate extremely well, that is not always the case.
Also occasionally the generosity of one is not matched by the generosity of the other and trouble results. Whitehall involves the Environment Department on the housing angle and local government angle; the Home Office on the criminal angle; and the Health Department on the social services and welfare of children angles. The Education Department is involved because schooling of the children whose life has been interrupted presents quite a serious problem; and social security services are involved because housing benefits provide much of the basic income on which a refuge works.
Those people do not always know what the others are doing. Refuges are not just a housing service. They involve practically every kind of welfare imaginable. I have with me a list which comes from a county council source. It lists bodies which have to be consulted in the course of dealing with a single case of domestic violence. It begins: the hospital social work team; the education welfare services; special education needs support services; educational psychology service; the police; the Crown Prosecution Service; the Probation Service; prison services; the diversion unit; and magistrates' courts. So far that is only one third of the way through it, but I cannot use up too much of the House's time on one list. Maybe the House will take the point.
One needs a co-ordinating principle and funding as well. The sources of funding can be as manifold as the range of problems that have to be dealt with. Some funds come from central government, some from local government and from some charitable funding. The Home Office takes the lead on some aspects, the Department of Social Security takes the lead on others, as does the Department of Health. Also involved are the Housing Corporation, the Rural Development Commission, the Benefits Agency, City Challenge and, we hope, the Single Regeneration Budget—we would welcome assurances on that. Each of those bodies tends to he earmarked for a particular purpose. It is no good having the most perfect provision for the care of children if there is no money to repair the building.
So, clearly, there need to be some kind of co-ordination. That must be done without discouraging the voluntary initiative, which is what makes refuges so cheap and effective. Some kind of central co-ordinating principle is needed. In fact, the administrative systems work in some ways rather better when dealing with either the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office, where there is not the problem of Whitehall boundaries. There is one co-ordinating department which is capable of looking at everything.
If I knew how to achieve that result in the departmental structure of Whitehall, I should have found the Philosopher's Stone. I want to ask whether some thought can be given to finding a more coherent way of tackling the problem than is done at present.
There is also need for a bigger supply of refuges. In 1975, the Home Office Select Committee recommended one place per 10,000 people. We are only 35 per cent. of the way to that figure and the demand now is much greater. The returns from refuges in the latest Women's
1306
Aid report reveal that 63 per cent. wanted more bed spaces; 31 per cent. wanted more re-housing; one refuge could accommodate only a third of the women referred; another had to refuse refuge to 224 women, which represented 65 per cent. of those who contacted it; and another had 5,594 referrals, with 320 taken in.
The effects of refusing a woman refuge and the consequences in what she might have to do instead are quite serious. At the moment, the cost for the whole of the refuge movement is only £17 million. That is only twice the cost of running this House. It is not a very big drop in the ocean of public spending. Although this House provides outstanding value for money, I believe that refuges, in terms of what they do, provide rather better value for money. The report by Women's Aid published in January asks for another £33 million to deal with needs such as the care of children, the care of buildings and increased provision of bed spaces. The sum of £33 million is still less than the running cost of another place. If my calculations are correct, it is one fifty-seventh of a penny on income tax. That is hardly an overwhelming contribution to public expenditure.
The Treasury may well say, as Treasuries tend to do, "They all say that". Well, no doubt they all do. But that is where the interesting questions begin about how cost-effective provision is. Any time one is costing any proposal for spending public money one should also cost the effects of not spending it. That is one of the acid tests of whether one is getting value for money. One manager in a housing department was faced with the cost of putting up three families in a refuge or in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and found that putting them in a refuge could save, just for the three families, £30,000 a year. There is plenty of pressure on other homeless services—25 per cent. of the people taken in by the rough sleepers initiative are domestic violence victims and the cost of putting children into care, which tends to happen if there is not a refuge, is enormous. If the Government think of value for money, they could not find any better method than this.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for raising this issue. He did so with a typically outstanding contribution. I am also particularly pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is to respond to the debate not only because he is a very distinguished parliamentarian but also because I read with great interest his comments in the previous debate on 26th October 1992. I have no doubt that the noble Earl will recall every word that he said in that debate. I shall certainly be asking him one or two questions about his comments when the time comes.
On that occasion the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said:
"The importance of the subject is only just beginning to be recognised".—[Official Report, 26/10/92; col. 995.]
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, quoted the noble Earl, Lord Russell, as saying that, and went on to say:
"It is a terrible indictment if we are only just beginning to understand it. It is a terrible indictment that there should be such a previously unthought of aspect of life".—[col. 1003.]

1307
I am afraid that the indictment is even greater than that. Although I am not enthusiastic about former Members of another place talking about what they said and what they did 'many years ago—that is rather overdone occasionally—I must tell the House that I raised this issue in another place in 1973. In fact, I was the first Member of Parliament to do so. There was a great deal of jocularity then. Some journalists and some Members of Parliament said, half jokingly, that the women deserved the beating and that it was a perk of marriage. That kind of jocularity is exactly the wrong note to strike on a major social problem. But that was the atmosphere of those times when the issue was first raised in the House of Commons.
At that time I asked the Home Secretary to make domestic violence a criminal offence and to discuss it with the chief constables. I asked the Attorney-General to make sure that injunctions were heard without delay. I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, the much loved Keith Joseph, who later became Lord Joseph in this House, to establish a network of refuges. I asked the Prime Minister, Edward Heath, whether he would establish one Minister to co-ordinate all the requirements for battered women. On all sides in the House of Commons it was not a party political issue. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also made that point. All sides pressed the issue from 1973 onwards in parliamentary Questions, Early Day Motions, debates and deputations to Ministers. That started in 1973 and yet today we have to have a debate in the House of Lords asking for improvements in funding for refuges and for a network of refuges. After all this time the indictment on successive governments is a serious one—and I include the Labour Government of 1974–1979.
There have been some improvements—notably in police attitudes and aspects of that nature—and many more refuges have been set up, but we have failed. Why is that so? We have failed because the significance of the term "domestic violence" is not really understood by the public and indeed by many parliamentarians. When the public think of domestic violence they imagine a domestic row between two people and then kissing and making up. They see that as the end of it. My wife Pauline and I saw the reality in November 1972 when we visited Chiswick Women's Aid. There we saw a decrepit old house with 130 women and children in the most abysmal and appalling conditions. What was interesting was the atmosphere. It was a very peculiar one. It was an atmosphere of great distress because these women had been very badly beaten. Yet in a curious sense it was cheerful because they were in a refuge and away from the brutality that they had known.
When one sees the kind of person who has been battered and beaten one begins to understand what the term "domestic violence" really means. What we saw were people who had been bruised, cut and even scalded and burned. They had been really brutally attacked. Their bones had been broken and their spirits had been crushed. That is the reality of domestic violence. No one really understands that until they see the problem. But most people do not see the problem. What they tend to
1308
see are the husbands or boyfriends appearing in court, well dressed and well spoken, and saying that it was a misunderstanding between them and their wife or their partner. The real guilt and the real brutality is obfuscated and disguised.
Because the public and many parliamentarians do not understand that, they do not give the issue a high enough priority. If dogs were treated in this way there would be marches on Parliament. There would be outrage in the press and elsewhere. But in this case it is only women or, as the police say—or the police used to say—they are "only domestics". The phrase "only domestics" was a kind of shorthand for getting round the problem, for evading it and for avoiding it. The police have improved since then. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he was at the Home Office, was very active in ensuring that the police played a more important and constructive role. The Metropolitan Police in particular have been splendid and have set up the kind of domestic violence units that are so valuable and which have been copied elsewhere.
Erin Pizzey, who ran Chiswick Women's Aid in those days, was a great pioneer. She wrote a very revealing book entitled Scream Quietly or the Neighbours will Hear. That was a very revealing title indeed. Erin Pizzey really began this whole campaign. Organisations like the Women's Aid Federation have carried on that fine work and have established a series of refuges throughout the country. The Women's Aid Federation offers very great protection but clearly it needs resources and assistance from the Government.
When the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, replies to this debate I hope that he will acknowledge that the present provision is an inadequate patchwork of refuges. I hope that he will acknowledge that local authorities are far too jealous of people moving in from outside into their refuges. Some, but not all, are very selfish. It is immoral that it should depend upon geography and where a woman lives as to whether or not she receives this kind of protection.
I conclude by referring again to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. In 1992 the noble Earl, in a very helpful speech which I am sure he will remember very vividly indeed because he has a fine memory, said:
"The Department of the Environment will be considering what changes in local authority and housing association practices and legislation may be needed".—[Official Report, 26/10/92; col. 1006.]
I am very glad that he made that promise and gave that undertaking. I am sure that he has been working very hard ever since. As that was nearly three years ago, I am sure he has made great progress.
I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give a positive and constructive response to his own statement when he winds up this debate. I appreciate what he and the Government have done so far. I appreciate the work of active people like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and, above all, people like Sandra Horley, who is carrying on Chiswick Aid and the people who run the Women's Aid Federation. They are the people who are keeping the flame alive. I also congratulate the women themselves who have made a great contribution by

1309
fighting back and insisting on better provision. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give them a satisfactory statement tonight.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I follow two noble Lords who have distinguished records in raising the issue of domestic violence and in particular the need for refuge provision onto the public agenda.
Our society provides something of the order of 200 times as many sanctuary places for animals as it does for women victims of domestic violence. That says a lot about our society. It is our duty to try to rectify the discrepancy in those numbers as fast as we can. We do not know the real scale of the problem. By definition it is one of those areas which, to a very large extent, must remain hidden. But we do know that 18 per cent. of all murders are of women by the husband or partner. That is the tip of an appalling iceberg, but it probably gives some indication of the scale of the difficulties.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred to the development of work in a number of areas connected with domestic violence over the past few years. In particular he mentioned domestic violence units run by the police. The development of that work has been admirable. I am only recently acquainted with the refuge movement, but seeing the development of that work has been very encouraging. Much more discussion between different agencies and different departments of local authorities and so on must take place, but there is still a need for basic refuge provision. When I say "basic" I do not mean that the provision itself should be basic. It is very important that the facilities provided are welcoming and homely. The breadth of the problem was referred to, using those very terms, in the Home Affairs Committee report of February 1993. The language of the report is rather more prosaic than that used earlier this evening by my noble friend Lord Russell, but the point is very much the same. At paragraph 129, the report says,
"Our first concern is on housing matters, and especially the provision of refuges.… The present number of refuge places is less than one-third of the number recommended as an 'initial target' … in 1975".
My noble friend Lord Russell reminded us that the number has grown very little since then.
The report continues:
"When refuge places are scarce, we have already argued that the police may not be able to secure a woman's safety when they attend an incident; that crime cannot be prevented as easily; that a woman may be deterred from following through a prosecution; that community-based sentences for offenders may cause dangers to the victim, and that there is a particularly acute problem in rural areas and in provision for ethnic minority women".
That is a more prosaic way of putting the very telling points that came from the letter.
Inadequacy of refuge provision results primarily from inadequacy of funding. A diversity of sources of finance is referred to, leading to what ACPO called a lack of,
"adequate funding and inconsistent spread of refuges".
That is the very point the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, made as to the lottery to which women in this situation are subject.
1310
Referring to service providers, the report calls for a coherent national funding strategy. It states:
"We are convinced that an adequate response to domestic violence will be impossible unless refuges and move-on housing"—
that is very relevant as we come to discuss the housing White Paper and no doubt the housing Bill in the next Session—
"are available to victims of domestic violence".
The report concludes:
"We recommend that the first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central, co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country. We believe that this could well be the single greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken".
Co-ordinated funding does not mean that the funding has all to come from the centre by way of direct provision. There is a debate which needs to take place as to whether funding is best provided centrally or at local level. I believe that central funding tends to a little less transparency as to how decisions are made on the way funding is divided. The refuge movement would be the last to claim that it can do everything. There are many worthy recipients of the funding that may be available.
In any event, local funding, as currently structured, is very heavily dependent on central grants. We are not talking about different pots of money. There is a problem with local funding. Refuge provision at a very local level, and only at that level, is insecure and inadequate. Refuges must have at least a regional perspective.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, referred to insecurity. To those who say that it is simply a matter for local authorities, I say: imagine being afraid to go out to the shops or the market in case you bump into the person from whom you have fled. Imagine fearing sending your children to school in case they encounter their father who, at the very least, will revive all the confusion and problems to which those children must be subject, and at worst, may cause mental or physical injury or use the children as a method to find you.
My noble friend Lord Russell referred to different aspects of the issue and sources of funding. As co-chair of Refuge, as the Chiswick Refuge is now called, I am very well aware that in attempting to raise funds as a charity, abused women are not as attractive as children. That is a problem for a charity. How honest are we with the public about the real issue? Of course, the children are important, but they come along with the women who need to be the prime target and the prime recipient of assistance.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs referred to refuge provision as the "first priority" and the Government's response—I refer to recommendation 38 in the 1993 report and to the Government's response at paragraph 103—acknowledged the valuable role played by refuges, saying that the issues,
"will be relevant to the inter-departmental discussions on refuge provision, due to begin shortly".
Much reliance is placed on those interdepartmental discussions, particularly by the individual women concerned and the refuge movement which awaits, and

1311
is desperate for, the outcome. Indeed, they start from a position of desperation. I cannot think what it must be like to be driven to flee one's home and to seek refuge.
My noble friend Lord Russell referred to the value for money of such provision. Providing for abused women includes child care provision, children's homes, social workers and so on. Much of that work is taken on board by refuges. A year or two ago it was estimated that if all the children at Refuge in Chiswick were in local authority residential care, it would cost about £19 million a year.
We have talked about the varied nature of the problem and I well understand the need for interdepartmental talks. I welcome a cross-disciplinary approach, but not if the outcome of those discussions is kept to the people in those discussions. I do not welcome them keeping their thoughts to themselves.
There is a strain not only on the individual women; there is an enormous strain on those who work in refuges both as paid staff and as volunteers. There are many volunteers. I am accustomed to having messages left on my answerphone from Refuge which start, "Sally, it's 11 o'clock at night and I've just got home from the office." I applaud the people who are prepared to work with the energy and commitment with which so many in that movement work, but I do not think that we should demand it of them.
In a way, this debate is back to front. I should have liked to hear first from the Minister because this is not a new debate. I do not believe that any of the points being made tonight will be new points. I look forward very much to hearing the reply of the noble Earl.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on his new portfolio. Ministers come and Ministers go, but the noble Earl seems always to be on the Front Bench. He is now on the Front Bench as Minister of State at the Department of the Environment. I congratulate him most sincerely and hope that we shall have many exchanges in the future.
I thank also the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for tabling this Unstarred Question which, as the Minister will recognise, raises a matter of great importance. As my noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Earl have said, we need to look back into history. In 1975, the Select Committee in another place recommended provision of one refuge place for a woman and her children for every 10,000 of the total population. Currently, only one-fifth of that recommendation has been met, yet all surveys show that the number of women suffering domestic violence and seeking refuge places has gone up. As local police said in a survey conducted by the London Housing Unit in 1994,
"unless you phone early in the morning it's hard to get places … there needs to be more refuge space available and more information".
That is the background to this evening's debate.
The Government have continually asserted that refuge funding is best provided at a local level. My noble friend Lord Ashley dealt with that problem. While there is
1312
merit in that idea, the Government's ideological insistence on moving housing provision away from local authorities to other agents allows local authorities much less physical and financial scope with which to provide refuge accommodation—and for that the Government must take responsibility.
As my noble friend Lord Ashley said, there is a clear need for a strategy at a higher level than that of the individual local authority. That is a role for the Government. Many women fleeing from domestic violence, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, described graphically, wish to move from their immediate location, but not so far as entirely to lose contact with their surroundings. That is illustrated by analysis of the current composition of refuge residents: few previously lived in the immediate vicinity, but the majority lived within a reasonable radius. Those facts should not detract from the fact that local government, in its enabling role, should play a particularly important part in the provision of women's refuges. However, local authorities must be given the resources to do that and they must work to a co-ordinated strategy.
What should that co-ordinated strategy be? It can be set only by the Government. I quote again from the 1993 Select Committee report from which the noble Baroness also quoted. It recommended:
"The first priority for Government action on domestic violence should be the establishment of a central co-ordinated policy for refuge provision throughout the country. We believe that this could well be the greatest cost-saving measure that could be taken".
In introducing the debate, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned costs and rightly said that, while the provision of refuges costs money, it is worth remembering the money that is already spent on the consequences of domestic violence. There is the cost to the NHS of patching up battered women and their children. There are also policing costs. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in his previous incarnation, will know all about that. There are also the costs resulting from retaliation by battered women, such as the cost to the courts and legal aid system. All those costs could be avoided or lessened if more women who are subject to domestic violence had a refuge to which to go.
After the most recent Select Committee report was produced, the Government set up an interdepartmental group, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned. I have heard nothing about that interdepartmental group other than in a Written Answer last November in which Mr. Robert B. Jones, MP, replied:
"The provision of women's refuge is best decided by local authorities and other agencies taking into account issues such as the local supply of housing available for short-term use in emergency situations. The ministerial group on domestic violence met on 17 May"—
that is, last year—
"and discussed, among other issues, the need for a centrally co-ordinated policy on refuge provision. The Group agreed to consider this further at its next meeting".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/94; col. 728.]
Therefore, I ask the Minister whether there has been another meeting. If not, why not? If so, what were its

1313
conclusions and recommendations? Will the noble Earl be good enough to say what the group is about and what it proposes to do?
We have now had the Government's White Paper on housing and, to be honest, I can only say that it will worsen the housing situation and the problems of women's refuges. During 1992, 11 per cent. of homeless households were due to domestic violence. Those figures do not include women who leave violent men and stay with friends before declaring themselves homeless.
The Government's view seems to give greater weight to waiting time. Women suffering from domestic violence do not put themselves on a waiting list and declare that they will flee a violent situation in a year's time. That is not the way the world works. During that time they will subject themselves to whatever violence they may be suffering in the home. When they decide, they decide to leave. They become homeless and need housing as an emergency. If all that is on offer is unsatisfactory temporary accommodation, with little prospect of permanent housing, and the fear that if they cannot find a permanent home their children will be taken into care, how many women will remain longer in violent situations?
It is our view that many women tolerate violence at home for months or years simply because they have nowhere else to go. The most urgent need is for a safe place that will accept them without notice and provide the practical and emotional support that they will generally need. There is an urgent need for the Government to provide a national strategy and a clear mechanism for funding to ensure that there is somewhere else for them to go.
I hope very much that the Minister, in his new guise—although he knows about this problem from his previous guise—will be able to give the House many assurances that the Government take the problem seriously and that the noble Earl's Question is properly put.
7.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for having given your Lordships the opportunity this evening to discuss what is a very important subject. As so often, he has illuminated his speech with a personal anecdote, as well as lacing it with a touch of history. That always adds a bit of glamour and excitement to his speeches.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, fell into the trap of saying how boring it is when people refer to speeches they made previously—and of course promptly referred to the speech he made in 1973. I do not mind that in the slightest. It was a good thing that he made that speech. He was good enough to remind me of what I said in 1992 when I was in the Home Office. Such reminders are not always particularly convenient, but I was grateful to him for jogging my memory this evening.
Which department takes responsibility for answering a Question depends upon the way the Question is phrased. The Question in 1992 was phrased in such a
1314
way that it fell to me in the Home Office to answer it. Due to the way the Question is phrased this evening, it falls to me in the Department of the Environment to answer it. It just so happens that it is the same person answering the Question, although each Question referred to a different department. It is one of the hazards that one tends to be caught by when there are ministerial musical bumps.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, will of course know from what I have to say that, having had the privilege of being in the Department of the Environment for at least some nine hours, I am already an expert on the subject which he has sought to bring to your Lordships' attention. First, we should all be concerned about battered and abused persons. It is horrifying. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, referred to people who have been bruised, battered, scalded and had their bones broken. Frankly, that leaves the imagination almost incapacitated.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, when that happens the police are involved—a point about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned. In 1980 Home Office guidance was issued to chief officers of police. It emphasised that assaults within private relationships are no less criminally serious than violence which takes place between strangers. The guidance encouraged police forces to establish force policies on domestic violence. All police forces in England and Wales have a force policy on domestic violence. That emphasises the overriding duty to protect the victim and children from further attack; the need to treat domestic violence as seriously as other forms of violence; the use and value of powers of arrest; the dangers of seeking reconciliation between the assailant and the victim—although one may try hard and think that one is doing the right thing, in fact it may be counter-productive—and of course the importance of record keeping to enable chief officers to monitor the effectiveness of that policy in practice.
The first thing we must do is recognise that individuals who leave home to escape domestic violence need help to start a new life. Many have nowhere else to live, and many often need assistance to obtain alternative accommodation. Many can benefit also from practical advice, and from just the sheer, simple support at a time of emotional distress.
Women's refuges, or other forms of temporary accommodation, address the immediate housing needs of women who flee from domestic violence, but bricks and mortar are not the only answer to the problem. Whether women are in a refuge or elsewhere, the fundamental requirement for success in helping victims of domestic violence is the effective co-ordination of all the services available—some from the private sector and some from the public sector. All noble Lord were right to draw attention to the fact that it is the co-ordination of the different services which is so important.
Victims of domestic violence have to be considered, first, as individuals. Second to that is the fact that they are victims of criminal abuse. The kind of help which they need and which they will want will vary from person to person. Not all victims of domestic violence need to make use of refuge accommodation. Some may

1315
prefer to stay with their family and friends or to move into ordinary housing as soon as possible. Other forms of emergency accommodation can also help.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was concerned that under the reform of homelessness legislation women should not be regarded as intentionally homeless. That is right. Under the proposed reforms, people who flee domestic violence will continue to be considered unintentionally homeless if they would risk violence by returning home.
The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said that there should be some form of central co-ordination. Co-ordination is important, but it should be at the local level because that is where the services are provided. The agencies have to work together. Of course centrally we are also co-ordinating policy through the interdepartmental group. We support co-ordination of the voluntary sector by funding the Women's Aid Federation. But it is bound to be for local authorities to assess the need for refuge provision in their area and to decide the level of funding that is appropriate.
It is important to achieve the right balance between providing emergency accommodation, on the one hand, and action to help people to obtain longer-term housing, on the other hand. In some areas it may make most sense for the housing authority to apply its resources to helping individuals to move on into ordinary housing. Any form of central government policy which prescribes a particular quantity of refuge housing would remove the flexibility that local authorities need to have. It is only at the local level that the need for refuge services can be properly assessed. That does not mean to say that it is not equally important at the local level for all other services—including, if necessary, the police—to be co-ordinated too.
However, many other people in society rely on housing assistance or other forms of services that are provided or supported by local authorities. There are, for instance, the elderly, the disabled, the mentally ill and the homeless as well as women who have been beaten up or abused by their husbands or, as in the current day unattractive vernacular used by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, their partners.
It would be invidious for central government to try to specify precisely what level of resources in terms of money or units local authorities should make available to address a particular need. It is, after all, the authorities themselves which have the responsibility for providing those services to the public and for justifying how they have applied and allocated their resources against all the demands that are made on them.
However, it is right that there should be a statutory safety net to ensure that vulnerable people have access to the right accommodation. That safety net is provided by the homelessness legislation. It is set out in Part III of the Housing Act 1985. The Government have plans to reform that legislation but the new legislation, whenever it comes forward and whatever it is, will continue to provide a proper safety net for the same
1316
groups of people as it does at present. That includes people with children and single people who are vulnerable because they have suffered violence.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked what action the Government have taken to ensure that tackling domestic violence is given the appropriate priority by all departments. The interdepartmental groups have been set up at official and ministerial level to take forward the Government's response to domestic violence. The official group has met four times to discuss the proposals in the key areas in raising public awareness and improving inter-agency co-operation to tackle domestic violence. The proposals were endorsed by the ministerial group on domestic violence at its inaugural meeting on 17th May. We remain determined to tackle what is an important issue.
We all want to help, whatever our situation may be. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, believed that there should be central co-ordination. I agree that there is value in that. But there is central co-ordination. The local authorities must take the lead in devising exactly the kind of strategies that need to be in place to address the housing needs of the victims of domestic violence in their areas, in addition to all the other problems that they face. The Government, in their turn, are ensuring as far as possible that decisions on spending are consistent with what individual authorities are doing.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that it is vitally important that there should be co-operation between the agencies. Clearly, it is vital for housing authorities and housing associations to work closely with social service departments and voluntary sector agencies when they develop their proposals for new housing association refuges and running the existing ones.
The Government also contribute indirectly to the provision of refuges and to their running through the substantial revenue and capital resources which we make available to local authorities. Where people cannot afford to meet the full costs of their accommodation from their own resources we provide financial assistance through the housing benefit system. That housing benefit is available to people irrespective of the type of accommodation in which they live.
The voluntary sector agencies play a vital role in running refuges and providing services in co-operation with statutory bodies. In order to help the voluntary sector in this work the Government are providing more than £150,000 of funding to the Women's Aid Federation in England in 1995–96. They are providing £49,000 towards a national telephone helpline. Furthermore, £55,000 is being provided over three years to fund the Women's Aid Federation's national housing co-ordinator. We are supporting other women's aid organisation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Domestic violence is a very important subject and, like most difficult subjects, it is not one to which an easy solution can be found or which will disappear by government legislation or government or local authority funding. Basically, it must be the co-ordination of everyone's good work and efforts, supported by the

1317
appropriate funding. However, because it is an important issue, the inter-departmental official group on domestic violence was set up.
I have referred to that group which is due to meet soon in order to discuss the provision of women's refuges and other matters related to domestic violence. It will report to the ministerial group on domestic violence so that Ministers themselves can consider the matters and how best to take them forward. We shall look carefully at what is said in the official group but, as yet, I do not believe that a case has been made out to change what has been the long-standing policy of the Government as a whole—that local authorities should have the responsibility of deciding how to address the housing and other needs of the victims of domestic violence. However much there may be ministerial co-ordination—and that is right—and however much there may be an inter-departmental group working to see how we can pull together all the services—and that is right—in the end the problem must be addressed locally by the local authorities and the local agencies.
In so far as the noble Earl's Question has drawn attention to the problem tonight he will have done a service to your Lordships and to others too—
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he aware that he has fallen into the trap of offering the House a contradiction? He has suggested a co-ordinated response and insisted that it should be local, although he knows full well that local authorities are intent and determined on being totally autonomous and there is no real prospect of proper co-ordination.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I accused the noble Lord of falling into a trap. He has responded by offering the same compliment to me. I do not believe that I did fall into a trap. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that there should be some form of central co-ordination in order to overcome the problem. I have tried to say that there is because there has been the co-ordination of Ministers and of government departments. However, there is no difference in saying that, while at the same time saying that it comes down to the local authorities and the people of the locality to address the problem.
The noble Lord shakes his head, but I cannot understand how he can believe that it should be for the Department of the Environment or for the Home Office to say how the problem should be dealt with. The way in which it should be dealt with must be a local matter. The fact that it should be dealt with and the funds that should be addressed for it are matters for central government.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may apologise for prolonging the debate. I appreciate that after nine hours and perhaps 10 minutes he will not be in a position to give a detailed response. However, as regards the ministerial discussions, he raised the question of reporting back so that those involved in the work at local level, in the voluntary agencies and so forth are fully informed of ministerial thinking and are able co-operatively to take the issue forward. Will he expand on that?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am becoming rather nervous that we are now out of order because I have been invited to make three speeches. However, I shall ensure that account is taken of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Child Support Bill
8.10 p.m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
[Amendments Nos. 16 to 23 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 24:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Provision of information to the Secretary of State: repeal of section 14(4) of and Schedule 2 to 1991 Act
. Section 14(4) of and Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Inland Revenue confidentiality. The matter was gone into slightly in Committee because the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, raised it on another amendment which I moved. I should say that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who has his name to this amendment, has suffered a slight accident and has had to go into hospital. I know that all your Lordships will wish to concur in sending him a message of goodwill and good wishes for his rapid recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am sorry that he is not here to speak on this amendment because, although at one time I was a Minister responsible for the Inland Revenue and have dealt with Inland Revenue cases both at the Bar and as a judge, that is slight experience compared with that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He devoted many years of his valuable life to the service of the Inland Revenue in a number of capacities. He was always urging—and I venture to second this—that Inland Revenue confidentiality should be respected.
I reminded your Lordships in Committee that our Inland Revenue system is in many ways peculiar. I know of no other system which relies to the same extent on self-assessment. But that self-assessment depends on an assurance of confidentiality. The provision which this amendment seeks to expunge—and it is now in a more correct form than it was in Committee—is to be found in the second schedule to the 1991 Act. It enables the Secretary of State and his officials to breach Inland Revenue confidentiality for the purposes of the Child Support Agency.
I have been long enough hereabouts to recognise the sound of entrenching tools in Whitehall. They have been very noticeable this evening. It is perfectly obvious that the department made what I think would be agreed generally, although it will not concede this, to be an egregious error in the 1991 Act, and it is now in a Maginot line. It is entrenching itself and taking a firm stand behind formulae which are worked out most capriciously. I have a whole list of cases with which I

1319
shall not trouble your Lordships at this hour of the night. But perhaps I may mention one. The Child Support Agency, evidently on the formula which your Lordships will be looking at later, made an assessment which left a father with 1p per week.
Although the Minister and his department despise the magistrature, is it really conceivable that any rational Bench would commit such an error or make the other egregious decisions which have been freely publicised? I sympathise with what the Minister said in support of the Child Support Agency and its officers. They were subject to great provocation and unfairness. It was not their fault that they had to administer an unworkable Act. It was the fault of the Government in arranging that they should have to do so by using their Whip in the other place and by using the management of business in this House so as to preclude your Lordships from amending effectively the 1991 Bill, although its defects were recognised clearly and identified. Some of those defects are rectified in this Bill.
One other matter to which I should refer is a heading to a leader in The Times of 23rd December 1993. It is headed
"Keeping the Flaws The reform of the Child Support Agency is disappointing".
The leader spells that out in detail.
The Minister has rightly been staunchly loyal to his department. He has defended the officers of the Child Support Agency, who, as I say, were not responsible for the policy which they had to implement. But we should not lose sight of the fact that the 1991 Act was a major act of bureaucratic aggrandisement.
There was a good deal of slow, bureaucratic aggrandisement from 1945 when the Labour Government made use of the powers that had been vouchsafed to the Executive in wartime; and, indeed, that aggrandisement, a slow process, went on after the Conservatives came to power only ending with the disaster for the Conservative Government of Crichel Down, which resulted in the resignation of an able and popular Minister. That Minister took the blame for the bureaucratic errors of his department; and that should be a warning.
That is the general background: an unprecedented act of bureaucratic aggrandisement, seizing the jurisdiction from the magistrature, which had exercised it since the Middle Ages and done so under statute for a century, and vouchsafing it to a government agency charged with applying an inflexible formula. However, it did not rest there. They had to show that the Child Support Agency could do at least as well as the magistrates. That could only be done by arming the officials with exceptional powers.
In Committee we discussed—and I took the matter to a Division, so I only mention it in passing—the power of those officials to enter private premises on pain of a penalty and to interrogate on pain of a penalty the employer, the father and the fellow employees. In addition to those powers, the 1991 Act assumes power in the officials to breach Inland Revenue confidentiality.
1320
I leave the other matters aside, but they are essential background—the bureaucratic aggrandisement, the power to enter private premises, the power to interrogate employers and fellow employees to elicit information that will strengthen the arm of the agency.
We now come to the breach of Inland Revenue confidentiality. I venture to say that that confidentiality lies at the very heart of the functioning of the Inland Revenue in this country. It is quite intolerable that officials should be given the ability, that no private creditor has, of being able to breach Inland Revenue confidentiality. I hope that the Minister will not say that that power is only used in certain circumstances and only as a last resort. That simply will not do. It ought not to take place at all. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for not being in my place when he introduced his amendment. However, I believe that he made some friendly remarks about my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I am informed that, although my noble friend has had to have some treatment, he is now progressing well, although he will not be able to join us for the rest of this evening's proceedings.
As always, the noble and learned Lord made a very powerful case. There is but one point that I should like the Minister to clarify. As I read Schedule 2 to the 1991 Act, it seems to me that the access to Inland Revenue records only applies to the address of the employer of the absent parent. However, I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could make that crystal clear and confirm that that is the only information that can be obtained from the Inland Revenue and that no other information of any sort can be so obtained in connection with the work of the Child Support Agency.
Further, as regards local authority records, under the same schedule, can the Minister confirm that it is only the information regarding benefits—that is, housing benefit and, as it was then, the community charge benefit which is now council tax benefit—that can be obtained. It is extremely important that those points should be emphasised.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may start in the elegant legal words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and say that I concur with the remarks made by my colleagues about the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I very much hope that the noble Lord will be back with us in time for us to hear his voice raised on the issue next week when we come to Third Reading.
Section 14(4) of the 1991 Act introduces Schedule 2 which allows the Child Support Agency to obtain from the Inland Revenue the current address or current employer of an absent parent. It also allows the agency to obtain from local authorities details of housing benefit or council tax benefit which are needed in the assessment formula. The amendment proposed would remove those two provisions.
We had a full discussion in the House during both the Second Reading and the Committee stages of the Bill about the information which the Child Support Agency is able to obtain from the Inland Revenue. I would like

1321
to repeat and re-emphasise that the only information that is given to the CSA by the Revenue is—as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me to confirm—the current address of the absent parent or the current employer of the absent parent. That is done by means of correspondence. Therefore, there is no suggestion that people from the agency can actually sit down and look at a person's file to see what the other aspects of his position may be as outlined in the Inland Revenue returns. As I said, it is done by correspondence and those concerned can only ask the following two questions if the agency needs to know the answers. Question one: what is the address of the absent parent? Question two: who is the current employer of the absent parent?
The agency does that when it is unable to trace an absent parent or the absent parent's employer. Then it sends a standard inquiry form to a central point within the Inland Revenue. That form is then returned with the absent parent's address and that of his employer, where it is known. As I said, officers of the agency do not visit the Inland Revenue premises and they certainly do not see any individual's tax returns.
During the Committee stage of the Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, seemed to compare the Child Support Agency with a debt collection agency. The CSA is much more than that. It has now taken over from the courts jurisdiction for the assessment, collection and enforcement of child maintenance in the majority of cases. I very much appreciate that that is where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and I part company in that we do not agree with that takeover of what had previously been the role of the courts. As I said before, two of the many reasons for the introduction of the agency were the courts' general failure to trace absent parents and their lack of success in enforcing orders once they were made. The agency has had the same problems, but we are determined that it will be more effective than the courts in achieving fair and regular maintenance for more parents with care. However, to achieve that, the agency plainly needs to have more statutory powers than a simple debt collection agency.
In explaining why the provisions of Schedule 2 were introduced, I can do no better than to remind your Lordships of the commonsense contribution made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who said that,
"the whole thing depends on the wife who is left with a child by a man who by now dislikes her and has another wife. It is perfectly obvious that that man will not easily pay what he ought to pay".— [Official Report, 20/6/95; col. 170.]
The noble Lord was surprised at the length of the argument that we had on that subject in Committee; indeed, so was I. Sadly, it is true that many absent parents try to avoid being traced and, when traced, try to avoid paying maintenance. In the past year the agency successfully traced 49,600 absent parents whose whereabouts were unknown to the parent with care. The agency has had success in tracking down fathers, and indeed mothers, who disappear without facing up to
1322
their responsibilities. Without the help of this simple information from the Inland Revenue, the number of successful traces would reduce significantly.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. With the leave of the House, it would perhaps be helpful if I asked a question now as the answer might be forthcoming from other sources. Are there other examples of where this power is used? Is it used only in connection with the Child Support Bill or are there other areas where there is access to the Inland Revenue or local authority records? It would be helpful to know that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may return to that in a little while because I wish to discuss the point about local authorities that the noble Lord raised. The second arm of the schedule which would be removed by the noble and learned Lord's amendment concerns the provision of relevant information from local authority records. I reminded your Lordships that the relevant information has been prescribed in regulations as the eligible rent for housing benefit purposes, the entitlement to housing benefit, the council tax payable and the entitlement to council tax benefit of either the person with care or the absent parent. The provision is beneficial because it allows the CSA to collect information which it would otherwise have to obtain from either parent; or, alternatively, the other parent would have to obtain it from his or her ex-other half.
An important element of the calculation of a maintenance assessment is the housing costs, which are net of housing benefit. The net council tax is needed for assessing protected income, which ensures that the absent parent and his new family remain significantly above the level of income support. That is why I find it strange to hear for the second time the case that the noble and learned Lord refers to of the person left with a penny. I would need to know a good deal more about that before I could comment on it. As I said, these calculations about housing costs and net council tax costs are very important; the net council tax is needed for assessing protected income. Failure to obtain this information could reduce the speed and accuracy of some assessments. That leads to some of the problems which have beset the agency. I must inform your Lordships that I cannot understand why the amendment has been drafted to remove this provision.
I was asked who has similar powers. The Contributions Agency can similarly ask the Inland Revenue for the address of a person who is in arrears of contributions, or it can ask for his employer's address. Therefore the Contributions Agency already has this power. If we lived in a world where the absent parent always made himself available to have his maintenance assessed and where, once assessed, it was always paid, it would not be necessary to have access to the limited information on addresses which the Inland Revenue is asked to provide. Lamentably, we do not live in such a world and therefore there is a need for the agency to be allowed to receive limited details from the Inland Revenue's records.

1323
Provided that this information is carefully handled by the Inland Revenue and by the agency, I am afraid that I cannot see the great matter of principle which so concerns the noble and learned Lord. I could see it if the agency were asking to see all of a person's records, but as regards the two questions that the agency is allowed to ask the Inland Revenue and to which it expects an answer, I do not think any reasonable man or woman would consider that that trespassed on individual liberty or freedom. Therefore I am afraid that once again I must reject the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am afraid once again in the reply of the Minister there has been a quite perceptible note of antagonism to absent fathers—indeed there was hostility. That was marked earlier and it has been marked again. One of the wise things that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in Committee was that there are few men in this country who can afford two families. That was said repeatedly at the time of the Divorce Reform Act 1969, which ushered in an enormous spate of divorces in spite of it being sold to the public as a kiss-and-make-up Bill.
It was said on that occasion by Lord Hodson, who was the foremost matrimonial judge in this country, and by Lady Summerskill, with a lifelong devotion to women's rights, who recognised immediately that to allow polygamy, albeit successive polygamy, not simultaneous polygamy, was disastrous to the status of married women. What has happened is that society has allowed people to have two families, and it is perfectly absurd that the Department of Social Security has got into a false position that it should blame the absent father. That is the first thing I would say.
The second thing is that I would like again to quote what I have quoted from Dicey on previous occasions when he is describing the rule of law. He states:
"every man whatever his rank or condition is subject to the ordinary law of the realm … universal subjection of all classes to one law administered by the ordinary courts".
He was dealing there expressly with the systems of administrative law on the Continent which put officials in a privileged position. That has never been our way until very recently. All persons—the ordinary debt collector and the official debt collector alike—should be subject and amenable to the ordinary law of the land. At this time of night, and having made a brief reconnaissance outside the Chamber, I see no point in wasting your Lordships' time with a Division. Without being in any way convinced—on the contrary, believing this to be an important point because the rule of law is an important principle—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 25:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals: amendment of section 20 of 1991 Act
. In section 20 of the 1991 Act (appeals), in subsection (1) (b), at end insert—

"(c) to refuse an application for a maintenance assessment;

(d) to make an assessment;

(e) to refuse an application, under section 17, for a review of a maintenance assessment;

(f) in determining the amount of an assessment;

(g) to cancel an assessment;

(h) to refuse to cancel an assessment" ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 25, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 26. The matter of the two amendments is different but the area they cover has a certain amount of similarity. They both deal with the question of appeals. Amendment No. 25 would cut out the internal review which was provided in the 1991 Act and which adds to the delay, adds to the difficulty and adds to the obstruction. I can remember in 1991 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, waxing particularly eloquent against this internal review on the ground that it simply did not partake of the character of an appeal. It is an appeal to the same body which originally made the decision, and that is not what we understand by an appeal. The large number of decisions needing to be corrected is really much more an indication of poor adjudication and poor administration at the lower level. Indeed, those errors are so many and the number of missing papers so great that it is often not until there is investigation from outside that they come to light.
I heard the Minister speak in defence of the agency earlier today. I did not intervene because I had no further locus standi on that amendment and I remembered that we are at Report stage. However, the Minister knows that in general I do not believe that the agency is to blame for what is wrong with the Bill. Ministers are responsible for the load they have placed on the agency. Since the Minister knew that, I thought that he did not need to take the general distrust of power which I believe every parliamentarian must have in all circumstances as personal hostility to the agency. That was a little unnecessary of him.
Amendment No. 26 is much more far-reaching. It provides, in case of error, for a genuine appeal to the High Court. It also gives the High Court authority to override the Act itself where that is necessary to prevent hardship or injustice to any particular person. I am sure that the Minister will not like that. However, from 1991 onwards it has been one of our substantial criticisms of the Act that it does not provide any proper machinery for appealing against an assessment.
Over and over again in my postbag I have found that what most frustrates people in appealing against an assessment which appears to them patently unjust is that they are unable to get any judicial recourse to appeal against it. That is all part of what the noble and learned Lord meant by describing the 1991 Act as a threat to the rule of law. I do not believe that the Government can imagine the frustration and disillusion that results

1325
from facing what people see, rightly or wrongly, as an unjust act by an executive power and being unable to query it, challenge it or bring it to scrutiny before any higher authority whatever.
Under Amendment No. 26 the court would be allowed to correct any error of fact or law involved in the decision appealed against. Due to the amount of work the CSA is asked to undertake, rather than through any incompetence on its part, the papers of the CSA are in such confusion that until it faces an outside authority with power to compel it to produce documents a great many errors will never be sorted out.
The power that the CSA enjoys would have been draconian enough if all its decisions had been accurate, but at present it seems that no more than 50 per cent. of its decisions are accurate. Enjoying that much draconian power and immunity from questioning in defence of decisions, some half of which are wrong, is too much. That is why it is important to be able to appeal against the CSA to a proper court—the Family Division or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.
Ever since I arrived in this House I have been hearing arguments about the need for a proper family court. I have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, speak eloquently and persuasively on the subject. If the Minister has not learnt yet he soon will that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is usually right even if, as in this case, it takes three years for her rightness to become apparent.
Although they deal with very different points, both amendments need to be taken seriously. The provisions of Amendment No. 26 go a long way to make the internal review seem even more unnecessary and time wasting than it seemed in 1991. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained, the two new clauses he proposes concern appeals. Amendment No. 25 deals with appeals to a child support appeal tribunal while Amendment No. 26 deals with appeals to the High Court.
Amendment No. 25 proposes to make provision for child support officer decisions relating to the refusal, cancellation, making, or adjustment of the amount of a maintenance assessment to be appealed directly to a child support appeal tribunal. Noble Lords will know that the 1991 Act provides for a statutory review of such child support officer decisions by a second child support officer. The new clause offers an alternative avenue for disputing a child support officer's decision—directly to an appeal tribunal. However, it does not do away with the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. The effect of the new clause is to give the aggrieved party a choice of whether to ask for a review by the CSO or to go straight to a child support appeal tribunal.
The statutory review which is carried out before an appeal can he lodged serves a useful purpose. It reduces the pressure on the appeals system. There are times when matters of grievance can be dealt with simply and quickly by a second child support officer reviewing the maintenance assessment. There is no need for an appeal.
1326
In effect, the second-tier review acts as a filter mechanism to identify such cases and avoid clogging the system. Currently only around one case in five of those reviewed under Section 18 of the Act continues on to appeal. Before anybody says that the other four out of five have had their appeal rights denied, I should point out that the right of appeal is automatic should either party be dissatisfied with the result of the review.
Therefore, it is not so much, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, an appeal to the same body. The second-tier review process is not an appeal at all. It is an opportunity for either party to ask for a different officer to check the assessment to ensure that it is correct. If either party then disagrees with the outcome, there is the automatic right of appeal to a tribunal.
If, instead of applying for a review by a child support officer, everyone sought to appeal, the number of appeals launched could increase fivefold. It is entirely appropriate for people to apply to the child support officer in the first instance if they are unhappy about any aspect of the initial decision on child maintenance. If he agrees the decision is wrong, he can put it right. There is no need for cases to go to a tribunal unless people are unhappy about the outcome. I cannot understand what is wrong with that. To go down the road suggested by the noble Earl would undoubtedly increase the number of appeals made to tribunals and make the problems of the tribunals even greater and the delays which the parent with care would face in getting maintenance ever longer.
The effect of Amendment No. 26 would be to undermine all first and second level decisions on the assessment, payment and collection of child support maintenance. As the noble Earl explained, it would abolish the child support commissioners and allow any decision of a child support officer, a child support appeal tribunal, the Secretary of State, a magistrates' court or a sheriff's court to be challenged in the High Court. There would be no requirement to seek leave to appeal. The High Court would accept all comers.
Child support commissioners are appointed by the Crown. They are barristers, solicitors or advocates of not less than 10 years' standing. Their role is to consider points of law raised by decisions of child support appeal tribunals. It is a well-established process which also applies in other areas of social security. The commissioners, whose legal standing is equivalent to High Court judges, provide a valuable function in establishing case law which then applies in later cases.
I know that the noble Earl regards the abolition of the child support legislation as his main aim. I believe that these two amendments would disable the legislation and get quite close to that position by the route that he suggested in the two amendments. By providing for the Family Division of the High Court to hear any challenge to a decision on child support, the amendment in effect returns questions to the courts. Such a move would result in a great deal of extra work for the High Court and the Court of Session in Scotland and people would wait a very long time for the outcome of their case. Other cases currently heard in the High Court and the Court of Session would suffer equally. Frankly, I do not believe that that is an acceptable way to proceed.

1327
Your Lordships will not have failed to notice that all the costs would fall on the Secretary of State unless the court decides otherwise. That would, of course, be a considerable and most unwelcome burden on the taxpayer. I am afraid that vexatious litigants would take every opportunity of pursuing their cases, especially if there was absolutely no possibility of them having to pay any of the costs. I do not believe that that is right.
I am sorry to tell the noble Earl that I think neither of his amendments are sensible. Both would increase costs and, more importantly, cause unacceptable delays. I believe that they would go a long way towards undermining the objectives of the Child Support Agency. The provisions would certainly add to delays. There are people who would use the procedures that the noble Earl would put in place as a way further to clog up the machinery of the system, to aggravate the system, to delay the system and to bring it into disrepute.
I cannot possibly accept the amendments. I am sure that the noble Earl is not in the least surprised at that. I hope he will withdraw this amendment. If he does not do so, I hope my noble friends will support me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for one point in that reply. I am grateful for his admission that the second tier review is not an appeal. In 1991 we spent a great many hours seeking to induce his predecessor to agree to precisely that point. I am very glad that we have won the point now, even if somewhat belatedly. It does not partake of any of the proper characteristics of an appeal. The name of the officer undertaking the review is not given. The complainant does not know whether the officer is a different person. If we do not know who the person is, we do not know whether there can be conflict of interest or whom to hold accountable for the decision.
That is not justice; it is administration. It is at the heart of our complaint that administration is taking over from justice.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Earl giving way to me. Surely if the aggrieved party can have the problem resolved by what the noble Earl calls an administrative process, that is a perfectly satisfactory solution. A solution is reached a good deal more quickly and more easily, with the backstop that if the person is not satisfied his right of appeal is not altered.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that argument would carry a good deal more weight if the CSA were capable of getting more than 50 per cent. of its decisions right. Judging by some of the correspondence that I have seen from the CSA, I wonder whether it always knows that it has conducted a second tier review. Internal communication within the CSA seems to me to be a good deal less than perfect.
I cannot help wondering whether the Minister would entrust his car to a garage where there was a 50–50 chance that the garage would remember to tighten the wheel nuts. I can tell him that I would not. It makes the case for a proper appeal procedure all the more important.
1328
I was a little disconcerted by the Minister's argument that we cannot have a proper appeal procedure because people might use it. It reminds me a little of the case of,
"A man in the restaurant at Crewe Who once found a mouse in his stew. Said the waiter, 'Don't shout, don't wave it about, Or the rest will be wanting one too'"
Yes, indeed, if justice is available, the rest will be wanting one too. If injustice, or perceived injustice, grows, then so must recourse to the courts to deal with it. The argument that everyone might want it is one which does a great deal more than I hope the Minister intended. One could use that argument to wipe out practically any appeal against an action of power. That really would be contrary to the rule of law. I hope that it is not what the Government intend.
In one form or another, we shall have to look at the issue again because as it stands at present the situation is totally unacceptable. I do not think that we shall get any further by pursuing the matter across the Chamber tonight. Therefore for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 27:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Enforcement of liability orders by distress: repeal of section 35 of 1991 Act
. Section 35 of the 1991 Act shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the remedy of distress which is vouchsafed to the Secretary of State in addition to the other powers that I rehearsed earlier. As your Lordships know, distress stems from a very ancient and primitive sphere of jurisprudence; namely, the time of self help.
When I raised the matter in Committee, I asked the Minister a number of specific questions about Section 35 of the 1991 Act. I also asked him a general question. The noble Lord was not then in a position to answer those specific questions which he said were questions of law. I have today received a letter from him dealing with the specific points that I raised. I am most grateful to him; I have had time to read the letter before the debate.
I do not propose to refer to the specific points, although they may arise on the general question which I asked the Minister and which remains unanswered. It is this. Section 35 gives the Secretary of State the right of distress. Does it give him additional powers over and above the ordinary rights of distress? If so, what are those powers? If not, what is the sole purpose of Section 35?
The matter arises in this way. Section 33(2) of the Child Support Act 1991 states:
"The Secretary of State may apply to a magistrates' court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff for an order (a 'liability order') against the liable person".
Under subsection (4) neither the court nor the sheriff is given power to question the maintenance assessment under which the payment for child support maintenance falls to be made. In other words, as I understand it, they

1329
may not question the operation of the formula, however defective it has proved in the past. That comes under Section 33, liability orders.
Section 35 states:
"Where a liability order has been made against a person ('the liable person'), the Secretary of State may levy the appropriate amount by distress and sale of the liable person's goods".
Perhaps I ought to read from subsection (7):
"The Secretary of State may make regulations supplementing the provisions of this section".
One then has a liability order obtained from the magistrates' court. I now read from Halsbury's Laws of England in the edition edited by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. I need read only the first few words of Section 5 in the article on distress:
"5. Distress under Magistrates' Courts Act 1952".
That Act has now been consolidated. Paragraph 442 states:
"Jurisdiction. Where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a magistrates' court the court may issue a warrant of distress for the purpose of levying the sum".
In other words, when a liability order has been obtained from the magistrates, the magistrates may issue a warrant of distress.
I have examined the procedure under the Magistrates' Courts Act and there is some difference from Section 35. One asks why it exists. I ask again: what additional powers have been taken? Why is it necessary to have Section 35 at all when the issue of a liability order may immediately result in distress under the Magistrates' Courts Act? Either Section 35 gives additional power once again to officials or it. is unnecessary. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment, to which I have put my name.. Distress is an extreme power. It provides the right of entry; it lays down in Section 35 that no one is to be a trespasser. It is almost the nearest thing allowed under the rule of law to a Hobbesian state of war. It is an act almost forcibly to take what is owing to one.
That is an extreme power which may be justified in a situation which is properly controlled by the rule of law. In some cases, that extreme power needs to exist. But to be subject to distress for an assessment against which one has no legal appeal and which stands a 50 per cent. chance of being erroneous is too much. The contrast between those two things shows quite how far the 1991 Act went in exalting the powers of the Executive against the powers of the law.
If one is to be subject to those powers, one must be able to appeal against them. If the powers are to be claimed, there must be some good reason for believing that the debt which they are being used to collect is due. Without the right of appeal and with that rate of error, I do not see how we can have that.
There must also be some reason to believe that the debt can be recovered. We may find that that presents some difficulties. According to the report of the Audit Commission, which appeared an hour or two too late for us to use it in Committee, the agency itself told the
1330
National Audit Office that the total outstanding debt contained a growing core not yet quantified which was not likely to be collected.
So if we use distress to try to collect something that is not likely to be collected because the person does not possess sufficient property, we are getting into uncomfortable territory. I am reminded of a document I once saw recording the distresses taken from John Hampden's tenants for ship money. They had taken away from them as distresses their family Bibles and their frying pans. They were getting down to the bare minimum. We do not wish matters to get to that point. Nor do we want distress to be used where the legal powers are inadequate.
Another point which was made by the Audit Commission and which I do not believe the Minister will be able to get round is that many of the debts arise from interim maintenance assessments. Because they are incorrectly dated, they are legally unenforceable. If I am to be the victim of a distress for an inaccurately assessed debt on a maintenance interim assessment which is not legally enforceable because the date is wrong, I cannot do anything with the bailiff who comes into my property. What appeal have I? Is that not being subject to an arbitrary power? And is it not the kind exaltation of the Executive which is very hard to combine with the principles of government by consent?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have again proposed this amendment which removes totally the provisions relating to the levying of distress. They are concerned that Section 35 of the 1991 Act—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. I venture to point out that it does no such thing; the power to levy distress remains under the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords, but I believe that the noble and learned Lord will agree that it removes the provisions as they apply to the Child Support Agency, giving it a different route to that which I believe the noble and learned Lord would prefer it to have.
Both noble Lords are concerned that Section 35 of the 1991 Act gives the Child Support Agency exceptional powers, and that this section is not needed—as the noble and learned Lord pointed out to me in his intervention—as there is an existing debt enforcement process in the county court. I should first like to remind the House of the efforts the agency makes to reach an agreement with the absent parent about the repayment of arrears before enforcement action is considered. There are a number of safeguards in place that limit the amount of arrears payable, the amount that the agency will seek to collect and the maximum amount of current maintenance and arrears repayments in cases where the absent parent makes prompt arrangements to meet his liabilities. Enforcement action is the last remedy for the agency in cases where an absent parent persistently seeks to avoid his liability.

1331
For the sake of complete clarity I shall ask noble Lords to bear with me while I explain the stages in the agency's enforcement process in detail, relating them directly to the processes a private individual has to pursue to obtain the remedy of distress. First, the agency needs to establish that a debt has arisen and should be pursued. A magistrates' court must grant a liability order before any enforcement action by way of distress can be carried forward. As I explained in Committee, the court has no jurisdiction over the amount of the weekly maintenance assessment. That is a matter decided by the agency using the maintenance formula. Where a parent disputes the assessment, he or she has a right of appeal to an independent child support appeal tribunal. However, the court must be satisfied that the amount of debt stated on the application for a liability order is in fact owing and has not, for example, been paid in full or in part. All applications are heard in court and the absent parent may give evidence if he so wishes.
Section 35 of the 1991 Act provides for action to be taken to enforce the liability order by way of the levying of distress. This is necessary because all the liability order does is confirm that the debt is due. If Section 35 were taken away, the agency would be unable to use distress as a method of enforcing child support maintenance since, as there is no debt judgment from a county court, it would not be possible to apply to the county court for this action. Without the remedy of distress—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am so sorry to intervene again. If I may say so, the noble Lord has entirely missed the point. There is no question of a county court order. It is a question of an order of the magistrates' court. I read the section and the provision. It is an order of the magistrates' court which can be enforced by distress. The liability order is an order by the magistrates' court to pay.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. However, I understand that an ordinary company, let us say, wanting to levy distress because a debt arises has to go to the county court for a debt judgment. I shall come to why we believe that this is the right procedure in a moment. I am saying that the agency goes to the magistrates' court; and I explained what the magistrates' court may or may not do and how it can establish what it is asked to establish, namely that the debt is owed and that it has not been paid either in whole or in part.
As I was saying, without the remedy of distress it would be much more difficult for the agency to obtain payment of maintenance quickly and effectively in those cases where absent parents refuse to meet their responsibilities to their children and where a deduction from earnings order cannot be used. The provisions in Section 35 give enforcement powers to the Child Support Agency which closely resemble the process in county courts. The decision to use magistrates' courts for liability orders, rather than the county courts—I hope that this helps to answer the noble and learned Lord's point—was taken with the intention of being helpful to the parents. Magistrates' courts are often more local and therefore easier to attend than county courts.
1332
An individual taking proceedings in the county court must first obtain a debt judgment and the debtor has an opportunity to attend court to defend the application if he wishes. The liability order process that I have described is similar, though taken in the magistrates' courts rather than the county court. If payment is not made following a debt judgment in the county court, the creditor can apply for a warrant of execution. But I should stress that that is, in most cases, an administrative procedure which does not involve the leave of the court. I do not, therefore, accept that the agency has exceptional powers in respect of distress. Creditors enforcing debt through the county court can have distress proceedings initiated on the basis of an administrative decision.
Section 35 of the 1991 Act does, of course, contain important safeguards to ensure that the absent parent is always left with certain essential items, including clothes, bedding, furniture and household equipment; and tools and other work equipment. There is also the right of appeal to the magistrates' court if the absent parent feels that the proceedings are irregular in any way.
I have been asked why it is not a magistrates' court order for distress. That would involve the agency going back to the magistrates' court, which is a two-stage process. The order for distress would normally be issued administratively and the agency has instead been given powers to act on the liability order. This is a simpler and quicker process to deal with the problem. I must say, frankly, that the problem will only come about and the person will only have that visited upon him if he is simply just not prepared to play ball with the agency and is showing no signs of paying the maintenance due to the children of the first marriage.
I hope that I have demonstrated that the distress provisions that the agency may use are the last resort in a well regulated process. The agency does not have exceptional powers. In Section 35 it has the means to use well-established procedures of debt recovery to secure maintenance payments for children whose absent parents are refusing to meet their responsibilities.
Earl Russell: My Lords—
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I fear that the debate is getting a little out of order. The House may find it helpful if I remind noble Lords that it is possible to ask the Minister at the end of his speech short questions for elucidation before he sits down. There is no provision for interrupting a Minister in the middle of his speech at Report stage.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was summing up and was about to say that I do not believe that these amendments are in any way helpful to the cause that at least I and, I suspect, most noble Lords and members of the public are trying to pursue; namely, to make sure that children in these circumstances get the maintenance that they are due from the absent parent. Therefore, I hope that with my detailed explanation, in addition to the letter that I wrote to him, the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we are greatly in the noble Lord's debt. He has had an extraordinarily difficult brief to make good and has done it with force and patience. But I must, I hope with all respect, ask him to look again at this matter. He has talked all round the issue but has not faced it.
It is neither here nor there that any of those remedies—the right to intrude, the right to interrogate, the right to infringe Inland Revenue confidentiality and the right to levy distress—are only ultimate sanctions. The noble Lord says in effect—in fact, I believe that he said it in terms—that the debtor has only to co-operate and he can avoid all those unpleasant consequences. That is neither here nor there.
The question is whether Section 35 gives any additional powers. If it does not, it is unnecessary and the noble Lord can accept the amendment. I can put the matter very briefly again. Under Section 33, the Secretary of State may apply to a magistrates' court for a liability order. That is an order saying that the parent in question is liable to pay a sum. Then under Section 35, the Secretary of State, having obtained a liability order, may levy distress.
But what the noble Lord has not faced at all is that there is power under the Magistrates' Courts Act. I read the passage, as it is very short, and I can read it again:
"Where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order of a magistrates' court—
a liability order—
"the court may issue a warrant of distress".
The only answer to that is to go back to the magistrates' court. Is that really so onerous? Must he really have Section 35 so that the Secretary of State may exceptionally, unlike the ordinary creditor, proceed administratively to distress? If so, so much the worse.
I ask again. Does Section 35 give additional powers? Obviously it gives one additional power because, characteristically, it allows the Secretary of State to make regulations supplementing that section—the distress section. There is one other subsection that I notice is discrepant with the Magistrates' Courts Act and that relates to special damages. As it is in different terms, one expects it to have some different meaning. In his letter the noble Lord did not go into that and, as we shall certainly have to return to the matter, I shall not pursue it today. But we are exactly where we started.
A liability order is an order to pay and then distress can be levied under the Magistrates' Courts Act. That is the beginning and the end of the, matter. The only difference is whether the Secretary of State, unlike any other creditor, can proceed immediately by administrative action to levy distress or whether he is required to go back and obtain automatically, as I read the law, a warrant for distress.
As I said, we shall certainly have to return to the matter. The noble Lord may be able to find an answer to the question that I put. If so, I should be very grateful for a letter before Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 30:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Reduced benefit directions: amendment of section 46 of 1991 Act
. In section 46 of the 1991 Act (failure to comply with obligations imposed by section 6), after subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) The prescribed amount of the reduction under a reduced benefit direction shall be no more than five per centum of the personal allowance payable in respect of the parent with care." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 31, with which it is grouped. The amendments concern the benefit penalty—the penalty which is imposed on the parent with care if she refuses to co-operate with the agency, to name the father and authorise the agency to take action. At present the penalty stands at 20 per cent. for one year and 10 per cent. for a further six months. It has been my contention right from the beginning that that penalty is too draconian, that it too much threatens both the mother's and the children's ability to maintain an adequate standard of living sufficient for health. In fact, the amendment is very much like one I moved on Commons Reasons in 1991.
We have now a very considerable body of evidence—I mention in passing the National Consumer Council and the National Children's Home, and the Minister knows the references—which indicates that on income support it is difficult to maintain an adequate standard of living. With reduced benefit direction it becomes, on occasion, very difficult indeed. When the benefit is subject, as is too often the case now, to a whole series of other deductions, then it can become very hard indeed. Those may include social fund loans, gas, water, electricity, community charge arrears still being pursued—and it is really about time that that stopped—occasionally court fines, arrears of rent and utility charges of all sorts. They are a much bigger part of the expenditure of people on benefit than they were five years ago.
There is a normal rule in the department that deductions from income support should not exceed 15 per cent. of benefit. Even that is arguably too much. But that rule, where it applies, is better than nothing. However, there is no such rule covering deductions under the benefit penalty. The Minister could perfectly easily bring that benefit penalty under the operation of the 50 per cent. rule. But leaving the deduction, if it remains at all, at 20 per cent., amounts to cruelty and, what is more, cruelty not only to the mother but also to the children. I cannot see how one can have a 20 per cent. reduction in the mother's income without it affecting the children also: it must. If the total household income is reduced that much, there is not the money to go round.
The Minister believes that deductions of this sort are not sufficient to act as an incentive to co-operate. But I do not believe that he has understood the psychology of those involved. There are some women who simply will not have anything whatsoever to do with the man with whom they have been previously involved. For them 20 per cent. is not enough and the statistics show that there is quite a number of them. I believe that there is no

1335
penalty known to the law which could be sufficient. In fact, I have known cases where even the penalty of death would not have been sufficient to induce co-operation. Some of those women I have known quite well and I know of what I speak.
There are others who are capable of being led by economic incentives, as the Bill proposes. For them a very small incentive is sufficient. So if they are capable of responding to an economic incentive at all, then I believe they are capable of responding to an economic incentive of 5 per cent. So I do not believe that the Minister will find a very great increase in the number of parents refusing to co-operate if this reduction were to be introduced. But even if that is not the case, it is my opinion that a reduction in the level of 20 per cent. is simply not tolerable: it is an injustice.
Amendment No. 31 deals with a point with which the Minister, after the Jobseekers Act, will be familiar. That is the right to enjoy benefit pending an appeal. If an appeal is to mean anything one must not be deprived of benefit until the appeal has been heard. If the Minister argues otherwise, I hope that he will watch the danger of once again falling into the trap of saying, "We cannot have more appeals for fear that everyone might want them". If people are aggrieved they have the right to appeal. I do not believe it right that they should be penalised for doing so. The Minister knows the arguments about this matter and I hope that he has thought about them a little more since the jobseekers' legislation. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said in Committee, Section 46 of the 1991 Act provides for a child support officer to impose a reduced benefit direction in respect of a parent with care who has refused to co-operate in the pursuit of maintenance without good cause. The purpose of the benefit reduction is to make a parent with care think carefully about her decision not to co-operate. It is right that parents with care should co-operate in the pursuit of maintenance unless they have good reason not to do so. It is not right that the burden of maintenance should fall to taxpayers, many of whom have children of their own.
Amendment No. 30 seeks to reduce the amount of the reduced benefit direction to 5 per cent. of the income support personal allowance. A parent with care who receives, or whose current partner receives, a relevant benefit must give her authority for maintenance to be pursued from the absent parent unless she has good cause not to do so. If she does not give her authority without good cause, her benefit may be reduced by 20 per cent. of the income support adult allowance for six months, followed by a reduction of 10 per cent. for the next 12 months.
A reduction to 5 per cent. of the personal allowance would not be effective. It is right that parents with care should co-operate with the agency unless they have good cause not to do so. Taxpayers should not have to shoulder the burden of supporting other people's children unless that is unavoidable. I must stress again, as I did in Committee, that parents with care have their
1336
benefit reduced only after very careful consideration. Even after a benefit reduction has been imposed, the parent with care may give her co-operation at any time and the benefit reduction will be lifted. Alternatively, she may come forward with fresh representations about why she should not be expected to co-operate and these will be considered.
Amendment No. 31 would prevent a reduced benefit direction from coming into force until any appeal against it had been dismissed by a child support appeal tribunal. Parents with care are given every opportunity to make representations and to consider their position before a reduced benefit direction is imposed, and no benefit for a parent with care is reduced without very careful consideration having been given to her case and that of her children.
I could outline again the procedures leading to a benefit reduction, but I did that in Committee and, as your Lordships know, arguments that have been fully deployed in a Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report. Therefore, I do not intend to repeat the considerable arguments that I put forward about how the procedure works and the checks and balances which it contains.
However, Amendment No. 31 would mean that, where there is an appeal against the reduced benefit direction, it would in effect be suspended, or would not take effect, until after the tribunal had rejected the appeal. That would encourage parents with care to appeal against the direction simply to delay its coming into force. That is not a proper use of the tribunal service or of Child Support Agency resources.
As I said at greater length in Committee when I explained the safeguards, we believe that the safeguards which are in place protect the parent with care before a reduced benefit direction is imposed. We believe that they are fully adequate. Therefore, with that somewhat briefer explanation than I gave the noble Earl in Committee, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not find the Minister's answer at all persuasive. He says that his department never disentitles anyone without very careful consideration. That is the voice of the Executive believing that once it has thought, it must necessarily be right. That is not always so.
The Minister invokes the interests of the taxpayer—and we are going to hear a bit more about the interests of the taxpayer when we reach the next amendment. I do not think that it is necessary to serve the interests of the taxpayer by reducing people to a standard of living where they are in danger of malnutrition. Indeed, I do not believe that it is in the interests of the taxpayer to do so. It may be expensive.
I do not think that the Minister has considered the alternative means of occupation which women might find if they are driven below what is about the lowest reasonable level of subsistence. As a taxpayer, I am ashamed to use such methods—and I am ashamed that my own standard of living should depend on that. I believe that that view will be widely shared around the country. The Minister shakes his head, but we shall have

1337
the opportunity to ask the country soon enough. The Minister might listen to the country when he will not listen to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 33:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Short title, commencement and extent, etc.: amendment of section 58 of 1991 Act
. In section 58 of the 1991 Act, in subsection 2, at end insert—
"subject to the provisions of subsection 4A below, after subsection 4, insert—
(4A) At or before 6th July 1996, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a Report on the net saving or loss to the taxpayer resulting from the implementation of this Act." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment asks for a report on the net gain or loss to the taxpayer as a result of implementing the 1991 Act. The Minister has been holding forth a great deal—most recently on the previous amendment—about the benefit to the taxpayer from implementing the principles of the Act, but that is rather begging the question, because it is a very wide open question as to whether the taxpayer does in fact benefit at all from the 1991 Act.
I am sorry for putting the amendment down late. The Minister knows, I think, what finally provoked me into doing it. It was a press report in the Independent of 29th June which claimed that the agency had benefited the taxpayer by £1.5 billion since 1991. I rang up the Minister's office because I wanted to see the figures upon which the DSS, which was the stated source, had based that. It appears that that press release never went through the DSS press office. If the Minister has discovered where it came from, I would be glad to know, because if the author of that report had any figures which I do not know, I am perfectly willing to listen to them.
I do not assert that my calculations on this are necessarily accurate. That is why I am calling for a report: so that there can be an independent, impartial attempt to assess what in fact are the gains and losses.
Savings to the taxpayer may come in two possible forms. They can come from maintenance collected or from benefits saved. It is difficult to be certain of maintenance collected or assessed for the reason I was touching on just now: that the Audit Commission found the CSA's accuracy rate was about 50 per cent. In fact the agency and the Audit Commission had a good deal of discussion about what was collected. Their figures are approximate. But they seem to be fairly close to each other, and we can take them to have a rough approximation to accuracy.
The Audit Commission found that the agency had collected £74 million in the financial year 1994–95. Of that, it had paid out £26.7 million to the parents with care and £47.8 million to the Secretary of State. By contrast, maintenance uncollected stood at £525.5 million, of which £87 million was owing to the parent with care and £438 million to the Secretary of State.
Unlike the Government, the Audit Commission does not see wilful refusal as a sufficient explanation of that shortfall. It finds that the total outstanding debt contains
1338
a growing core, not yet quantified, which is not likely to be collected. That is the agency's own evidence to the Audit Commission.
The Audit Commission found that 29 per cent. of those arrears arise during the period between when the absent parent is sent the maintenance inquiry form and the making of an assessment or an interim assessment. That is precisely the period which produces massive assessments of arrears which tend to break the back of the camels upon which they are loaded. The Audit Commission finds also that a number of the interim assessments cannot be collected because they have been given incorrect effective dates and are not legally enforceable. So that backlog of arrears is not necessarily likely to be cleared very fast.
The Audit Commission also found:
"The backlog of very old cases is likely to contain disproportionate numbers where the maintenance yield will be low even when assessments are completed".
It does not hold out much hope of improvement in a level of return which, as it runs at present, is unlikely to cover the CSA's operating costs. We get a superficially slightly more encouraging picture from a Written Answer at col. 164 of 7th March in another place. That shows a level of maintenance collected of £135 million. However, when it is broken down it emerges that £108.61 million is collected under arrangements made by the old liable relative unit. It is pre-1991 maintenance still coming in.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out on Second Reading, it has a much better record than the CSA. According to Miss Chant's Answer to Donald Dewar on 7th March, the CSA claims to have collected only £44.48 million. That is rather less than the Audit Commission credits to it. The difference is not perhaps profound but it illustrates the difficulty of arriving at accurate figures on the subject. That is one of the reasons why I am calling for a report.
Is the picture any better when we look at benefit savings rather than maintenance collected? At first sight, as regards the 7th March Written Answer, the picture looks rather better. In that Written Answer, Miss Chant claims a figure of £186.83 million for benefit savings. But that too evaporates when it is broken down. Only £20.43 million of that is savings as a result of the collection of maintenance. The remaining £165.95 million is listed as non-maintenance cessations following action by the agency.
That is a very carefully chosen Whitehall form of words indeed. In other words, in plain English, the women have simply gone off benefit. Before we give any credit to the agency for their going off benefit—or discredit, as the case may be—it would be nice to know why they have gone off benefit.
The Minister is estopped from claiming that that figure is an achievement of the CSA because in Committee he admitted that he had not the first idea why they had gone off benefit. In his own words:
"it would be a huge task to keep details of everyone who left benefit and what happened to them".—[Official Report, 20/6/95, col. 191.]
That is fair enough, but, if he says that, he cannot insist that that £165 million should be counted as a saving

1339
achieved by the agency. Some part of it may be. It may be a large part or it may be a small part, but at present, so far as I can discover, we simply do not know. If we are to assess the consequence of the Act to the taxpayers, we need to know.
The Minister referred to a lot of coming and going on benefit. In saying that, he touched on the nub of the problem. Before the CSA came in, each month an average of 24,000 single mothers went off benefit for the normal reasons; because they got a job, they got married and so forth. Have all those ordinary "goings off" benefit, which occurred frequently before the Act, been listed as though they were achievements of the CSA or does, as I suspect, no one know the answer? If we do not know the answer, it behoves the Minister to show a good deal less confidence than hitherto in claiming that the Act has been for the benefit of taxpayers.
We have a clear figure for the gross income raised by the agency; it is £64 million if we accept Miss Chant's figures and £67 million if we accept the Audit Commission's figures; £44 million or £47 million in maintenance collected; and £20 million in benefit saved. Any income generated by the agency above that figure rests only on conjecture. But to obtain the real figure—the net figure for which I have asked—we need to calculate it net of the costs of running the CSA.
The costs of this Bill alone come out at £34 million for 1996–97, if the calculations in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum are correct. I do not know—and I should like to know—whether the calculations in the memorandum are inclusive or exclusive of the costs of employing 750 additional staff. If inclusive, they will be rather poorly paid.
There are start-up costs of the CSA which the Minister on 25th April said were £146 million. I shall give the Minister the benefit of the doubt on that or any possible doubt that I can find. I am not calculating that into any annual figure because I do not know over how many years it needs to be divided. Moreover, I am not calculating any of the income which might have been collected by the Liable Relative Unit if it had continued. It might well be a great deal more than the agency has brought in but, since there is a doubt, L propose to allow the Minister the benefit of it.
On the other hand, the operating costs of the CSA must be allowed. On the Minister's own figure of 25th April, that was £139 million. Those must be allowed in full. Therefore, counting the costs of this Bill and the Minister's Answer, the costs of running the CSA are running at at least £173 million per year. Therefore, at the most generous figure to the Minister at which I can arrive, the CSA is costing the taxpayer a net loss of £109 million every year. It would be very nice to know whether that figure is anywhere near accurate. If it is, everything that the Minister has said about the interests of the taxpayer should be retorted upon him. I do not believe that the Government know any better than I do whether it is accurate. That is why I am asking for a
1340
report, because I should like to know whether the CSA is a white elephant or only a very pale grey one. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl has explained that this clause provides that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report detailing the net savings or loss to the taxpayer resulting from the implementation of the 1991 Child Support Act.
First, perhaps I may deal with the great mystery which the noble Earl managed to make out of the report in the Independent. In fact, the six-line article, which in the jargon of newspapers is called a filler, was not taken from a statement issued by the DSS. In fact, it was information from a freelance journalist who took it from the Permanent Secretary's comment to the Public Accounts Committee. I am quite happy to tell the noble Earl that the summation is correct although the reference to benefit fraud may perhaps not be entirely accurate.
I should say at once that we have no objection whatever to informing Parliament of the financial effects of this or any other legislation which my department has brought before your Lordships' House. Indeed, this rather abbreviated report comes from the Permanent Secretary's comments in public to the Public Accounts Committee. Most important Bills with financial implications are prefaced with a financial memorandum which indicates the expected expenditure consequences of the legislation proposed. The Department of Social Security produces an annual report which indicates the cost of its business. That report is available in the Library.
Further, in relation to child support, the annual report of the Child Support Agency also provides information on the cost of the agency and on benefit savings resulting from its work. Noble Lords can see from the 1995–96 business plan that the agency's benefit savings forecast for this year is £540 million, which was a figure used by the Permanent Secretary to get to the £1.5 billion as reported in the Independent. The financial allocation to the agency in the same year is £183 million. Over the first two full years of operating the provisions of the 1991 Act, the CSA was allocated £294 million in running costs and recorded benefit savings of £897 million.
Of course, those benefit savings come from a number of different directions. However, if the savings are as imaginary as the noble Earl thinks, why does he continue to tell us about all those absent parents throughout the country who appear to be being asked to pay, and are paying very considerable amounts of maintenance? I find that a little unusual. If the agency is not collecting very much money, then the size of the absent-parent problem, if I can call it that, in the country must be a good deal less than the noble Earl suggests.
The figures that I have given are those that we are making perfectly clear in public, both in evidence and in parliamentary Answers. They also appear in the agency's report. Therefore, even on that limited measure, the Act has led to considerably more savings to the taxpayer than expenditure from the public purse.

1341
Although progress on the wider aims of the legislation—to ensure that maintenance is assessed and collected effectively—has been much slower than we would have hoped, the agency is now showing real improvement in output and productivity.
It is not because of any wish to conceal the figures that I cannot support the amendment; indeed, I have suggested that the figures are freely available elsewhere. It is because to place on the statute book an obligation of that nature (an obligation which, once complied with in 1996 would cease to have any effect) cannot be justified. It would look very odd if, a few years down the line, one were to read in the Child Support Act a provision, made long ago, requiring the Secretary of State to make a report some years previously which no longer had any effect.
I will reflect further and discuss with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and with the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, whether those figures should form a permanent part of the agency's annual report. In my view, the laying of such a report before the House would then be wholly redundant as the information would be available elsewhere. Indeed, all agency reports and the department's own report are available. Therefore, while I appreciate what the noble Earl is trying to find out, I do not believe that it needs to be done by the means proposed. The information is available in the various reports I mentioned. I believe that it shows that the agency has succeeded in very difficult conditions to make the savings for the taxpayer that I outlined.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him two questions. First, can the noble Lord tell us when the evidence of Sir Michael Partridge to the Public Accounts Committee to which he referred will he available? Secondly, does the Minister dispute any of the figures I put before the House and, if so, which?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not know when the Permanent Secretary's comments will be published. In fact, they may have already been published. Of course, that is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee in the other place. The hearing was conducted in public, as is obvious because a freelance reporter was present. I am afraid that I cannot help the noble Earl in that respect. However, I can perhaps write to him if he needs to know exactly when the material will be published.
In response to the noble Earl's second question, I am afraid that I have not gone through each and every one of his figures. Frankly, I find it difficult to follow them all. Moreover, I suspect that one of the ways by which the noble Earl arrives at his conclusions is by doing a lot of discounting—for example, by saying, "Those savings would have been made anyway", "That can't be counted", and so on. I have given the figures that we believe are accurate both as to the cost of the agency and as to the amount of benefit saved.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He has given me one useful piece of information; he has given me the present operating costs of the agency which, at £183 million, are rather higher than
1342
any figure I had available before. That makes the picture look rather worse than I thought. However, the biggest mystery here is the £897 million of benefit savings. This is the hub of the argument. If the Minister can give me only a little information he might he able to keep me quiet.
In the reply to Mr. Dewar of 7th March there is a category of non-maintenance cessations—benefit ceases following action by the agency. We need to have some information before we decide whether or not to give the CSA any credit for those figures. I do not prejudge that point either way until we have some evidence, but we must have evidence on that. Can the Minister tell me, as he has supplied the figure of £897 million in benefit savings, whether that figure is corrected for the number of people who on average would have gone off benefit anyway? Can he tell me what reason he has for connecting that figure with any action by the agency?
He asks me why the problem of absent parents asked to pay is so acute if the agency is collecting so little money. Of course, the agency is consuming its own receipts to the tune—the Minister says now—of £183 million. The other point to which I have drawn his attention many times is that absent parents are being asked to pay what they do not have. The Minister's answers are getting to sound more and more like the Government's defences of the poll tax where they always insisted that the money must be there if only people would try hard enough to get it. In the case of arrears from the poll tax, they are still insisting on that point and not getting very far with it either. I suspect that after the agency is abolished—which I am sure one day it will be—we will still have this problem of pursuing arrears left over from it.
The Minister says the information is all available but he knows as well as I that there is more than one way in which information can be presented. Even with the best will in the world there is more than one way in which information can be presented. I would like to see someone with competence have a look at this information but as I shall not get anywhere asking that tonight I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment and return to this subject in the form of Starred Questions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 34:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Calculation of maintenance: repeal of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 of 1991 Act
. In Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act, paragraph 4 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we have heard much this evening about the formula which is indeed what the department, the Child Support Agency and the noble Lord are clinging to. Perhaps that argument reached its crux when the noble Lord said, while keeping quite a straight face, that the welfare of children could be safely left to the operation of the formula. Therefore, the time has now come for us to look at that formula.
The amendment I am moving, which I tabled in a slightly different form at Committee stage, is to remove what seems to me a self-contained provision of the schedule setting out the formula—Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act. I did not move it at Committee stage because it had failed to be called at virtually midnight. The position is not much better tonight as regards your Lordships' role as a legislative Chamber which listens to debate, and after listening to debate comes to a decision in the Division Lobbies. Therefore, I shall not put the amendment to a Division.
I am not sure whether it is a wrecking amendment because I do not understand the formula. In that I believe I am not alone because I have yet to find anybody who claims to understand it. Even my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor was invited on several occasions in 1991 to explain how it worked. He is a famous mathematician, so perhaps we lesser mortals may be excused for not understanding it. However, the Minister has had ample warning of the topic that is to be raised, so I turn at once to this provision of the schedule.
Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act reads:
"Where the result of the calculation made under sub-paragraph (1) is an amount which is equal to, or less than, the amount of the maintenance requirement for the qualifying child or qualifying children, the amount of maintenance payable by the absent parent for that child or those children shall be an amount equal to A x P where A and P have the same values as in the calculation made under sub-paragraph (1)".
Sub-paragraph (3) reads:
"Where the result of the calculation made under sub-paragraph (1) is an amount which exceeds the amount of the maintenance requirement for the qualifying child or qualifying children, the amount of maintenance payable by the absent parent for that child or those children shall consist of a basic element … and an additional element".
The basic element is A x G x P where A and P have the same values as in the calculation made under paragraph 2(1) and G has the value determined under sub-paragraph (2).
We turn to G, which is an item in the basic element, which your Lordships remember is A x G x P. G equals MR (the maintenance requirement) over (A + C) x P. If my recollection is right, A is the assessed income of the absent parent and C the assessed income of the other parent. Therefore we have to add G to A x G x P, G being the maintenance requirement—which is calculated under paragraph (1) of the schedule—over (A + C) x P. That is not merely where it stopped. However, I ask the noble Lord not only to explain that, and what follows, but to say frankly whether he considers that the child support officer, the absent parent, or the caring parent, can possibly understand what it is all about. Those parents ask for bread and they are given a formula.
However, the formula goes on. There is an additional element. Your Lordships remember that there is a basic element and an additional element. The additional element is this:
"Subject to sub-paragraph (2), the additional element shall be calculated by applying the formula—AE=(1 - G) x A x R",
1344
and your Lordships will remember the complicated equation of "G". "A" has the same value: in other words, the absent parent's assessed income. Your Lordships already have the formula for "G". There are no guesses as to what "R" is:
"R is such number greater than zero but less than 1 as may be prescribed".
However, lest we should be unsatisfied, the sub-paragraph goes on. There is an alternative formula. The provision states:
"Where applying the alternative formula set out in subparagraph (3) would result in a lower amount for the additional element, that formula shall be applied in place of the formula set out in sub-paragraph (1)".
I have just read that out. The alternative formula for "AE" is:
" Z x Q x (A/A+C)".
I have already reminded your Lordships of "A" and "C".
Your Lordships will be able to guess that,
"Z is such number as may be prescribed; and Q is the aggregate of any amount taken into account by virtue of paragraph (1) (3) (a) in calculating the maintenance requirement; and any amount which is both taken into account by virtue of paragraph (1) (3) (c) in making that calculation and is an amount prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph".
I repeat those last words:
"an amount prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph".
I wait avidly for the Minister to explain that extraordinary farrago, and even more eagerly for him to tell us frankly whether he believes that ordinary absent parents, ordinary caring parents, can possibly understand what they are being offered. If they cannot understand, it is most improper legislation. It is just the legislation of the bureaucracy which animates this whole scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have listened to 10 minutes of explanation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I hope that I have been paying adequate attention to proceedings on the Bill tonight. The noble and learned Lord made the formula reasonably clear, step by step. I am sure he will accept that when he compares what he explained with some of the green pound calculations which we, as agriculturists, have to carry out, it seems fairly simple.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble Lord think that he would understand how much maintenance he was being offered under the formula and why?
Lord Lyell: Certainly not why, but I suspect that the officials who are explaining it to the absent parents or the concerned people would master the formula fairly quickly. The noble and learned Lord put his finger on the reason for his amendment when he said that it would be difficult for the official to explain why. In my own mind, the reason for the complicated formula is that the whole area is fraught with many factors which have been brought in step by step as the legislation has proceeded.
It takes me back to my 0-level mathematics and algebra, remembering the simple rules and simple drills. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will accept

1345
that now students of O-level mathematics are masters of fairly simple calculating machines. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble and learned Lord said, but I hope he will accept that he explained the matter so well that he made it much simpler to me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Lyell sits down, if he has understood it he can perhaps explain it to me.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships' House, not tonight as I look happily at the gleam in the eye of my noble friend on the Front Bench who is burning to explain it himself. He can do it in half the time.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has read out the formula used in this instance. Of course, given way he put over the formula, it sounds complicated. However, as my noble friend Lord Lyell pointed out, a simple blackboard or, in these modern days, an overhead projector would allow a child with a fairly basic knowledge of algebra to follow the formula. There are not too many complications in it; it is all letters. There are no sines and cosines, no tangents, integrations or differentials. If the noble and learned Lord thinks that it is a difficult formula, then he has clearly not seen any of those used by mathematicians, engineers, designers and a host of other people whose formulae would give him much cause for complaint.
The formulae are laid out and what the letters say is clearly laid out. It is complicated, but when it is seen on paper it is a good deal easier to follow than when it is read out. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that that is the case with all formulae of any kind, even simple ones.
The amendment would mean better off absent parents paying only the maintenance requirement calculated for their children's basic maintenance needs. They would no longer pay the additional element, irrespective of how high a level of income they have. The formula which the noble and learned Lord read out was part of the formula laid down in order to calculate the additional element.
Perhaps I may explain it without the use of the formula, which is a good deal easier in speech. The maintenance requirement is calculated using income support rates as a benchmark for the basic needs of the children. The absent parent is required to contribute towards this figure from his assessable income at the rate of 50 pence in the pound. Assessable income is net income less allowances for living expenses, housing costs and any allowable travel-to-work costs. If he still has income left after meeting the maintenance requirement, he continues to contribute but at the lower rate of either 15, 20 or 25 pence in the pound, the exact rate depending upon the number of children for whom he has liability. This extra contribution is the additional element that the amendment would abolish. The additional element is intended to allow children in first families to share the prosperity of an absent parent as they would have done if the parents had not separated.
1346
The deduction rate is set lower than that used to meet the maintenance requirement in recognition of the fact that the proportion of income a parent retains for his own use is likely to increase once the basic needs of his children have been met.
If the amendment were accepted, the maintenance requirement, which is fixed by reference to income support levels, would be the maximum payable for any child, even if the absent parent were wealthy. Very few children whose parent with care was on income support would see any improvement at all in their standard of living unless the parent with care obtained a so-called top-up order. This would involve going to court for the initial order and further applications to the court for any future variations. So the parents with care involved would suffer the inconvenience which the one-stop service provided by the agency was intended to avoid; would probably incur extra costs; and all this with no guarantee of a successful outcome.
Earlier in the Report stage I drew attention to the fact that, whatever iniquities are being laid at the door of the agency and the formula, the fact is that most first families are still poorer than second families. That is particularly true if the man in question has a reasonably high or very high income. His second family will enjoy all those benefits. If the noble and learned Lord's amendment were accepted, a man's first children, for whom I believe he has considerable responsibility, would receive nothing other than the bare minimum. I cannot believe that that is right.
We fully recognise that there comes a point where maintenance is providing quite a high standard of living for a child and it would not be right to require more under a formula approach. So current rules already ensure that an absent parent's maintenance liability does not increase indefinitely as his income rises. We consider that these rules are fair.
It is important to remember that from April 1993 all separating couples, with the exception of those where the taxpayer is not involved and the parties are able to reach an amicable agreement, have to use the Child Support Agency to make arrangements for child maintenance. This amendment fails to recognise that many of those involved will have incomes well above those paid to income support recipients. It is quite illogical to suggest that liability in such cases should be restricted to the maintenance requirement, which is based on income support levels. The additional element represents a logical method of ensuring that better-off absent parents make a contribution to maintenance that is commensurate with their level of income. It is a necessary part of the scheme.
The noble and learned Lord has a bit of fun at my expense on the issue of the formula. However, I hope that he realises that the additional contributions represent a serious point. There are good grounds, to which I believe the great majority of people would subscribe, for agreeing with that.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, on a point of information, does he agree that it is unusual to expect a layman to read an Act of Parliament and use that as his guide? Is he aware that the excellent

1347
Child Support Handbook, produced by the Child Poverty Action Group, was reviewed by Woman's Own as giving,
"a thorough explanation of the system";
by the New Law Journal in these terms:
"It is hard to beat the CPAG guide … it is outstanding value for money. It is clearly written and easy to find your way around";
by Legal Action as,
"Very readable … it gives a good and easy-to-understand exploration of the formula";
and by The Adviser in this way:
"This book will undoubtedly take its place as the standard and indispensable guide for advisers"?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I am reading Child Support: The Legislation, a commentary by Edward Jacobs and Gillian Douglas. If we are advertising books, we might as well both do it. The noble Lord makes a very valid point. The handbook is clearly set out, and anybody going through it will be able to work out the amounts; and certainly with the help of the agency an absent parent can clearly see how the conclusions were drawn.
But the main point of this amendment is the one that I make about an absent parent who has a reasonable standard of living and a reasonable income. My contention is that his first child or children ought to share in some of that prosperity.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained the object of the formula but not at all how it works. His speech has once again been redolent of objurgations against absent fathers. He deals with the very rare case in which the absent father has a high standard of living; he keeps a second family and the first family is on the breadline.
I have spent much of my life dealing with such maintenance problems. Throughout this evening what the noble Lord has been pursuing is a vendetta which the department and the Child Support Agency have maintained against absent parents. As I said earlier, picking up an observation of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the normal picture is that ordinary people, overwhelming in number, cannot afford two families. As soon as the divorce law is altered, enabling an ordinary person to have two families, in the overwhelming majority of cases both families go down to the poverty line—both of them. It is quite wrong to draw the picture of the poverty stricken first family and the opulent second family, rolling in wealth. That can hardly happen except in a minority of cases.
We greatly welcome the advent to our debate of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. He invited the Minister to say that the officials could explain the formula to the unfortunate parent. In that the noble Lord was woefully disappointed. There was no such explanation. If the formula is so explicable, why has there been this state of egregious error in assessing maintenance payments under the Act? The truth is that the officials, no more than my noble and learned friend the famous mathematician, have been able to understand what this
1348
is about. All that they would be able to do would be to fit figures to corresponding letters and work out a formula.
As I said, it is simply not good enough to legislate in this way such that the people who are affected cannot understand what is happening to them. I have no sympathy at all with the violence shown to the child support officers. But many of the people have felt deeply ill used because, instead of an explanation, they are given a formula that they cannot understand even when it is explained to them. As I said, I do not propose to press this amendment to a Division. Accordingly, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 35:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Exempt income of absent parent: amendment of Schedule 1 to 1991 Act
. In Schedule 1 to the 1991 Act, after paragraph 5 there shall be inserted—
"5A.—(1) Regulations implementing paragraph 5 of this Schedule shall ensure that the exempt income of an absent parent or a parent with care includes—

(a) an allowance in respect of the full amount of any council tax or water charges in respect of the parent's home;

(b) an adequate allowance in respect of the liabilities referred to in sub-paragraph (2) below.

(2) The liabilities in question are any debts, obligations or other liabilities of the relevant parent which—

(a) are legally binding on him (whether under civil or criminal sanction); and

(b) arise from transactions effected, or events occurring, before the date specified in sub-paragraph (3) below.

(3) The date in question is—

(a) in the case of an absent parent, that on which he first received a maintenance enquiry form under this Act;

(b) in the case of a parent with care, the date on which she first submitted to the Secretary of State a completed maintenance application form under this Act.

(4) An allowance in respect of a liability referred to in sub-paragraph (1) (b) above shall not be regarded as adequate within the meaning of that provision, unless (on the basis of weekly equivalence) it is at least equal to—

(a) the amount payable periodically by the parent in question in respect of the liability in question under arrangements which were in existence at the date referred to in sub-paragraph (3), where such arrangements then existed; or

(b) in any other case, the minimum amount which would be necessary to enable the liability to be discharged by periodical payments within 12 months of the effective date of the maintenance assessment in question." ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 35 is, in effect, a rule of law amendment. It deals with certain other expenses which should be taken into account. It proposes an allowance in respect of the full amount of any council tax or water charges and an adequate allowance in respect of a number of others. It applies to both the absent parent and the parent with care, so the Minister cannot answer it by continuing to preach the gospel according to St. Mellons.
The liabilities for which an adequate allowance is to be made are debts, obligations or liabilities which are legally binding under civil or criminal sanction and arise from transactions before, in the case of the absent parent, he first received a maintenance inquiry form or,

1349
in the case of the parent with care, when she submitted a completed maintenance application form. In other words, it deals with liabilities honestly entered into before any liability under this Act arose—in short, with prior liabilities.
The Minister will be in considerable difficulty if he starts trying to argue that this is downgrading the priority for child maintenance. Child maintenance is necessary but I cannot see that it should be argued against the law. The Minister argued when we were on this matter last time—I am trying not just to repeat what I said before but also to respond to what he said—that this would create an improper difference between families subject to the CSA and other families outside. That is not a valid argument. It is really quite the other way. All the rest of us, if we have binding legal liabilities which we cannot get out of, have to meet those liabilities and we have to attempt as best we can to maintain our children out of what is left.
If I were to owe a large debt to my bank I would not be able to get away with telling my bank that I could not pay it because I had to maintain my children. I do not think that it would be particularly impressed. If I were so unwise on my way home tonight as to drive in a way which incurred a court fine I could not tell the court that I could not pay the fine because I had to maintain my children. I would get very short shrift indeed for that answer.
I do not see why people who are subject to the CSA should be in precisely the same position. They, too, have certain legal liabilities which they must meet—under civil or criminal sanction, in the words of the amendment—and if they do not, they suffer penalties. If the formula is having the effect of putting them in a position where they cannot meet those liabilities—which I know from my postbag is often the case—account must be taken of it.
We have a government who purport to uphold the rule of law but tend to see the rule of law in ways almost exclusively to their own advantage. But that is not what the rule of law is about. The rule of law is supposed to be an impartial rule between subject and ruler. We need some recognition of the need for people to keep the law. If the Minister argues otherwise, he must insert into the Bill, which he presumably still could do at Third Reading, a proviso allowing people, in order to enable them to pay their child maintenance, to default on their court fines, to default on their legal debts, to default, indeed, on their income tax. If he did that he would be going against a very long history of the Crown's attitude to its own debts. It would be a profoundly mistaken approach. If he has any respect for the rule of law he ought to accept this amendment. I should like to hear what he is going to do about it. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment would extend the range of expenses which can be included in exempt income, which is the part of a parent's net income which is not available for payment of maintenance. It represents sums allowed for a parent's basic expenses.
1350
Exempt income includes standard amounts for the normal living needs of the parent and any of his children who live with him; an allowance for housing costs and, where appropriate, an allowance towards the cost of travel to work. In addition, an absent parent keeps at least 50 per cent. of any income over and above his exempt income. The broad principle is to ensure that all absent parents should retain a substantial proportion of their net income after paying maintenance, so that they have flexibility in planning other expenditure. The Government recently underpinned this principle with a provision to cap maintenance payments at 30 per cent. of an absent parent's net income.
The amendment proposes making provision for council tax. There is no allowance for council tax in the basic maintenance calculation. It is an expense to be met from the margin of income left over after maintenance has been paid. An allowance for council tax is, however, included in protected income. So there is a safeguard for less well-off absent parents. Water charges should similarly be met from the absent parent's remaining income after maintenance. I would remind your Lordships that people on income support have to meet these charges from their benefit. After all, an absent parent would be left at least with benefit levels in excess of these levels. So absent parents would not only have the equivalent of income support rates allowed before maintenance is calculated, but they would actually keep a large proportion of their income above these levels. Therefore, they are not in a different position from someone on income support who has to meet these charges from that income support.
The proposal would also make allowance for any other legally binding liabilities which were incurred before the Child Support Agency's involvement in the case. Allowance would be made irrespective of the amounts involved, of whether or not the parent could afford to meet the liability when it was first acquired; or of the nature of the debt or obligation, even if it was for luxuries or for some other purpose which might reasonably be considered less important than the support of the parent's own child.
Your Lordships will be aware that the departure system proposed under the Bill will make provision for certain debts and other financial commitments where these are causing difficulty. We believe that the departure system, with its provision for discretion and for balancing the interests of all parties, is a more equitable way of dealing with these issues than that proposed by the noble Earl, which would allow any and all such liabilities automatically to take precedence over the child's needs.
The noble Earl's proposal also includes provision for liabilities under criminal sanction. Fines are a sanction against people who break the law, not against their children. To suggest that an offender should be able to offset a fine against his child support liability strikes me as totally unacceptable. I am not going to fall into the rather clever, but totally false, trap that the noble Earl tried to lay for me, that if I am not prepared to allow it to be offset, then I should excuse them from paying a fine. That really is a false trap. The position is that anyone who incurs fines has to try to pay for them out

1351
of income. They are allowed to pay them in weekly instalments to the court, so there is a way in which they can spread their fines. I shall resist saying that they should avoid getting themselves into a position of having to pay fines in the first instance. The fact is that I do not believe that it would be in any way proper to say that payment of a fine incurred by an absent parent should be given precedence over the maintenance due to his child.
The exempt income calculation already makes allowance for a parent's basic living costs, and he keeps at least 50 per cent. of his income over and above that. The new provisions for departures from formula assessments, which we have already included in the Bill, will deal with exceptional expenses. I believe that this amendment goes much further than is acceptable. With my explanation of where I stand on this, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has not fallen into what he described as the trap that I have set him but he has fallen into the one that he set himself. He has fallen into the trap into which all Administrations have fallen since records began -of believing that things are as they appear when Ministers read their papers in their offices. They are not.
If the formula was working as the Minister thinks that it is, his argument would be perfectly reasonable. If there were enough basic income left over to meet all the obligations, or even to create a reasonable chance that, with care, one might meet them, what the Minister says would be perfectly accurate, but he simply is not aware of how small is the proportion of their income over which most people can exercise choice. If the Minister had seen as many payslips and statements arising from the Act as I have from reading my post-bag, he would know perfectly well that for a great many people the reasoning that he has put forward—sound though it might appear in principle and in the abstract—simply will not work because there is not enough money. Governments ought to know what it means not to have enough money - it happens to them often enough. It happens to other people as well.
If one had proposed to increase taxation by the amount that some people's costs have been increased by the increase in child maintenance, those on the Government Benches would have created such an outcry that you would have heard it from here to kingdom come. They really do not know what is going on out there. Some day I hope that they will know. I hope that a certain amount of constituency casework might bring it home to them. I shall not do it tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 36:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Day to day care: amendment of regulation 1 of the Child Support Regulations 1992
.—(1) The definition of "day to day care" contained in regulation 1(2) of the Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 (as amended) shall be amended as follows:
(2) For "104 nights", or each occasion where that expression occurs, there shall be substituted "52 nights".
(3) At the end of the definition there shall be inserted—
"(iii) a person shall be taken to have care of a child where he would have actual care if a court order which is in force were being properly complied with by another person, and a person shall be treated as not having care of a child where she has actual care in consequence of her failure properly to comply with a court order; and for this purpose a court order shall be regarded as properly complied with by a person only if she makes every reasonable effort to give effect to its terms and purposes.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with what has become known as the 104 nights rule. It provides that care is to be treated as shared if the child spends 104 nights a year in the care of the allegedly absent parent. That is recognised as creating a situation in which the absent parent becomes, for the time being, a parent with care and the formula is adjusted accordingly.
There is one small defect in the wording of the amendment. If by any remarkable chance the Minister feels inclined to accept it, we shall have to tidy it up later, but since that is an unlikely eventuality, I thought it better not to withdraw it and bring it back on Third Reading in a redrafted form since the principle can perfectly well be debated now.
The insistence in the Act that only one parent can be treated as having care while the other is deemed to be "absent" runs against many recent developments in family law which have tended towards thinking in terms of shared residence and of both parents as being continually involved. When it can work with reasonable harmony - of course, it cannot always - that is very much in the interests of the children and is to be encouraged. The insistence that only one parent is to be treated as having care tends to go against the pressure that the law has rightly been exercising in other fields to try to push the parents to recognise a continuing sharing of care even after divorce. You have to go a certain amount against the grain to get that through to divorced parents. But the legislation pushes them back towards an attitude into which many of them fall too easily anyway—of thinking of only one parent as having care.
It was, I think, the original intention of the rule as now drafted that the 104 nights represented every weekend of the year, so that any care less than every weekend of the year was to be ignored. In Committee the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, made the important point that for practical purposes, if you have to be at school on a Monday morning, the weekend is one night even if it may be two days. So in fact every weekend of the year, which was the Government's original intention as I understand it, is represented by 52 nights, not 104.
There is some case for arguing that the amendment is not only good in itself; it is a more accurate representation of the Government's original intention than the bureaucratic, as distinct from imaginative, drafting of the 1991 Act succeeded in achieving on its own account. This deserves consideration. There will be more heard of it until something is done about it. At some time the conflict between this and the development of family law will need to be resolved. I beg to move.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I supported the noble Earl when he put down a comparable amendment in Committee and I have added my name to the new version he has put down today. First, I agree with him very much that it is considered more and more important in our courts that care should be shared by both parents, although of course to talk about care and control nowadays is now no longer appropriate since the Children Act when care and control ceased to exist, and instead we talk about residence orders and access orders. So to talk about a parent with care is inappropriate.
I have objected again and again to the use of the phrase "absent father". Without going into that again, I intend to speak, and always will speak, about the "so-called absent father".
Since Committee I have tried to look with more care at this legislation. I have found out, and realise fully, how extremely complicated it is. I agreed completely with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was saying about the complexity of the formulae that are used, which really are incomprehensible without the assistance of an accountant and a solicitor, preferably armed with a very sophisticated computer. It seems to me most unfortunate that in legislation of this kind it should be impossible for those who are personally involved (the father and the mother) to work out either what sums should be payable under the Child Support Act or a great many of the other details in this legislation.
The noble Earl has indicated that there is a slight flaw in our amendment, if I may use the first person plural, in that it refers to:
"For '104 nights', or each occasion where that expression occurs, there shall be substituted '52 nights'".
Unfortunately, on studying the legislation I could not find any occasion on which 104 nights occurred. The phrase instead is "two nights a week". So this should be amended on a later occasion by substituting:
"For 'two nights' a week 'one night' a week";
that is, on average throughout the year.
What precisely, I ask, is the significance of these two days per week on average throughout the year. I had not fully realised what it meant. What I think I found, but I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, is that it is laid down in one of the schedules—for heaven's sake do not ask me which of them—that certain of the outgoings of the so-called absent father are claimable 100 per cent. by him as exempt income, but with certain other outgoings only a fraction of them is claimable. That is the same percentage as the percentage of nights a week spent on average over the year with the child. That is presumably because it is recognised that the more time a so-called absent father spends with his children the more compensation he deserves.
It is obvious that it can never happen that the child spends an average of more than three-and-a-half nights a week with his so-called absent father because if he did he would be spending exactly as much time with the father as with the mother. I do not believe that even the Government could then continue to refer to the father as
1354
being absent. But if the father did spend an average of three-and-a-half nights a week with his child then three-and-a-half sevenths, or 50 per cent., of these sums would be claimable. If he spent an average of two-and-a-half nights a week it would be two-and-a-half sevenths, or five fourteenths, and so on.
Under the Act as it exists at present, if the average number of nights spent by the father with the child is under two a week—if it is 1.9 a week, and decimal points are perfectly possible—no such sums are claimable as exempt income. This amendment would bring down that minimum figure from two nights a week to one night a week.
As I stated in Committee, I have an interest in the matter as the father of a young son from whose mother I am unhappily divorced. However, I have no financial interests because my matters have never come under the Child Support Act. I gave the example of my own case. I have very liberal access, by normal standards, to my young son. I spend more time with him than 90 per cent. of fathers in my position; it comes to 71 days a year, which is 19.5 per cent. of the days in the year. That is the equivalent of 1.365 nights a week.
Therefore, a father in my position spending so much time with his son would not be eligible for relief under the Act as it exists at present. However, under the amendment that I have tabled with the noble Earl he would be. Even in that case, the financial benefit to him would be only a small fraction of the extra costs to him of those 71 days with his son or daughter. That is probably, let us say, £700 a year. In my case it is usually much more, plus the fares between here and Ireland and my own fares to his mother's home and so on. At the same time, the mother makes considerable savings because for those 71 days she has no expenses in respect of him.
I ask the Minister once again: why should that not be taken into account? Why should the so-called absent father receive no compensation whatever for that? Why is it completely ignored?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We had a debate on a similar amendment in Committee. Indeed, it was an almost exact replica. The normal duet of the noble Earl and myself was changed into a trio by the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I shall not risk boring the House by repeating the arguments I put forward in Committee.
As I said then, the amendment is founded on a misunderstanding of two related but entirely distinct concepts: that of care and that of contact. The Government clearly support—as did the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, in his speech—the principle that following the break-up of a relationship, children should keep in touch with both parents where that is in their best interests. But there is a clear distinction between contact visits, even if those involve overnight stays, and providing for the regular care needs of the child.
For there to be shared care, the absent parent must be making a substantial contribution to the care needs of the child and thus incur a substantial proportion of the costs associated with his support. The existing provisions allow for an absent parent's maintenance

1355
liability to be reduced where he is providing a significant amount of care for a child. We believe that the average of two nights a week continues to provide an appropriate benchmark. Much was made of school and Saturday and Sunday and the fact that if the child goes to school on Monday morning the chances are that the child will return to the parent with care on Sunday evening. But Friday night has been ignored. I assure your Lordships that in Scotland that is considered to be part of the weekend. After school on Friday, there will be plenty of time for the child to join the absent parent to have a two-night weekend, which gives him the whole of Saturday and Sunday until the evening.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. But many children, including my own, have to go to school on Saturday morning.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that many children have to go to school on Saturday morning. I suggest respectfully to the noble Lord that those children who go to school on Saturday morning clearly have parents who are paying school fees. That will assuredly take them beyond the scope of income support and the remit of the Child Support Agency, as the noble Lord suggested. I am afraid that I shall not consider too carefully the needs of people who can afford to send their children to boarding school because they will not be encompassed by the agency's work. It is more likely to affect children attending state schools who probably live near the parent with care and, therefore, there is not much of a problem in relation to Friday night.
One night of care per week is 52 nights per year. Of course, the chances are that 14 nights may be taken as a holiday period and, therefore, it is not a case of every weekend in the year. If the figure were dropped to one night of care per week as representing a genuine sharing of responsibility, we should be disadvantaging seriously the parent with care because it is most unlikely that where that amount of care is being provided by the absent parent there will be any noticeable reduction in the costs of bringing up the child for the parent with care. It would be unreasonable to make her suffer a drop in the income she was receiving while having to look after the child. As I said in Committee, 104 days is a reasonable, sensible figure at which to draw the line. I hope that, having heard my argument again, the noble Earl will withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the problem with all the reasoning based on the Bill is that it all starts from the premise: either one parent or the other. That is not a very constructive approach for dealing with parents who are separated. It tends to produce a picture in which children are assumed to have to choose one parent or the other. Sadly, sometimes, it is that way. But one does not need to create an administrative framework which makes it that way when it does not have to be so.
The other matter which strikes me increasingly as I listen to the Minister is that the present method of calculation—two nights per week—has a strong built-in bias in favour of two separated parents living in close
1356
geographical proximity to each other. Those, of course, are precisely the ones where help to maintain contact is least needed.
Let us suppose, for example, that one parent is in London and the other is in Oban. Would the Minister wish to encourage the child, who may be quite young, to set off from Euston Station after school on a Friday and go to Oban that same night? It is quite a long journey for a seven or eight year old. Even without invoking anything quite as extreme as Oban, I still think that, as a parent, when a child comes rather tired out of school late on a Friday afternoon, and with Friday trains stopping earlier and earlier each year, I should hesitate to encourage him to go on a very long journey that night.
Therefore, the two nights a week will really only apply where the two separated parents live in fairly close geographical proximity. Well, it is hard enough for parents to keep contact with their children if they are a long way away. My honourable friend Mr. Kirkwood had one absent parent in Roxburgh, while the children were living in Plymouth. He had no end of trouble keeping contact over that. In that position, one really cannot manage two nights a week of contact. It does not mean that one wants any less to see one's children.
I cannot help suspecting that the Government fixed on the formula of two nights every week simply because it is administratively simpler. That is no way to treat real people. Can they not use a little imagination? However, it is clear that we shall not get imagination tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Deferral of right to apply for maintenance assessment]:
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 8, at end insert:
("(12) Nothing in subsection (10) or in any commencement order or regulation under this Act shall have the effect of preventing or delaying, transitionally or otherwise, the making of an application for child support maintenance under this section by a person who, or whose partner, is subject to an assessment of child maintenance as a result of an application under section 6 of this Act." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the above amendment deals with a situation which has come to be known among those involved with the legislation as the "pig-in-the-middle" situation. It is a situation where the first wife is on benefit and has come within the legislation, so the husband of the first wife is paying maintenance. He is married to a second wife, herself divorced from a previous husband, who has not been on benefit. Her former husband has not been brought within the legislation and is, perhaps—as we on these Benches have always admitted some parents do—evading his responsibilities. It does happen, although it is not the normal situation.
In such a case, the unfortunate man is paying out maintenance for one lot of children, but his wife, who has another lot of children—his step-children—is not getting anything coming in for them. Therefore, in effect, the man is carrying the whole weight of supporting two lots of children. It is one of many cases in which the Government's principle that children must be the responsibility of their natural parents does not

1357
work in practice; indeed, any principle quite so general very often does not. I hope that the amendment will receive some consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as your Lordships know, the Government's original plan was that all cases would come into the agency's jurisdiction within four years. However, because of the problems faced by the agency and the need to introduce new procedures, particularly the departure scheme, that will not prove possible.
Once again I have to reiterate to your Lordships that the highest priority for take-on are those people who have no access to the courts, or those who are claiming benefit and who are being supported by taxpayers. Of course, I do have sympathy for those parents with care who receive only a small amount of maintenance through a court order while their current partners pay out a larger amount in child support maintenance to their first wives and first families. However, those parents with care are able to apply to the courts to have their orders varied. The mere fact that the family finances have been affected by a child support assessment is a change of circumstances which could be put to the court in support of an application to vary the order. We do not want to jeopardise the smooth introduction of other provisions by taking on these cases immediately. I am beginning to get a bit uncertain as to what we discussed in Committee and what we are discussing on Report but I certainly know that this matter was discussed in another place. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in this instance, we do not believe that we can give way to this request. My suggestion is that the parent with care in those circumstances should consider returning to the court to have the order varied.
11 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand the point that he is making. Perhaps where the procedure he suggested for any reason does not prove effective he might consider this as a case where a departure under this new Bill might be allowed because there are some cases where hardship does arise, sometimes because there is no money to be recovered from the former husband of the second wife, sometimes because he is perhaps ill, mentally ill, or out of the country. In particular, if he is out of the country returning to the court to recover money can be very difficult indeed. So there is, I think, a slightly bigger problem here than the Minister has allowed for, but he is awake to its existence. I thank him for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Non-referral of applications for maintenance assessments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 15, line 17, leave out ("person") and insert ("parent").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment resolves a minor technical inconsistency in the wording of Clause 19 which occurred when an amendment was made to the clause in another place. Clause 19 currently
1358
refers to the person with care (page 15, line 17) but later refers to the same individual as the parent with care (page 15, line 28). The amendment corrects this minor inconsistency by using the phrase "parent with care" in both instances and I commend this minor amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Disputed parentage]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 16, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert ("any other proceedings concerning the qualifying child with respect to whom the declaration of parentage was made."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 41 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 42. The two amendments deal with a rather complicated point which in each case was debated in Committee in another place and the Minister in each case said he would consider them further and respond, but I do not think he has done so. This will give the Government an opportunity to do that. I quote from Standing Committee E:
"The new subsection 27(3) to the Child Support Act 1991 inserted by the clause provides that a declaration of parentage made under the Act shall have effect in relation to proceedings under the Act and other proceedings for related court-based applications for maintenance for children. The purpose of the amendment is to extend the effect of that provision so that a declaration of parentage made under the 1991 Act has effect whenever a question about the child's paternity arises in other proceedings, saving those with care from having to make more than one application for a declaration of parentage in relation to the same child.
The Government may oppose the amendment on the basis that it would allow women on benefit to apply at the state's expense for a declaration of paternity that they could then use for other proceedings, but that argument is flawed for three reasons. First, other declarations in family proceedings are generally binding—for example, sections 56 and 58 of the Family Law Act 1986, dealing with declarations of legitimacy and legitimation. Secondly, if the declaration is not binding in all other proceedings relating to the child and a second declaration has to be sought, the cost to the state will be increased, since individuals in that category are likely to be eligible for legal aid. If individuals in that category are not on benefit, the agency will not undertake work to obtain a declaration for them. Thirdly, that argument ignores the state's interest in obtaining the declaration. The agency applies for declarations in benefit cases only when it is thought that some financial benefit will accrue to the Government through benefit savings due to higher maintenance payments".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 25/4/95; col. 185.]
As I said, when this was debated in the other place in Committee the Minister, Mr Arbuthnot, said,
"In view of the wide range of situations that could be affected by the amendment, I shall consult my colleagues in other Government Departments about the best way to proceed and I shall return to the House on Report to advise honourable Members of the results".— [Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 25/4/95; col. 186.]
I do not believe that the matter was discussed on Report in the other place.
Amendment No. 42 is also rather complicated. Section 26 of the Child Support Act 1991 currently provides that an alleged absent parent is deemed to be an absent parent where, for example, the child is adopted. The fact that that section does not currently incorporate the current common-law presumption of legitimacy and the statutory provisions concerning legitimation means that formerly married absent parents

1359
are able to manipulate the agency by denying paternity. The purpose of the amendment is therefore to ensure that the common-law presumption of legitimacy and the statutory provisions concerning legitimation are incorporated in the Child Support Act 1991.
Again, this issue was debated in Committee in another place, and, again, the Minister promised to consider the matter further; but there has been no response, so far as I am aware.
It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate the Government's position on the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the amendments have already been discussed in another place.
Amendment No. 41 would allow for a declaration of parentage under Section 27 to be relied on in any future proceedings involving the qualifying child. While it would not necessarily be disadvantageous for all those involved to use the paternity declaration made under the Child Support Act, we would need to ensure that there were adequate safeguards if the declaration were to be valid in determining wide-ranging issues relating to a child's upbringing, and this cannot be done without full and proper consultation. Similarly, we would need to consider whether a declaration of paternity obtained for non-child support purposes, other than those currently set out in the Child Support Act, should be binding for child support maintenance assessments.
Amendment No. 42 is concerned with presumptions of paternity. There is already a presumption in Scottish statute law that a child of a marriage is deemed to be the child of both parties to that marriage. The 1991 Act recognises this presumption so that, in Scotland, a child support officer can make an assessment for maintenance if the alleged parent was married to the child's mother at any time between the child's conception and birth. Amendment No. 42 would extend the presumption of paternity to England and Wales. Such a presumption already exists in common law in England and Wales and it may be desirable to establish it in statute law. However, again we need to consider possible implications for other areas of law such as property and inheritance, registration of births, parental responsibility, immigration, residence and contact issues. Responsibility for those issues ranges across a number of different government departments, and the implications need to be fully considered and discussed.
The Lord Chancellor has general policy responsibility for family law issues, and he has agreed to co-ordinate a consultation exercise on both of these matters. I understand that the exercise will commence shortly. However, such an exercise could not be concluded in time for any changes in the law to be introduced in this Bill.
I appreciate that that may come as something of a disappointment to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but I hope that he will understand that, while I very much take the points made in his amendments, there are other wider issues which my noble and learned friend the
1360
Lord Chancellor will have to consider and that we shall have to consult on these matters before we can come to any conclusion.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That is what the Minister said in the other place on 25th April. I thought that by now the consultation might have taken place. It would be helpful if we could be given some idea of when the Lord Chancellor's work will be completed.
I am pleased to know that, as is often the case, Scottish law deals with a problem that is not dealt with in English law. However, I am surprised that the Minister referred to parents who were married between conception and birth; surely it should be before conception and birth.
However, I understand what the Minister said. At least the Government recognise the problems. I hope that when the Lord Chancellor's group completes its work they will be able to deal with this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 42 not moved.]
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 43:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Limits on reduced benefit direction
(".—(1) Section 46 of the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows—
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) Subsection (5) shall not apply in cases where—

(a) the person with care or any child that would be affected by a reduced benefit direction is disabled, or

(b) the benefit entitlement of the parent with care has already been reduced by reason of a deduction to pay any outstanding debt."").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 48 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. I believe that that amendment is a good example of what one can do if one's intention is to improve the Bill and not to wreck it. Amendment No. 43 was tabled before I knew the exact timetable in which the Minister intended to put down his amendment. I am fairly clear that Amendment No. 48 deals with the point that I raised in Committee. The Minister kindly agreed to come back with his own amendment to deal with the matter through regulations. I refer to the exemption from benefit reduction of parents who are disabled or who have a disabled child, and those who are already repaying a loan from their benefit.
I shall formally move the amendment. If the Minister will speak to his amendment, Amendment No. 48, to explain how the provision overtakes mine, I shall beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 43. He can then move Amendment No. 48 on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Carter, to withdraw his reference to wrecking the Bill. If I had intended to wreck the Bill, I would have moved very different amendments from those that I have moved.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have not the slightest intention of withdrawing that remark.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, during Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Carter, tabled an amendment so that where a parent with care who refuses to give her authority is disabled or has a disabled child, or where deductions are being made from her benefit to repay a debt, her benefit would not be reduced. I undertook to consider his arguments on both those points.
It is right—we have discussed it earlier—that parents with care should co-operate with the agency in pursuing maintenance unless they have a good reason not to do so. Only if a parent with care co-operates can maintenance be sought from the absent parent. As I said earlier, this financial burden should not be passed to the taxpayer. Even where parents with care are disabled, or have a disabled child, their duty to co-operate remains.
However, I considered and reflected on what the noble Lord said at Committee stage. I am persuaded that where a parent with care, or her child, is disabled the benefit reduction may cause particular hardship. The Government agree with the noble Lord that benefit should not be reduced in these cases. My amendment will provide the necessary power to set out the detail of this exemption in secondary legislation and will enable other categories of parents with care to be exempted in the future if the need for such exemption arises.
If we were to exempt parents who are repaying loans by deductions from their benefit we would be discriminating against those parents who are better able to budget or who choose to pay off loans themselves without involving the benefits system. However, I accept the noble Lord's concern and I have decided that a reduced benefit direction should be suspended while a parent with care is having deductions made direct from her income support, to pay outstanding debts such as for fuel or rent arrears. If deductions cease the reduced benefit direction will be reimposed, but existing legislative safeguards will apply and the parent with care will be given adequate notice and will be invited to reconsider her refusal to co-operate. Again, I will be setting this out in full in regulations as soon as it is practicable.
The benefit reduction is intended to make the parent with care think carefully about her decision not to co-operate and, as I said earlier this evening, I believe that that is right. However, the amendment in my name will mean that, in specific circumstances, where the reduction will cause particular hardship, the reduction will not be imposed.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will withdraw Amendment No. 43. I commend Amendment No. 48 to the House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. We began the day with the Government in fact drafting an amendment for me to improve the Bill. Amendment No. 48 certainly improves the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 43.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 [Compensation payments]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 19, line 24, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall make provision for payment by him to qualifying persons of sums by way of compensation where financial loss, worry or distress has been caused to that person or a member of his family by the actions or inaction of the Secretary of State, a child support officer or any other person carrying out duties in connection with child support legislation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed the issue, I said that I would come back with the matter at Report stage. It is a simple point. In Committee I referred to paragraph 34 of the Third Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commission for Administration on the Child Support Agency. It recommended that the DSS considers discretionary payments regarding worry and distress caused by the maladministration of the CSA, removing the insistence that there be medical certification of harm or proven malice from officials.
When the Minister was kind enough to respond in that Committee, he rather avoided the point and answered one which I had not made. I said then that I should like to read again what he said and reserve the right to come back at Report stage. It would be helpful if he could deal with the point. In the Government's response they ignored it. It would be helpful if we could have the reasons why they wish to ignore—if they did—the recommendation from the Select Committee about discretionary payments for worry and distress. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, St. Jerome said that no man should be patient when taxed with heresy. I do not see why I should be patient at the charge of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, of wrecking the Bill. I was distressed to discover that the charge was first made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, in Committee at practically the only moment in the whole of the Committee stage when I was out of the Chamber. I thought that that was a little ungenerous as a choice.
The noble Baroness made the charge against all my amendments. That is an extreme charge. Even the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in all his glory, never went so far as that. It did not appear to me to be the case that an attempt to introduce a little respect for evidence and for law was wrecking the Bill. I did not believe that the Bill was so easily wrecked; if it is, then it is not a tribute to it as a Bill.
I was also somewhat distressed throughout the Committee stage that the Opposition showed so little understanding of all the issues arising out of the rule of law and that they had so little to say and so little understanding of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on Second Reading. It does not encourage confidence in what they might do in office.
I was also disappointed that every single one of the amendments moved by the Opposition in Committee favoured the parent with care. I know injustices are being done to the parent with care. I have tried to put some of those injustices right, but to argue that the Government have put right all the injustices to absent

1363
parents in the Bill is, first, in the nature of administration, improbable. Secondly, according to the past conduct of the Opposition, if the Government had put them all right, it is extremely improbable that the Opposition would have agreed that that was the case. Compared with their otherwise creditable conduct in 1991, the Opposition's conduct on this Bill shows quite how much they have been taken over by political correctitude. I deplore it. I had not intended to say all that but the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked for it and he got it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not think I will intervene too much in the dispute apart from saying that the noble Earl would be insulted if I did not say that had I accepted all his amendments he would have changed the Bill and the 1991 Act out of all recognition. I believe that that is what he intended to do and I am happy that I have been able to resist him on all the occasions on which he tried.
I turn to the substance of the amendment. Your Lordships will he aware that there are already administrative mechanisms for compensation to be considered in appropriate cases. I explained in Committee that where a customer of the agency considers that they have suffered financial loss or undue delay as a result of an action or omission on the part of the agency they can contact the agency. Their case will be dealt with on an individual basis in line with practice which operates elsewhere in the Department of Social Security.
Under the department's special payment arrangements, compensation may be considered where an individual has experienced undue delay or suffered an actual financial loss as a result of official error. These arrangements, which now also apply to the Child Support Agency, have been in place for almost 20 years and provide for payments to be made on an ex gratia basis. We plan to introduce compensation arrangements specifically designed to cover the work of the agency shortly, which will also be on a discretionary ex gratia basis.
We do not consider that specific provision needs to be made for compensation in primary legislation. If a statutory compensation scheme were to be introduced it would be necessary to regulate at some length for the detail of the scheme. This would inevitably limit the extent to which it was possible to deal flexibly with the individual circumstances of each case. Flexibility is a great advantage of the current arrangements and I consider the introduction of a statutory scheme to be unnecessary as it would not, in itself, guarantee a better standard of redress to customers.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made the point that the Government had not fully answered one of the recommendations of the PCA Select Committee—namely, that the Department of Social Security should consider discretionary payments for worry and distress caused by the maladministration of the Child Support Agency, removing the insistence that there be medical certification of harm or proven malice from officials. He
1364
also referred to the evidence that Sir Michael Partridge gave to the Select Committee and indicated that he would return to this point.
The Permanent Secretary made it clear in his evidence to the PCA Select Committee that the Government did not accept that compensation payments should be made, as a matter of course, for worry and distress. He stated that they would be considered only in instances of proven malice on the part of officials, or where worry and distress was alleged to have been caused as a direct result of maladministration by the agency and there was medical evidence that a person had suffered a material and objective injury directly attributable to the agency's actions.
Sir Michael pointed out that it would not be consistent with government policy generally, and contrary to practice in other government departments, to make compensation payments on the grounds of worry and distress where neither of these factors was present. It would, in any case, be an extremely difficult and highly subjective exercise to try to place a monetary value on the appropriate level of compensation for worry and distress in individual cases. Furthermore, it would open up the opportunity for people to claim compensation for the most trivial or vexatious reasons.
For the reasons I have given, we do not accept that there is any general need for a statutory right in child support legislation to receive compensation, where there is already a discretionary scheme and, as a last resort, a right to compensation exists under common law. With that explanation spelling out the position we are taking up on the Select Committee's point, I hope that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister.
To respond to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, it seems extraordinary to me that his major constitutional point on the rule of law, and all the other points that he raised, were apparently completely ignored and overlooked by his Liberal colleagues in the other place, who said nothing on this Bill, so far as I can make out, in any of the areas that he raised. When the Bill came to this House he decided to take up all these points. I will certainly not take any lectures from the noble Earl when the latest report from the Network Against the Child Support Act (NACSA) states that,
"There is no doubt that the Liberal Democrats are delighted with the sudden input of support for their party from NACSA supporters. Campaigners in many areas … helped them during the council elections. Word from Lib Dem HQ and the ecstatic Liz Lynne is that they have already had a foot high stack of support pledges from NACSA supporters … These are people who, a page or two later, advise people to lie and to harass. They say … Around 150 NACSA stalwarts turned out at Brierley Hill to harass the life out of the inmates of the Dudley CSAC",—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/95; col. 667.]
etc., etc.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was in the Chamber when the Motion, That the Bill do now pass was moved in 1991. Does he remember that I told the House then that the Bill would prove unenforceable, as it has?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I said much the same thing. That is why we have this Bill that tries to improve the working of the Child Support Agency. I was about to say that prima donnas on an ego trip are not the best way to improve a Bill. Perhaps I shall not say that since it will upset the noble Earl.
I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. He has now given me the answer that I was hoping—
Baroness Seear: My Lords, very reluctantly I have to interrupt the noble Lord, partly because he quoted various remarks about the Liberal Democrat Party, which he read at such speed that they were totally incomprehensible to me. They did not sound very flattering. I should like to be able to argue with the noble Lord, but, as he did not make it at all clear what he was saying and as it is now half past eleven, I do not intend to do so. I merely wish to register that I think the whole of this little episode is rather unfortunate.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right, but I did not start the "little episode". To the Minister I say that this is the answer that I wanted. It is not entirely satisfactory, but it is the answer that I was hoping to get when I raised the point in Committee. As he has now answered the point that I made then, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 19, line 33, at end insert:
(""partial compensation" means a weekly amount not lower than any difference between the child maintenance taken into account when the family credit or disability working allowance was calculated and the new child support maintenance assessment;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with partial compensation. The effect of the amendment is to ensure that no claimants for family credit or disability working allowance end up worse off than they would have been without any CSA assessment. It takes into account the Government's argument that not all FC and DWA claimants have the full CSA assessment taken into account in the first instance; for example, if the absent parent had not been making the payments before the benefit calculation.
We suggest that compensation should equal the amount of maintenance taken into account after the £15 maintenance disregard has been applied, where this is larger than 50 per cent. of the actual reduction. There were some objections from the Government to that approach in the other place. Therefore, we have produced a compromise position. The increased expenditure involved is insignificant. We accept that this will be slightly harder to administer, but there should not be a large problem as the payments are being made by the FC and DWA unit, which has access to the figure used in the last benefit calculation.
In the light of that introduction, I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the level of compensation to parents with care on family credit for reductions in maintenance. We discussed much earlier today aspects
1366
of family credit and how maintenance impacts on it. We have now come to this amendment which is about the compensation being paid.
As drafted, the clause provides for the method of calculating the compensation to be set out in regulations, which your Lordships will have the opportunity to debate in due course. We intend to provide that the compensation will be at the level of half the reduction in the maintenance assessment for the outstanding period of the family credit award.
For many families, that formula will provide full compensation for their actual financial loss. Some will even be over-compensated. That is because the maintenance assessment and the amount of maintenance taken into account in the family credit assessment are often different. The amount taken into account in the assessment is the actual amount of maintenance being received in the period immediately before the claim. In many cases, that is considerably less than the maintenance assessment itself. The noble Lord's amendment recognises that by providing that the compensation will be based on the difference between the amount of maintenance taken into account in the family credit assessment and the new maintenance assessment.
We considered the option of basing the compensation on this method, as proposed in the amendment, but the problem with that solution is that it would make the compensation exercise much more complicated and time-consuming. It would be necessary to examine the details of the family credit assessment in each case, whereas the method that we propose relies simply on the reduction in the maintenance assessment itself without the need to refer to the details of the family credit assessment. This enables the Benefits Agency to make the payments very quickly, as soon as the family needs them. The noble Lord's amendment would slow down the process, with the risk that the family would have to wait some time for the money which it needs.
Furthermore, many families would be likely to receive less compensation under the noble Lord's amendment than they will do under the broad brush scheme. I fully accept—I believe I said it previously—that this is a broad brush scheme, but I believe that it is one which delivers what we all want as quickly as possible. Any attempt to fine tune it in order to make it a more detailed scheme, treating every case and every family credit separately, would complicate the issue and take up much more time. Looking at it in the round, it would not be to the advantage of the parent with care, who could have to wait some considerable time for her compensation.
I understand the noble Lord's point but I hope that, with my explanation that perhaps the broad brush approach is the best one to stick with, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the Minister said, what we have now is a broad brush approach. We did not feel that the way that we suggest is that much harder to administer because all the figures are available.

1367
However, I should like to read what the Minister has said. It is a complicated point. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Payment of benefit where maintenance payments collected by Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Short title, commencement, extent etc.]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 23, line 8, leave out ("and 17") and insert ("16A, 17 and 18").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 49 and 50. Amendments Nos. 47 and 50 are minor and technical amendments. Amendment No. 50 corrects a minor drafting error in an earlier amendment. However, Amendment No. 49 introduces a new provision relating to expenses for people attending hearings before a child support commissioner. Such a provision already exists in social security legislation and the new paragraph we propose to add to Schedule 4 to the Child Support Act 1991 by means of this amendment to Schedule 3 to the Bill will mean that a consistent approach is taken for child support cases. Our colleagues in Northern Ireland propose to bring forward legislation along these lines for their own purposes in due course. The amendment therefore proposes an amendment to paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the 1991 Act to prevent provision for travel and other expenses from applying to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 49 is a technical amendment which gives effect to this exclusion.
Amendment No. 49 also ensures that a further provision in the Bill, which we had always intended should extend to Northern Ireland, does so. This provision enables issues arising from the payment of the child maintenance bonus to be dealt with by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The necessary amendment to Clause 30 was overlooked when we introduced that provision through an amendment agreed in Committee. With that explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 31, line 3, at end insert:
(". In section 46(5) (circumstances in which child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction), after "may" insert ", except in prescribed circumstances,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 49 and 50:
Page 31, line 28, at end insert:
("16A.—(1) In Schedule 4 (Child Support Commissioners), after paragraph 2 insert—
"Expenses of other persons
2A.—(1) The Secretary of State may pay to any person required to attend at any proceedings before a Child Support Commissioner such travelling and other allowances as, with the consent of the Treasury, the Secretary of State may determine.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), references to travelling and other allowances include references to compensation for loss of remunerative time.
(3) No compensation for loss of remunerative time shall be paid to any person under this paragraph in respect of any time during which he is in receipt of other remuneration so paid."
(2) In paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 (application of Schedule to Northern Ireland), after sub-paragraph (b) insert—
"(bb) paragraph 2A were omitted;".").
Page 32, line 3, after ("Ireland;") insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.

King's College London Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
Pensions Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
Merchant Shipping Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Shipping and Trading Interests (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before midnight.

  Consular Fees
  Consular Fees
  Rohingya Refugees: Repatriation Safeguards
  Rohingya Refugees: Repatriation Safeguards
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  African Great Lakes Region
  African Great Lakes Region
  Cambodia
  Cambodia
  Cameroon
  Cameroon
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Burma
  Burma
  China: Birth Control Policies
  China: Birth Control Policies
  ABM Treaty
  ABM Treaty
  Ballistic Missiles
  Ballistic Missiles
  Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile
  Conventionally Armed Stand-Off Missile
  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Ballistic Missile Defence
  Counter Proliferation Initiative
  Counter Proliferation Initiative
  NHS Suspension Procedures
  NHS Suspension Procedures
  Child Support Agency
  Child Support Agency
  War Crimes Act 1991
  War Crimes Act 1991
  Iranian Oil and Gas Field Development
  Iranian Oil and Gas Field Development
  R v Ernest Saunders & Others: Withdrawal of Public Interest Certificate
  R v Ernest Saunders & Others: Withdrawal of Public Interest Certificate