Sitting of 13 July 1995

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

    ACCOMMODATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Wednesday 19 July.

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (NO. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 18 July.

    CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [26 June].
    Debate to be resumed on Wednesday 19 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Inflation Prospects
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will outline the prospects for inflation. [32468]
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he expects the rate of inflation to be at the end of 1995. [32557]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I expect inflation to increase a little towards the end of 1995, to 3 per cent. in the fourth quarter. That increase reflects the impact of higher import prices, and is expected to be temporary. I expect inflation to fall back during 1996, to 2½ per cent. by the fourth quarter.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that low inflation is a crucial factor in the creation of more wealth, more investment and more jobs? Does not he find absurd the way in which the shadow Chancellor on one hand appears to be for ever calling for lower interest rates but on the other has started to criticise my right hon. and learned Friend for not agreeing with the Governor of the Bank of England, who wants interest rates to increase? Will he assure the House that his inflation policy will be based on sound economics and not soundbites, so beloved by the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the overriding aim of all economic policy is increased prosperity and more secure jobs. It is essential that we
    1072
    deliver low inflation in order to guarantee those and deliver those. We have been more successful on the inflation front in the past two years than at any time in the past 30 years. That has been as a result of the conduct of monetary policy and the determination of the Governor and myself to take no risks with inflation.
    The Opposition always used to demand lower interest rates, come what may. Even in the late 1980s, they were demanding lower interest rates when they had to increase. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) always used to demand lower interest rates on every occasion, but he has stopped doing that for the past six months. As far as I can see, he has no opinion at all about interest rates or inflation that he will share with anyone at the moment.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Today's inflation rates show that the figures have already exceeded the figures that the Chancellor estimated in his Budget speech. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given several different figures at different times. Would he say what he really anticipates the figure to be? Does the Governor of the Bank of England agree with his optimism about inflation rates and, more importantly, in his estimates has he consulted the First Secretary?
    Mr. Clarke: The figures today entirely coincide with the summer forecast, which we debated yesterday, and the answer that I have just given about the likely pattern of inflation. There is absolutely no doubt about the inflation target among anyone who takes it seriously; it is 2½ per cent or less by the end of this Parliament and through the next Parliament. People try to reinterpret that, but I set the policy. They are my decisions and I repeatedly say plainly on what basis I am setting them all the time. I work with the Governor of the Bank of England, with whom I discussed those decisions, and he and I are determined to achieve the Government's stated inflation target.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the impeccable judgment on interest rates that he has shown so far, especially in resisting the considerable pressures for him to increase interest rates a few weeks ago, just before the American and Japanese rates were lowered, and set off a world bull market in bonds?
    Mr. Clarke: I always have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend's advice. That is because he is always constructively but fairly critical when he feels critical and I am grateful for his agreement when he gives it. I believe that the economic evidence supports the decision that I took. I am grateful to know that it has his full support. I do wish that someone on the Opposition Benches had a serious opinion to offer on the subject.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that irresponsible tax cuts would worsen the outlook for inflation? Does he accept the discipline of his own words—that public borrowing is taxation deferred? Does he accept that, if he introduced tax cuts which could be funded only by increased borrowing, they would be bad for inflation and would have to be reversed soon afterwards, perhaps after a general election?
    Mr. Clarke: I hope that we are all against irresponsible tax cuts. I am against doing anything that is irresponsible. We will not have tax cuts unless we can afford it. What

    1073
    we have done so far is to halve the public sector borrowing requirement over the past two years and we have set it on a firm downward course, aiming at our clearly stated intention of achieving balance over the medium term. Tax cuts will come, but only when we can afford them and when it is in the interests of the economy to have tax cuts.
    Mr. Darling: Inflation has edged up today. Can the Chancellor explain why it has now emerged that the Central Statistical Office wrongly calculated the rate of inflation over the past few months and understated the rate of inflation? Can he also explain why he insists on maintaining not just one but three different targets for inflation? He used the figure of 2½ per cent. for the City and the figure of 3 per cent., which he said would be a triumph, for a newspaper interview.
    In his own hand, the right hon. and learned Gentleman wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service saying that his target was in the range of 1 per cent. to 4 per cent. most of the time—in other words, not all the time. Is it any wonder that people do not believe him when he says that he has a target? Is it any wonder that people believe that the Government will take risks with inflation if that is what it takes to win the next election?
    Mr. Clarke: First, it is true that an error was made in calculating inflation for two months earlier this year. The Central Statistical Office has explained that it was a straightforward error. Someone made an error in the calculation which led to an under-recording by 0.1 percentage points in the months of March and May 1995. The new director insists, in his press release, on accepting personal responsibility for this, although he has been in post for only a fortnight. It was one of those human errors which we all make.
    Secondly, I find this level of political debate absurd. One thing that I do in explaining Government policy is to state clearly what the objectives are. The inflation forecast is 2½ per cent. or less. In the same way, the Prime Minister and I made perfectly clear our attitudes towards such things as inheritance tax and capital gains tax. The press is capable of taking any daft half-quotation to claim that what we say is not what we claim to say. These bad habits are extending even to the Chamber and are lowering the Opposition's performance. I could not have been clearer in every statement I have made that the inflation target is 2½per cent. or less from the end of this Parliament. I set the policy and I am telling the hon. Gentleman what the policy is on which I set other policies.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend resist the calls which come from some people who say that a bit of inflation would be good for negative equity and for house owners? Does he agree that there has never been a better time in the past decade or so for people to buy their first new home? We have low inflation rates which means low interest rates. That makes buying one's own home very affordable and that is the right way in which to get the house market moving again.
    Mr. Clarke: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. If the public feared that we were going back to what would begin as a bit of inflation, which would mean higher interest rates and the old double figure levels, it would be extremely damaging to the housing market. It is the fact that some people still fear that we may do that that is
    1074
    holding back purchasers from the excellent bargains at affordable prices in the market. I hope that the expert opinion of people such as our hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell), with his view about where interest rates are likely to go—at a time when they are well below half the peak that they hit at similar stages in the economic cycle in the past—will have some effect on those contemplating house purchases.

    Low Pay and Unemployment
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the economic impact of low pay and unemployment. [32548]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): Low pay and unemployment result from low productivity and inflexible labour markets. Government policies have successfully tackled these problems. Real take-home pay has risen at all levels since 1979 and unemployment has fallen by 661,000 since December 1992.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Is it not a fact that low pay is now costing every taxpayer £100 a year? Is that subsidy for bad employers a good use of £2.4 billion of public money? Is it not a fact that without a minimum wage, the good employer is undermined by the bad employer, who is undermined by the worst employer, and that the taxpayer winds up picking up the tab?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman should lead with an argument for the minimum wage. One of the most robust Labour politicians I know, the deputy leader of the Labour party, said:
    "I knew the consequences of a minimum wage were that there'd be some shake out, any silly fool knew that".
    To bring the script up to date, Lord Healey—the only Labour politician I know who is more robust than the deputy leader—said:
    "Don't kid yourselves—the minimum wage is something on which unions will build differentials … Therefore the minimum wage becomes a floor on which you erect a new tower".
    Those are the facts, and the people with courage in the Labour party know that they are the facts.
    Mr. Dunn: Can my right hon. Friend inform the House how those on low pay or the unemployed would benefit from the introduction of a minimum wage, given that a minimum wage would destroy jobs and be a nightmare in the labour market?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The irony must be that either one sets the minimum wage so low that it does not affect anything, or one moves differentials—unless the trade union movement has completely abandoned virtually everything that it stands for. Common sense tells us that the minimum wage will destroy jobs and that it will not benefit the unemployed one whit.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that some of us have a figure for the minimum wage? We have done a comparison of those Tory Members of Parliament who receive £10,000 a year from consultancies that they do not declare in the Register. Some £10,000 a year is £5 an hour and the people in my constituency would settle for that. Unlike the moonlighting Tory Members of Parliament, my constituents want only one job.
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is not uncharacteristic for the hon. Gentleman to have the courage of his convictions. He has

    1075
    put a figure of £5 an hour on the minimum wage. Let us have a figure from the Labour Front Bench. If Labour Members below the Gangway have the courage to give a figure, why will those on the Front Bench not do the same?
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Has my right hon. Friend estimated the number of jobs that would be lost if the minimum wage were pitched at the level suggested by the Transport and General Workers Union? Does he not think—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) should wake up—and so should the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Does my right hon. Friend not think that people are most motivated and happiest when they are in work, even if they are not paid £1 million a year for doing the job?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The estimates vary, but I have seen an estimate of anything around three quarters of a million jobs. On the basis of the figure advanced from below the Gangway opposite, it would probably be a little higher than that.

    Trade Balance
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the economic impact of the latest balance of trade figures. [32549]
    Mr. Waldegrave: Recent growth has been export led. In the year to the first quarter of 1995, exports were 9 per cent., while imports rose by only 0.5 per cent. That means that more than half of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product growth of nearly 4 per cent. is accounted for by net exports.
    Mrs. Jackson: Does the Minister not see that our very weak trade position—a £1.4 billion deficit in April—reflects the Government's failure to invest in the economy? Does he not understand that the people in the special steel sector in south Yorkshire want to see a doubling of investment in jobs, skills and technology? How can the Minister justify possibly wasting £4 billion by reducing capital gains tax and inheritance tax rather than investing in our manufacturing base?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The country's trade performance is extremely good. It is very much better than most forecasters predicted—including the forecasts that came from the Labour Front Bench in the days when Labour Front Benchers used to give forecasts. The hon. Lady referred to the steel industry. British Steel is one of the best steel companies in the world and it is exporting very strongly. That was not the case when it was nationalised. Any tax changes that may be introduced—when we can afford them—which will help capital markets and the economy will only strengthen that position.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend recall that economic recoveries since the war have been blighted time and again by balance of payments crises? Does he agree that the present economic recovery is precisely the opposite, in as much as we are seeing an astonishingly good export performance?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is the first recovery since the war that has been led by exports. It used to be the holy grail that we all sought, and the country can be proud of achieving it. Above all, manufacturing industry, and the
    1076
    invisibles sector too, can be proud of it. If a few years back we had been told that the United Kingdom would, for example, export more televisions and microchips than either France or Germany, as we did last year, people would have thought that we were in cloud cuckoo land. Yet that is what we are now achieving.
    Mr. Milburn: Can the Chief Secretary confirm that our weak balance of trade position is a reflection of the Government's failure to secure adequate investment in the economy? Which areas of investment does he propose to cut to finance the abolition of capital gains tax and inheritance tax?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is absurd. The trade position is extremely strong. I would like to know why he thinks that, under the Labour party's proposals, which are the same old proposals for directed investment, he would not produce more advanced gas-cooled reactors, more Concordes and more of those pretty catastrophic investment proposals which were produced in the past by that very system.

    Investment Level
    Mr. Betts: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to increase the level of investment in the economy. [32551]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): Our objectives of low inflation and sound public finances are designed to ensure a stable macroeconomic environment, within which businesses can plan ahead with confidence. Industry is now responding. Manufacturing investment rose by more than 6½ per cent. last year.
    Mr. Betts: Given that, between 1979 and 1994, Britain had the worst investment record of any of the G7 or European Union countries, and given that manufacturing investment fell in the first quarter of this year and that total investment is still 10 per cent. below its level prior to the recession, will the Economic Secretary answer the question which the Chief Secretary has failed to answer on two occasions? When resources become available, will the Government use them to assist investment in this country or will they waste them by spending £4 billion of public money on cutting inheritance tax and capital gains tax, which will benefit only a few relatively affluent people and do nothing to improve the underlying capacity of our economy? Will she answer that question?
    Mrs. Knight: I find it very difficult to take seriously anything that the hon. Gentleman says about investment, as when he had opportunities and was in charge of Sheffield city council, he wasted £150 million building palaces of leisure for the world student games. That financial millstone has hung around the neck of everybody in that city for a generation. However, he will be pleased to learn that the latest investment figures show a strong pick-up in manufacturing, especially in the north of England.
    Sir Timothy Sainsbury: May I first congratulate my hon. Friend on her very well deserved promotion to the Treasury Bench? I am sure that I speak for all Conservative Members in so doing. Does she agree that

    1077
    most investment, particularly in industrial companies, is funded from retained profits and therefore we should all welcome the increased profitability of British companies?
    Mrs. Knight: I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I entirely agree with his point. Since company profits are high, companies are managing to retain far more money which they can use for investment, to the benefit of companies and the country.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that the availability of a highly skilled, well-qualified work force is always attractive to inward investors? Does she also agree that each right hon. and hon. Member has a duty to encourage teachers, students and those presently unemployed to obtain qualifications and skills in order to attract inward investment and generate wealth-creating jobs from which the whole economy will benefit?
    Mrs. Knight: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Education and training are very important indeed, which is why the Government have given them such a high priority. Since we are attracting so much investment into the United Kingdom, we are obviously doing a very good job in that respect.
    Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to improve the level of investment is to reduce bureaucracy, red tape and interference not only by local government and national Government, but by the European Union?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. As part of my job, I shall certainly scrutinise European regulations to ensure that they benefit British industry.
    Ms Armstrong: While I welcome the Minister to her first Question Time, can she tell us why manufacturing investment fell in the first quarter of this year? Is she confident that she will be able to sort out the fact that total investment is 10 per cent. lower than it was in 1989 before the recession? With all that going on, how does she justify the priority given to getting rid of capital gains tax and inheritance tax?
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Lady has been mixing her figures. I am sure that she will be delighted to learn that there is a strong pick-up in manufacturing investment, which increased by 8¾ per cent. in the first quarter of this year over the same period in 1994. That is an increase, not a reduction. One factor that aids investment in British industry is a strong economic climate. We have one now and will continue to have one.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he received a reply to his letters of 12 May and 14 June to the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). [32552]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I regret to say that I have received no reply from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to my letters to him of 12 May and 14 June. I assume that he is still unable to decide on an inflation target and whether or not he agrees with my decisions on interest rates.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Labour cannot answer serious economic
    1078
    questions because it does not have a serious economic policy—only classical exogenous waffle to camouflage the job-destroying minimum wage and social chapter?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree that members of the Opposition Front Bench find themselves in a sad position. There cannot be a Member of the House of Commons who has not at some stage expressed an opinion on the movement in interest rates. The markets have since moved, there has been a wide range of financial comment and all the data—including the Bank of England's advice to the Government—are before us. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East cannot even answer a letter because he cannot make up his mind whether or not he has an opinion.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: As the Chancellor is so upset about replies to letters, will he now answer my letter to the Treasury of 23 June, which refuted fraudulent Conservative spending claims? While the right hon. and learned Gentleman is at it, will he account for his evident loss of control over the Prime Minister and his new spending commitment, now amounting to more than £11 billion? Answer that.
    Mr. Clarke: At least the hon. Gentleman wrote only on 23 June. I shall certainly let him have a prompt reply based on the experience of having taken £45 billion out of my colleagues' spending plans already, so I must rebuff the hon. Gentleman's claims about spending. As to the repeated theme concerning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I was present when he made his excellent speech confirming his leadership of the party. I was not startled by his remarks, and I checked the text to remind myself why.
    My right hon. Friend said of capital gains tax and inheritance tax:
    "My aim is to see these taxes reduced and if possible abolished altogether. I make no promises about when we can do it … no certainty that we can do it in the near future. But it should be set down now as a clear objective of any Government that I lead that I wish to see an end to inheritance tax and capital gains tax."
    That is, if anything, slightly more cautious in tone than my agreement with the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday. We have set that long-term objective because we believe in the benefits of low taxation and that one generation should be able to hand on the wealth that it has earned to the next generation.
    We believe also that capital gains tax should be re-examined because it can impose damaging effects on investment, particularly in unquoted companies. The Opposition, because they have no policy on anything and cannot answer straight questions on any economic policy, keep inventing fraudulent misquotations to try to make an issue of something else.
    Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. and learned Friend surely is aware that a considerable amount of taxpayers' money goes to the Opposition in Short money, so that they can reply to letters from him asking about the Opposition's policies. Should we not examine the value that taxpayers receive for that money? Should we not be getting answers from the Opposition about their policies, so that taxpayers can see and understand them?
    Mr. Clarke: I share my hon. Friend's feeling. I can only assume that the Short money all goes to the hon.

    1079
    Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) and the many public relations assistants that he must employ. As we all know, the hon. Member for Hartlepool plays the role in the Opposition that they mythically believe my right hon. Friend the First Secretary will be playing in the Government.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor now answer the question that he did not answer yesterday? Does he support the principle of abolishing inheritance tax and capital gains tax? Will he confirm that that would cost at least £3 billion? Will he further confirm that the main beneficiaries would be 5,000 people, who would get half the gains from abolishing the two taxes? Will he now tell us who is in charge of the Treasury and of tax policy? Where is the Budget being written—in No. 11 Downing street, No. 10 Downing street or No. 10a Downing street?
    Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman is having difficulty with his correspondence, he could have given me a reply just now when he was on his feet. Let me read again what the Prime Minister said:
    "My aim is to see those taxes reduced and if possible abolished altogether. I make no promises about when we can do it."
    I said:
    "The Prime Minister set out these objectives as a long-term aim for the Conservative party".
    I do not see the faintest difference. I remain in charge of economic and taxation policy, with the full support of the Prime Minister. The Government's aim is to achieve low taxation, as and when we can afford it and when it is in the interests of the economy.
    The hon. Gentleman seems to think that we have a lot of people in charge of economic policy, but it is clear that absolutely no one in his party is in charge of it.
    Mr. Salmond: Is the Chancellor aware of just how desultory and pathetic many of us find the exchanges between him and his shadow? Why cannot we have an economic debate conducted on real economic aggregates, such as employment, productivity and output? Surely that would be better than debates that seem to turn on whether the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) is aware that there needs to be a half-point correction in interest rates so as to meet one of the Chancellor's many inflation targets.
    Mr. Clarke: We had a debate on the economy in the House yesterday. Unfortunately the hon. Gentleman seemed to have a prior and pressing engagement elsewhere and was not able to join us. Hardly any nationalists from Scotland or Wales were present from beginning to end, as far as I can recall.
    I prefer to talk about the 3 per cent. growth that we are going to achieve this year; about keeping inflation to 2.5 per cent. or less at the end of this Parliament; about the 660,000 people who have come of the unemployment register; about the need to get unemployment down further; and about the need to give this country a modern, industrial economy that will sustain growth throughout the rest of this decade. It is the pathetic nature of the official Opposition and the absence, when we debate the economy, of the Scottish nationalists, that reduce us to the kind of drivel that we have just heard.

    Gilts Registration
    Mr. French: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the registration of gilts. [32553]
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Representations about the registration of gilts are rarely received.
    Mr. French: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Is she aware of the extent to which stock held on central gilts office accounts is exposed to the risk of misregistration and misallocation, whether intentional or otherwise? As the Pensions Bill contains no provisions relating to gilts custody, will she have discussions with the Bank of England to ensure that this real risk is covered?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend asks a specific and detailed question. I assure him that the Pensions Bill regulates fund managers. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, they are involved in the central gilts office; but thousands of gilts are traded each week in that office and so far not even one alleged case of a breach of security has been reported.
    Mr. Stevenson: In view of the Chancellor's recent announcement that he intends to limit the scope of taxation on gilts, will the Minister assure us that the Government have no intention of extending, and will not extend, the rate of VAT in a similar spirit? Or does the Minister agree with the Chancellor that far too many goods are still exempt from VAT?
    Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the Budget.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her well deserved promotion. She is one of the 1992 intake and, on behalf of that intake, I may say that we are delighted to see her.
    Small, prudent savers will certainly welcome the written parliamentary answer on the taxation of gilts given to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), stating that 99 per cent. of small savers will be exempt and that they will have until April 1996 to get their investments in order. That is extremely welcome news to small savers.
    Mrs. Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. We consulted large and small holders of gilts. I believe that the announcement that has been made satisfies everybody.

    Privatisation
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for further privatisation; and if he will make a statement. [32554]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): The Government continue to look for opportunities to transfer public sector businesses to the private sector. For example, we are proceeding with plans

    1081
    to transfer the operation of British Rail to the private sector and to privatise the major part of the nuclear power generating industry.
    Mr. Mullin: It would be wholly irresponsible, would it not, to use the proceeds of the sale of public assets to fund tax cuts for the purpose of purchasing the result of the next general election?
    Mr. Jack: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who normally deals with these matters in considerable detail, poses a question in that way, because he will know that, since the process of privatisation was begun, what used to cost this country £50 million a week now is now generating income to the Treasury of £55 million a week in terms of receipts from taxes on profits. That is the benefit of privatisation that we support.
    Mr. Tim Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and welcome him to his first Question Time. Does he agree that privatisation has been hugely successful both for taxpayers and for customers, that we should continue to privatise Government services wherever we can, and that we should export the successes of privatisation wherever we can?
    Mr. Jack: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. We debated this matter yesterday and have already had an exchange on it. He is right to draw attention to the tremendous opportunity and contribution that the private sector has given to the Government—£455 million of savings have been posted so far. He is also right to attest to this country's great expertise in privatisation. It is good to see that Britain leads the world in that area.
    Ms Primarolo: If the Chancellor is still in charge of economic policy, and not the resident of No. 10a or No. 10 Downing street, will the Financial Secretary tell us whether, in principle, he supports the taxing of income from executive share options and whether he will deal with the scandal of taxpayers who are being ripped off under these privatisation processes?
    Mr. Jack: Rewards in this area are extremely important. The hon. Lady touches on a subject which as she knows full well, will be dealt with when Sir Richard Greenbury reports. [Interruption.] It is not a question of Sir Richard Greenbury or anybody else being in charge. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a clear indication that he wanted that area to be investigated. He was entirely supported by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, who has given a robust defence of who is in charge of economic policy. He is and the Government are: the Opposition are not.
    Mr. Stephen: Further to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), does my hon. Friend agree that all political parties are in the business of bribing the electorate? The difference is that Opposition Members do it by promising more and more public expenditure, whereas we do it by promising to leave more and more money in the pockets of the people. It will be for the people to make their choice at the next general election.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend touches on an interesting area. The only problem with his analysis, if I may take a point of difference with him, is that our economic policies, which are appealing to people, are based on
    1082
    sound fundamentals. We have real numbers to show where we are going; how anybody could be bribed by a blank piece of paper from the Opposition I do not know.

    Single European Currency
    Mr. Tipping: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consideration he has given to the name for a single European currency. [32555]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): There is no need for a decision now on the name of a possible future single currency.
    Mr. Tipping: Does the Minister recall the Chancellor's recent comment that he was in favour of calling a new single European currency the crown or the shilling? Does that mean that he is now in favour of abolishing the pound? What discussions has he had with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on that over the past month or so?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. and learned Friend participates in the technical discussions, but the hon. Gentleman should not be too worried either way about the name, as the important point is that we are not committed to stage 3 of monetary union—unlike the Labour party, which is committed to monetary union and a single currency while at the same time being committed to inflationary policies. That combination would be a recipe for ruin.
    Mr. Brooke: In the centenary year of Wilde's greatest play, does the Paymaster General recall the advice of Miss Prism:
    "The chapter on the Fall of the Rupee you may omit. It is somewhat too sensational"?
    Does he agree that a couple of years of silence on the single European currency would do nobody any harm and might well do the exchange rate some good?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, particularly on the name of a single currency, where no decision is required and no decision is imminent.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he still agrees with the principle of European monetary union? If so, does he still agree with his remarks reported in The Times in February that the Conservative party has run out of ways of making it clear that there are no divisions?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The policy is absolutely clear and it has been repeated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister both to the House and outside: we are not committed to stage 3 of monetary union. We achieved an opt-out during the Maastricht negotiations. A future Parliament and a future House of Commons will make that choice in the circumstances of the day.

    Private Finance Initiative
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what contribution he expects the private finance initiative to make to the provision of capital for infrastructure projects. [32556]
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget

    1083
    speech that contracts leading to £5 billion of capital investment are due to be signed in 1995 under the PFI. He announced a further £1 billion of projects in January.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the PFI is available across the national infrastructure and is available to every Department of State? Will he comment on the lamentable failure of the Opposition to come to grips with that excellent initiative?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. and learned Friend precisely states the situation. The fact that we can post £5 billion-worth of new economic activity at a time when the Opposition are criticising us on investment shows the true effectiveness of our economic policy. I note that, with regard to private finance in the Prison Service, on the one hand the Opposition call for tougher measures on law and order and then announce that in principle they are against private money building new prisons.
    Mr. Timms: The Minister will be aware that the Belgian high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel is being built and that the French high-speed rail network has been operating for a number of years, yet in Britain this week fundamental questions have been raised about whether our high-speed rail link to the channel tunnel can be funded. In those circumstances, does the Minister agree that the Government's priority should be investment in infrastructure before the abolition of capital gains tax and inheritance tax?
    Mr. Jack: What is fundamental is that the high-speed channel rail link—a project valued at some £2.7 billion—is being actively competed for; the four original bidders are now down to the final two. Private sector companies want to make this investment and they will do so, to the benefit of our transport infrastructure.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the crossrail project offers one of the best prospects for private finance and is of particular importance for the regeneration of the economy of London and the south-east? Will he and his colleagues in government do everything possible to facilitate it?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right to point out how private capital can further develop London's transport infrastructure. I add to his joy on that, because we also have PFI help for 100 extra trains on the Northern line. Again, that is an example of how much-needed public investment in infrastructure has been achieved under this remarkable initiative.

    ECOFIN
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to attend an ECOFIN meeting; and what subjects are on the agenda. [32558]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I attended a European Council of Economic and Finance Ministers meeting on Monday 10 July at which a variety of subjects was discussed. My intention is to attend the next ECOFIN meeting on 18 September. As yet, no firm agenda for this meeting has been agreed.
    Mr. Soley: Is it the Government's intention to keep the pound in the European currency fluctuation band even if ECOFIN decides to narrow that band in the next two years?
    Mr. Clarke: We have no intention of re-entering the exchange rate mechanism, at least for the duration of this Parliament. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is wasting time. I call Mr. Cash.
    Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, at the most recent ECOFIN meeting, there was absolutely no question of the United Kingdom submitting to any kind of threats from other member states with regard to the possibility of the creation of a "hard core" in Europe? That would result in their imposing tariff barriers, penalties or sanctions on us, or trying to push us into a second-rate, disastrous exchange rate mechanism.
    Mr. Clarke: I can reassure my hon. Friend on all those points. The reports of ECOFIN meetings that I read when I return from them rarely bear much resemblance to what took place. I answer written questions in the House, however, and I suggest that my hon. Friend read those answers if he wants to find out what actually went on. It was reported that, at the last meeting, the French were threatening the imposition of all kinds of penalties on those who were not in the hard core, but I have yet to meet a Frenchman who has ever heard of the suggestion.

    Income Tax (Self-assessment)
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress on the introduction of self-assessment of income tax liability. [32561]
    Mr. Jack: Work is proceeding to the planned timetable for the introduction of self-assessment for personal tax, and the issue of the new tax returns in April 1997.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues for the briefing sessions on self-assessment that they have been giving Members of Parliament. Can he assure businesses and, indeed, individuals that the introduction of self-assessment will not mean added burdens, extra form filling and the like? There are still some worries on that score.
    Mr. Jack: One of the key elements of self-assessment is simplification. I assure my hon. Friend that, just as we have sought to inform Members of Parliament, there will be a major information campaign throughout the coming 12 months to inform all sectors of business and all private individuals about the changes.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Peter Tapsell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July. [32458]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: May I urge, yet again, the withdrawal of British troops from Bosnia—particularly

    1085
    because Bismarck's wise advice, quoted yesterday by our right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), was ignored by his successors, so that eventually the road to Sarajevo was paved with the bones of Pomeranian grenadiers? We do not want that road to be paved with the bones of our young men.
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend has held a consistent view about the difficulties that we face in Bosnia, and that some others share that view. There can be no certainty about what will happen in the present circumstances, but I hope that I can tell my hon. Friend why I believe that it would be unwise for us to decide to take that action now.
    I believe that, if UNPROFOR withdrew, a number of things would be at risk. We would certainly put at risk the peace that remains in central Bosnia, not least because of the presence of British troops; and we might put at risk the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved as a result of the presence of United Nations troops.
    Let me touch on the wider point on which my hon. Friend also touched. One of the primary reasons why I felt it right to send British troops to the area in the first place, and why I would be reluctant to remove them unless it became imperative to do so, is the danger of a wider Balkan war. That risk exists, and it is for that reason that I felt it right to ask British troops to go to the area in a peacekeeping capacity and try to ensure that such a war did not occur.
    I concede to my hon. Friend that the situation is serious. As I have told the House before, circumstances could arise in which it would be impossible for United Nations troops to remain; but until and unless those circumstances arise, I believe that it is right for them to do so, and to contribute to peacekeeping in the way in which they have so far.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his leadership election pledge to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax would amount to £3 billion a year, and that almost half that £3 billion would go to just 5,000 people?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been dancing around with all sorts of fraudulent and distorted quotations. I will make it quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman—as I have done, both publicly and privately, for some time—that when it is appropriate and we can afford to do so—[Interruption.] That is what I said. When it is appropriate and we can afford to do so, I wish to abolish both capital gains tax and inheritance tax. I repeat the point for the right hon. Gentleman: I have made that clear and it must wait for when resources allow. I make no apology for that. The distortion of capital gains tax will need to be tackled. Unlike the Labour party, I believe in trying to pass wealth down between generations, whereas it squirms and wriggles whenever we talk of any tax reduction.
    Mr. Blair: I might remind the right hon. Gentleman that, during the leadership election, he said that he wanted to do that at the earliest opportunity. I do not know whether No. 11 Downing street or No. 10a has now changed the line, but, in any event, would it not be the most mistaken sense of priority to cut inheritance tax or capital gains tax when we know today that, as a result of Government cuts in spending, we are short of teachers and that classroom sizes are rising? Should not the interests of
    1086
    the many in a decent education for their children come before the Tory obsession with the interests of a privileged few?
    The Prime Minister: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that home owners right across the country, increasingly hit by inheritance tax, are a privileged few. They will be interested to hear that they are a privileged few. It is true that they were a privileged few when the Labour Government were in power and many former council home owners, now home owners, would have remained without that privilege had we been left with a Labour Government. The reality is that the people of this country would like to see changes in those taxes and, when it is prudent to do so, we will change them.
    Mr. Blair: As a matter of fact, the vast majority of people do not pay inheritance tax or capital gains tax and the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute that more than half the benefit would go to 5,000 people. As for tax, let me remind him that he pledged to cut tax at the last election, that he increased the standard rate of income tax by 7p and that only one tax cut has been introduced since the 1992 election: a cut of VAT on fuel by Opposition Members.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that he and his colleagues have voted against every tax reduction that we have introduced throughout most of the past 16 years. Even at the suggestion of tax cuts, one sees the instinctive reaction of Opposition Members. They hate the thought of leaving money in people's pockets. They would rather have it themselves to spend for themselves. I have made it clear that it is my ambition to abolish inheritance tax and capital gains tax as and when we can do it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made that clear, too. It remains our ambition, and we will pursue it.
    Mr. Tracey: What message would my right hon. Friend send to the people of Wales, whose Labour Members of Parliament boycotted the House and Welsh Question Time at the beginning of this week? Would he suggest a forfeit for them, because surely their behaviour jeopardises the future representation of the Principality in the House?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that those hon. Members' behaviour was juvenile—sufficiently juvenile, no doubt, to qualify for nursery vouchers as soon as we fully introduce the scheme. When the Labour party thinks up ill-judged stunts such as that, it would do well to remember that two of its past five or so leaders have been Englishmen sitting in Welsh seats.
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July. [32459]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Llwyd: Following the rather dramatic departure of the Prime Minister's very good friend, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the right hon. Gentleman has appointed someone to the Welsh Office who, nominally at least, is from the same planet as the rest of us, but in so doing he has appointed the fourth successive Member of Parliament to that office who has no interest at all in Welsh affairs. Has the Prime Minister

    1087
    not shown that he has no confidence in Welsh Conservative Members of Parliament and is it not really a pathetic reflection on them?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman chose his question before listening to what might have been asked earlier. He might bear in mind the fact that we are one United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for a previous leader of the Labour party to be a Welsh Member of Parliament seeking to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly proper for two English Members to sit in Welsh seats, one of whom became Prime Minister and one of whom tried to do so. It is only the Welsh nationalists who wish to wrap themselves up in a little country and damage that country and its prospects within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: If the new directive to abolish internal frontiers is the Commission's response to the action it faces in the European Court for not having dismantled the frontiers under existing treaty law, what credible defence is there for Britain in talk of a veto, or the worthless Luxembourg declaration? If my right hon. Friend means to protect our sovereign borders against unchecked immigration, will he get the treaty amended? If not, he will face the wrath of not just the Euro-sceptics in the House but virtually the entire British electorate.
    The Prime Minister: The European Commission has produced three proposals. It made it clear that the proposals must be taken together and must be agreed unanimously. Unless those proposals are agreed, there is no matter upon which the European Court can adjudicate. I can tell my hon. Friend that there must be unanimity and that that will not happen. The United Kingdom will veto the proposals.
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July. [32460]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Battle: Following the leadership election and his new-found determination to stamp his views and authority on the Cabinet, will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he agrees with the proposals of the Nolan committee on sleaze that amounts earned from consultancies by Members of Parliament should be openly declared?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it perfectly clear to the House on a number of occasions since the outset that I favour greater transparency. I have made it equally clear that we will wait until we have the Select Committee report before I say any more.
    Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning tomorrow's rail strike, which will bring massive disruption to the country? Is it not revealing that, when it comes to standing up for the consumer and criticising the trade unions, new Labour remains totally silent?
    The Prime Minister: That follows neatly from the previous question. There has been absolute and total silence from the Opposition Front Bench when it comes to looking after the interests of passengers. We have not heard a word about the RMT or ASLEF or about
    1088
    the inconvenience to passengers. All I can say is that it is a good job that one does not go to Australia by train.
    Ms Corston: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July. [32461]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Corston: In the light of today's report from school governors that teachers are being sacked and that class sizes are increasing, despite the Prime Minister's repeated assurances that neither of those things would happen, will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise to the British people?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady might well acknowledge the increase in resources to education year upon year: it is 50 per cent. up on the level that we inherited some time ago. She might also acknowledge the improved examination performance, improved teaching, improved choice and the improvement in the number of our youngsters going to university. All those things have magically waved by the hon. Lady without her apparently noticing them.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report in today's newspapers, including The Daily Telegraph, that 100 terrorists could be released from gaol early? Does he agree that that is totally untrue and that there are no plans to release terrorists early into the community until they have served their full and rightful sentences?
    The Prime Minister: The position is as it has always been and as the House knows. There is no question of an amnesty for prisoners in Northern Ireland. There are no political prisoners anywhere in the United Kingdom. We keep remission rates under review. That has been the case and it will remain the case for some time. Remission rates were introduced some time ago and, as I have said, we keep them constantly under review. I do not think that the time is yet right for a change.
    Madam Speaker: We now come to Question 5.
    Ms Church: Question 6—no, Question 5, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Yes, Question 5.
    Ms Church: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 July. [32462]
    The Prime Minister: Whichever question number it may be, the answer is the same.
    Ms Church: Does the Prime Minister agree that external regulation of the insurance market, as desired by both Lloyd's and the Select Committee, would increase the global credibility of the London market? Will he amend the Lloyd's Act 1982 to bring that about?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that I necessarily accept the hon. Lady's premise. It is clear that, because of the difficulties at Lloyd's over the past couple of years, we need to look carefully at the methods of regulation. However, until we have examined them properly, I am not inclined to make any suggestion of a changed regime.
    Mr. Rowe: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the moment the opinion polls give even the illusion that there

    1089
    might conceivably be a Labour Government some time in the future, the trade unions queue up to threaten the customer and the patient with industrial action? Does not it frighten him as much at it frightens me that new Labour will be as much a pawn in the hands of the trade unions as old Labour used to be?
    The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the pre-emptive obeisance shown by the Labour party on the minimum wage, the social contract and a range of other issues. Of course, we do not have to fight with the trade union movement if we offer it exactly what it wants, when it wants it—and even before it has asked for it.

Defence Equipment
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make an announcement of two important defence equipment programmes.
In this year's defence White Paper, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to maintaining world-class armed forces to defend our vital national interests in a disordered and turbulent world. To that end, we are continuing our programme of investment in forces and equipment that provide us with enhanced flexibility, combat power and mobility.
The Government have been considering the bids from industry to supply an attack helicopter for the Army to replace the Lynx anti-tank helicopter around the end of this decade. Six companies responded to our invitation to tender—Agusta, offering the A129; Boeing-Sikorsky, with the Comanche; Atlas, with the Rooivalk; Westland helicopters, with a version of the McDonnell Douglas Apache; British Aerospace, with the Eurocopter Tiger; and GEC-Marconi Avionics with the Bell Cobra Venom. All the bids were of high quality, offering capable helicopters. I am grateful for the assistance that each of those companies has offered to us in this competition.
The Ministry of Defence has conducted a competition of the utmost rigour and objectivity, assessing the military capability and cost-effectiveness of each bid in the varied war-fighting scenarios where we might need it. The assessment criteria included operational effectiveness, crew safety, through life costs, technical risk and industrial implications.
I can announce that, subject to the negotiation of satisfactory contract terms, we have decided to buy 67 Westland Apache helicopters with Rolls-Royce engines. They will operate, as required, in support of the Army's two armoured divisions, 24 Airmobile Brigade and the Royal Marines.
This order, with a value of around £2.5 billion, will be warmly welcomed by the armed forces. Apache has demonstrated its value in service with the United States army, and the version that we shall buy is equipped with the new Longbow radar, which will significantly enhance its effectiveness. It will provide the British Army with a world-class capability, a generation ahead of the Lynx helicopter, offering us the right combination of mobility, rapid deployment, reach and firepower. I regard it as vital that those who risk their lives for this country be provided with the helicopter that we believe can destroy the highest number of enemy targets with the least loss of life among our crews.
This decision will bring many jobs in British industry. Westland, Britain's only maker of helicopters, will assemble Apache and manufacture its transmission at Yeovil. Around 180 other UK companies will participate in the programme, including Rolls-Royce, which at its plant in Bristol will manufacture the RTM 322 engine. That modern engine will provide long-term growth potential and commonality with the engines in the Navy's Merlin and the RAF's EH101 helicopter fleets.
There will be significant work for Shorts of Belfast on the Apache's Hellfire anti-armour missile. We are ordering a helicopter built by Westland, powered by Rolls-Royce, and equipped with missiles supplied by Shorts.
1092
In total, British industry will do at least 50 per cent. of the work on the Apaches that we buy. Moreover, Westland's US subcontractors have undertaken to provide additional defence work for British industry, including work on Apaches for supply to the US army, to the full value of the overseas content of the contract. That means that orders worth £2.5 billion will be placed with British companies, of which half will be for work on the British Army helicopter.
We believe that in total the order will sustain some 3,000 jobs a year in our defence industry. In addition, we have negotiated rights for the maintenance and repair of Apache in the UK and will be offering that service to all other Apache users in Europe, with further significant benefits to UK industry.
I have a second announcement. My predecessor, now the Foreign Secretary, announced last year that the "Front Line First" reforms would allow us to proceed with a programme of investment necessary to maintain operational effectiveness within a reduced defence budget. He said that the Government were examining the case for acquiring conventionally armed Tomahawk land attack missiles. Feasibility studies with the US Government and with industry have confirmed that we can operate Tomahawk from Royal Navy nuclear-powered submarines.
Tomahawk's very long range and great accuracy will enable the UK to threaten limited action against selected targets as a means of persuading an aggressor to desist from hostile activity. In today's strategic conditions, it is important to have that capability to carry out precision attacks, minimising the risk to our own forces, as well as to civilians.
We believe that that system will provide a significant addition to our military capability. Today we have formally applied to the US Government to acquire Tomahawk. Subject to the necessary agreements, our aim would be for the system to enter service with the Royal Navy by 1998. Although we are buying an American weapon, we expect over 30 per cent. of the value of the work to be done in Britain.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the British armed forces receive the best possible equipment available. With these announcements they can continue, in the next century, to have the flexibility, mobility and firepower to engage in a range of operations, from war fighting to peacekeeping, with the skill and professionalism that all of us in the House admire.
Dr. David Clark: May I welcome the Secretary of State to his new Department? He comes with quite a reputation—a factor which I feel has been reflected in today's announcement.
The Opposition welcome this afternoon's announcement that the Army has finally got the attack helicopter that it wanted, although I would suggest that it will be somewhat disappointed that it is getting a much smaller number than it originally anticipated.
We share the relief of the workers at Westland, Rolls-Royce and Shorts and their subcontractors that they have been successful, and we commiserate with the losers. However, a number of questions are raised by the Secretary of State's announcement, especially as it affects our industrial base.

1093
We note that the Secretary of State has brought with him the rigours of Treasury thinking and that the Army is getting fewer helicopters than it and the Ministry of Defence considered the minimum for our effective defence. He will recall that the tender specification was for 91 helicopters, and in the Army debate as recently as 23 February, the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement spoke of "approximately 100". Sixty-seven is not approximately 100. It is nowhere near 100. What has changed? If 100 was necessary for the effective defence of Britain three years ago, why can we settle for 67 now? I press the Secretary of State to say what has changed, or is this further cut another example of his Treasury thinking?
May I also ask the Secretary of State whether any of those helicopters are being adapted to operate from ships? As the Americans would say, are they being "marinised"? Given the possible future scenarios for theatre operations by the Army, that would be a sensible option. Has the Secretary of State taken that into account?
Will the Secretary of State also say a word about the long-range TRIGAT missile system, which would have been part of the Euro Tiger deal? Will he confirm that the taxpayer has already invested £210 million in that venture and that, contractually, British Aerospace will have to pull out of the collaborative scheme now that Tiger is not being ordered by the British forces? What implications do his decisions have for British Aerospace factories at Lostock and Stevenage? Does he anticipate any redundancies?
As the Secretary of State said, all the helicopters met the specifications and I therefore presume that wider industrial and political implications were considered. The Secretary of State's well-known Euro-scepticism clearly meant that the European collaborative Tiger was not in the running. But what assessment has been made of the effect of that order on future European collaboration? Has he examined the implications that buying American in this instance will have for other collaborative ventures? What assessment has he made of the employment prospects for the unsuccessful bidders? Are we likely to see further job losses among our most skilled workers? Will we see further factory closures and a restructuring of the ownership of the British defence industry?
The Secretary of State mentioned offset. What specific guarantees has he obtained? As he knows from his previous experience, there is considerable evidence that, more often than not, those offsets are not delivered, especially in the high-tech field.
We accept that Tomahawk missiles proved to be an incredibly accurate and effective weapon in the Gulf war and that they will enhance our forces' capabilities, but we are disappointed to note that only 30 per cent. of British work is involved and there is no mention of offset. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about that aspect and assure the House that it is not envisaged that those Tomahawk missiles will carry nuclear warheads?
We hope that today's decision will prove to be wise. We hope that, by turning his back on European collaborative ventures, the Secretary of State has not jeopardised further other European collaboration. If we are to retain the skills of our workers and the presence of
1094
a defence industry in Britain, not only must we keep pressing for orders in the United States, but we need to work much more with our European partners.
Mr. Portillo: I thank the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) for his welcome to me and his welcome, at least in his first sentence or two, of the order and the provision of these important new capabilities for our armed services.
I thought it a bit rich that I was being criticised for announcing a cut. I have announced an order of £2.5 billion for the attack helicopter and made a further important announcement in respect of Tomahawk. I thought it especially ironic and paradoxical that the accusation of a cut in defence spending should come from a party that, at its last conference, was pledged to reduce our defence spending by £6 billion. It makes one wonder how many helicopters could be bought in such a situation.
The hon. Gentleman wants to know why there are 67 helicopters. We are buying a helicopter with an enhanced radar—the Longbow radar. We have subjected it to the most intense scrutiny and we are convinced that it can do the job that we need it to do in those numbers because it has a very good survivability rate. That is one of the main features of the aircraft and it also means that it will save lives among British forces.
It is true that about £200 million has been invested in the long-range third-generation anti-tank guided weapons system, but I do not believe that decisions for the future can be taken on the basis of sunk costs of the past. We must make the decision about the best equipment for our armed forces for the future. We are not considering using it on ships. It will be able to operate with the Marines, but it is basically a land attack helicopter and tanks will be among its most important targets.
I cannot anticipate the consequences at British Aerospace and GEC. They competed very well. There will be many other opportunities for defence orders and I wish them well for the future. What I can say with precision is that today's announcement creates 3,000 jobs in British industry.
On European collaboration, the hon. Gentleman reached the zenith of his absurdity—as if my ideas about Europe, whatever they might be, would have influenced a decision of that magnitude, and during the past week.
Recently, the Dutch decided to buy the Apache. I assume that the hon. Gentleman will not rise in wrath in his place, point the accusing finger at the Government of the Netherlands and accuse them of Euro-scepticism. We have more collaboration with France than with any other single country on defence matters. We continue to have about 30 joint projects with Europe, and I have written to my colleagues in Europe—in France and Germany—assuring them of on-going collaboration in other projects.
We have a guarantee that 50 per cent. of the helicopter will be British work, and we have a promise of offset agreements taking us up to the full 100 per cent.
On the Tomahawk, I believe that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is no British or European equivalent that can be bought. In the circumstances, I think that to get 30 per cent. of the work in Britain is a considerable achievement. There will be many opportunities for future collaboration with the United States, and I am pleased to confirm that that is a conventional missile; we have no intention whatever of nuclear-arming that missile.

1095
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not rise to give a more cheery response to an order that means that our armed forces will be equipped with the very best. Our primary consideration in the House should be the way in which we can enable our troops, our men, our forces, to have the equipment in which they have the greatest confidence when we in the House are potentially asking them to put their lives at risk.
Mr. Michael Colvin: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend, not only on his appointment, but on making a statement that will certainly earn him cheers in Middle Wallop, where the Army Air Corps is based? It has lobbied hard for that aircraft.
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the £200 million spent on long-range TRIGAT will not be wasted, because that weapon can be used in armoured vehicles to knock out tanks? Will he tell us what will happen to the Lynx helicopters at present used in an anti-tank role? Will they be converted to light support helicopters to replace the Wessex? Lastly, can he confirm that it will be the Army Air Corps that will fly that aircraft?
Mr. Portillo: On the last point, yes, this helicopter is for the Army to operate. It is, effectively, a flying tank and it seems best that it should be operated by the Army. I reiterate that we also see it being used by the Royal Marines. The Lynx helicopters will be converted to general purpose and reconnaissance use. My hon. Friend is right to say that the fact that the long-range TRIGAT is not being purchased by the Government for this order does not mean that the £200 million has been wasted. In turn, I congratulate my hon. Friend because he has just become Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the Secretary of State to his new post and I welcome, without qualification, his statement, especially the decision to order the Longbow version of the Apache helicopter. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise two points of similarity between the two programmes? First, both the Apache and the Tomahawk cruise missiles proved their effectiveness during the Gulf war. Secondly, both bring to the United Kingdom additional flexibility, which is undoubtedly necessary during a time of static defence budgets.
Mr. Portillo: I am pleased to receive the hon. and learned Gentleman's welcome—I am not sure whether it is influenced by the position in Yeovil. The announcement will, indeed, be good news all round. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to say that these weapons have recently proved their effectiveness. I made the point in my statement that we are in an era of limited defence budgets. Through the defence costs study, we have been able to find savings in the defence budget, and my predecessor made it clear that that gave us the opportunity to provide flexible, up-to-date equipment for our forces to make them battle-ready and to give them the firepower that they needed.
Dame Peggy Fenner: My right hon. Friend will understand that, although his announcement may be good news for Yeovil, it is not good news for Medway because we hoped very much that the GEC-Marconi Avionics Cobra Venom would win the battle. It is extremely unusual for the Treasury to spurn the lowest tender, so one must be impressed by the service chiefs who insisted that the Apache was their favourite option.
1096
My right hon. Friend added that the Apache gives 3,000 extra jobs. As I understand it—different companies around the United Kingdom will be affected—the GEC-Marconi Avionics Cobra Venom would have given rather more jobs than that. What considerations meant that the lowest tender was not accepted? I am, of course, impressed by the support for the Apache in the west country, but I believe that it is not quite such a marvellous decision for my workers, who suffered the biggest loss from the peace dividend when they lost 7,000 jobs at Her Majesty's dockyard and naval base.
Mr. Portillo: Nothing could give me greater sorrow than to disappoint my hon. Friend as I have to today. It is, however, inevitable that in a competition in which there are three finalists, approximately two thirds of Members of Parliament may be disappointed by the decision, at least vis-a-vis their own constituencies. I hope none the less that my hon. Friend and others will be able to see the merits of the decision and the high quality of the equipment that we are buying.
The circumstances, conditions and criteria were as laid out in my statement. We were dealing with considerations such as the effectiveness of the aircraft, the cost-effectiveness of the decision, the industrial implications and the industrial risks. That combination of circumstances led to our choice. It would not be helpful at this stage to go into any greater detail about how one bid compared with another, not least because they were all good bids and I hope to see all the contenders doing well in world markets.
Mr. Frank Cook: May I compliment the Secretary of State on his good fortune in being able to announce to the House, so early in his new-found position, the acquisition of a piece of kit that has an attrition rate, proven in action, that is so low that it is mathematically incalculable? Will all 67 models that we are buying have the Longbow radar rather than the less effective system bought by the Netherlands? When can the military expect the first delivery? How long will the programme take and when will the contract be completed?
Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his warm words of welcome. On his last point, I am not prepared to say more than that we see an entry into service date of the end of the decade. As to his first point, all the helicopters that we are ordering will be equipped with the Longbow radar.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend has made a very auspicious start in his new office. His announcement today will be warmly welcomed by the many friends of Westland in the House. But it goes beyond that. The friends of Westland are thinking not just about that company, but about the other companies and subcontractors that will also benefit from the order.
Could my right hon. Friend go a little beyond his announcement and say whether it is a good platform from which Westland could take off and move into export orders on a scale that we have not seen previously, with an attack helicopter that will almost certainly dominate all the export orders from this country and from the United States in the next 15 or 20 years?
Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He is very generous in saying that I have made an auspicious

1097
start, but it must be apparent to him and to the House that I have inherited a huge amount of work done by my predecessor.
I am very pleased for Westland. My right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for industry and energy visited Westland this morning and presumably he was extremely upset that he was unable to give any hint about the good news. I hope that export opportunities will be created. There is obviously a huge advantage in being linked with a very successful United States programme that already has a very large order book.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) said, it is his first substantive decision in his new post. If the rest of the decisions that he takes in that post show an equivalent wisdom, I am sure that the nation's defences will have nothing to worry about.
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that my constituents warmly welcome his announcement and, as the hon. Member for Dorset, West said, so will many others across Britain, because the built-in content of the helicopters will provide a boost to British industry across the spectrum. Perhaps one of the most significant features of the decision is the fact that, during a time when everyone recognises that the world helicopter market will change substantially, it places Westland and British industry in a very good position to be able to take advantage of that period of change from a position of strength. That is a considerable testimony to the strength and the skill of Westland and its work force. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, it also puts Westland in a very good position in the long term.
Mr. Portillo: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very warmly. I quiver under the gusts of his praise. I am not sure that I aspire to be always so popular with him, but I am very pleased to be so today.
Westland is well placed. If the right hon. Gentleman will be so generous as to share the day with Rolls-Royce, I think that the larger Rolls-Royce engines offer an opportunity for expansion and development of the model over time. That engine has greater flexibility to take us into the future.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. Friend will understand that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), I am disappointed by the result of the competition. GEC has produced a leading-edge technology avionics cockpit. Has my right hon. Friend investigated the possibility of persuading Westland that GEC might make a contribution to the order? Can he confirm whether the fact that we are ordering 67 rather than 91 helicopters is a measure of how much more expensive the Apache was compared with the other two contenders?
Mr. Portillo: There is always great disappointment among those who are not successful in a bid, but I do not think that it benefits anyone to start knocking one model or another. We established a series of criteria and we judged the helicopters on that basis. One criterion was cost-effectiveness. We are able to do the job with the 67 Apaches, as I announced to the House today. I do not want to engage in any sort of banter about the prices of
1098
the different helicopters or their performance capabilities, other than to say that it was a fair and objective competition and that there has been a winner.
We have been able to negotiate a 50 per cent. UK content in this helicopter deal. I do not at the moment envisage other opportunities, but of course I would be very happy indeed if different British companies were able to collaborate and if there were any way of increasing, in this or in future orders, the quantity of UK content.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's new appointment. Some of us have been concerned about a fair bit of what we called cowboy advertising, so we are delighted that the Apache has been selected. The decision encourages industry all over. Specifically, on behalf of the people not only in Belfast but in Northern Ireland, I welcome the fact that Shorts will have a part to play. Does the Minister agree that there is also international co-operation, since Bombardier in Canada, Thomsons in France and Shorts in Belfast are all joining the team?
Mr. Portillo: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. His point is perfectly valid. Nowadays there is international collaboration in almost any defence contract one cares to mention. Certainly, it is very good news that Shorts will play such an important part in the production of the Hellfire missiles.
Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend accept the unmitigated praise of people in the west country, not only because of our constituents who will work on the contract, but because it meets the Army's demand? Will he answer two questions? Is it a fixed-price contract, or will there be any escalation of cost in later deliveries above that announced? Further to other questions, will he ensure co-operation between his Department, Westland and the Department of Trade and Industry, to do everything to maximise the export potential of this aircraft? It seems that, as long as such co-operation can be brought about, there is a very good chance of obtaining overseas orders that we have never achieved before.
Mr. Portillo: I thank my right hon. Friend. Certainly, on his last point, I give him an absolute reassurance that we shall collaborate to maximise export potential, as on all defence issues and products. We have not yet signed the contracts, of course, but it is my intention that they should be most rigorous. The propositions put forward during the bidding process should be confirmed and cemented in the contracts to be signed.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I also most warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend? He has fulfilled two crucial criteria: the operational and the industrial. On the operational side, has he not bought the aeroplane that best met the Army's requirements on payload, range, survivability and all-weather operation? In the industrial context, will he not greatly bolster the long-term future of GKN Westland, in as much as the last aeroplane, the EH101, was an Italian-British collaboration, but the Apache balances that co-operation with an American dimension—the McDonnell Douglas—and furthermore a French dimension, since a significant part of the power plant, the RTM 322, is built at Pau in the south of France?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has made some helpful additional points. He is absolutely right to say that the Rolls-Royce engine has a large French component. Perhaps I should have been quicker on my feet and mentioned that when I was replying to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). It is worth emphasising—I mentioned it in the statement—that Westland is this country's only helicopter maker and the deal is a very important buttress to its position. Certainly, my hon. Friend can be assured that the operational needs of the helicopter were very high in our minds indeed. As I have said before to the House, we are asking people to risk their lives and it is important that the equipment should be able to do the job and that they should have absolute confidence in it.
Sir John Cope: My right hon. Friend's decision was bound to please some and disappoint others. In my constituency, there will be great disappointment at British Aerospace on the dynamic side because the long-range TRIGAT was not chosen, but on the other hand there will be great pleasure at Rolls-Royce at the choice of engines. The Anglo-French engine is a very good example of European co-operation, which my right hon. Friend has backed. Will he do his best to try to ensure that the Dutch also choose that engine for their Apache helicopters?
Mr. Portillo: As to my right hon. Friend's last point, I am unsighted as to the stage that the Dutch have reached in making their decision, but it is certainly a good engine. We are buying it partly because we believe that it is suitable for the helicopter and partly because of the commonality that it offers. As to my right hon. Friend's dilemma, in that some of his constituents find themselves happy this evening and some disappointed, I wish him all good luck on his interviews with the local media tonight, but I am sure that he is up to the task.
Sir Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although we need a reliable attack helicopter, he has made a wrong and strange decision in respect of the engine? The T700 is fitted to existing Apaches and has proved reliable and cheaper. The Americans have it on their attack helicopter, and the Dutch have chosen it for their helicopter. With a fighting machine, one wants something that is proven, can protect lives and has a reliable history. That is certainly not true of the Rolls-Royce engine. The T700, which has as much UK content as the Rolls-Royce engine, is also wanted by the Army. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Army requested the T700 engine?
Mr. Portillo: I am sorry that my hon. Friend thinks that my decision is wrong and strange. I do not think that it is, although it may be disappointing from my hon. Friend's point of view. As many other hon. Members said, for them my decision is most welcome. My hon. Friend exaggerates when he says that the Rolls-Royce engine is not proven, because clearly it is. It is flying today and available on the EH 101 and the Merlin, but it has not yet been used on the Apache. It obviously offers the possibility on the Apache of future growth.
I hope that my hon. Friend, on reflection, will not feel that my decision is as he said. I make it perfectly clear to him that the decision taken today was more broadly based than consideration of the Army. The unit that we established in the Ministry of Defence to conduct the
1100
competition took into account the full range of criteria mentioned in my statement, which went beyond some of the criteria of direct concern to the Army—such as the industrial implications. The decision was taken on the basis of the full range of criteria, including the choice of engine.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am anxious to call a number of Back Benchers who are still trying to catch my eye, but I cannot do so if there are long statements by Back Benchers and from the Dispatch Box. I hope that questions and answers will be brief.
Mr. Mark Robinson: I join hon. Members who welcome my right hon. Friend's decision, which is good news for Somerset and the west country, and a good confidence booster for Westland, which now has important work to do in export markets as well as in the domestic market. With reference to the comments of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), one always knows good news—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is the first to offend. I asked for questions, not statements. If the hon. Gentleman has a question, let me hear it. I am not prepared to listen to further statements by any other Back Benchers. Does the hon. Gentleman have a question?
Mr. Robinson: Yes, Madam Speaker. My question is, is not my right hon. Friend's statement good news in our export markets?
Mr. Portillo: It is good news. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is pleased, and I value his support.
Sir Jerry Wiggin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the absence of a purpose-built attack helicopter has been a serious deficiency in the British armed forces for some time and that one important aspect of his announcement is the rectifying of that problem? As I represent a constituency in which Westland is the largest employer, I need hardly say that I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, but will he condemn some of the irrelevant and misleading advertising that accompanied the contract and deplore it for the future?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it in order for him to ask his own question?
Madam Speaker: Order. It is not in order to answer one's own questions.
Mr. Portillo: This is certainly an important capability, which our armed forces must have. Any deficiency that there has been is to be dealt with by my announcement today. I do not want to get into battles with any contractor over this matter. We have had a fair competition and a fair result.
Mr. Keith Mans: My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that his decision will come as a shock and a disappointment to those of us from the north-west of England, as he has picked the wrong helicopter with the wrong engine. Can he confirm that all the Apaches will be equipped with Longbow? Will he tell the House the extra costs of fitting the Rolls-Royce engine to the

1101
Apache, because it has not flown with it before? Will British companies be involved in the production of the long-range TRIGAT?
Mr. Portillo: Our commitment on the TRIGAT was to the end of the development phase: that remains the position. We cease our involvement at the end of that phase. I am sorry that my hon. Friend thinks this the wrong decision. I can confirm again that the helicopters will be equipped with Longbow. There is a small additional cost, which I am not at liberty to reveal, for the Rolls-Royce engine. Nevertheless, the decision passed the test of cost-effectiveness.
Sir Alan Haselhurst: On the basis that we must look to the future rather than the past, does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be some further consolidation of British resource in helicopter manufacture if we are to maintain the research and development capability that will enable us meaningfully to participate in future projects?
Mr. Portillo: Those matters go beyond my remit, but perhaps into the remit of the President of the Board of Trade. Certainly, a decision to award a £2.5 billion contract in itself has a fairly important formative effect on the industry.
Mr. Richard Tracey: My right hon. Friend will understand that, in a collaborative venture such as this, the likes of Westland, Rolls-Royce and Shorts will inevitably hit the spotlight; but he should know that the many other companies that he mentioned will also greatly welcome the success of the contract. I am thinking particularly of Racal Defence in Chessington, in my constituency, and in New Maiden. Will my right hon. Friend ensure by means of publicity that all the towns and cities affected by the contract in the form of new jobs are told the facts about it?
Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We estimate that 180 companies will benefit from this order, spread throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. Some of them may even be in the constituencies of hon. Members who today have sounded disappointed.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision will go down particularly well in East Anglia, where the Airmobile Brigade is based and where it is shortly to have a new training facility at the former RAF Sculthorpe? As the brigade prepares to go to Bosnia, does he agree that today's decision will do a great deal for its morale?
Mr. Portillo: I thank my hon. Friend. I believe that the decision will indeed be good for morale. It is important
1102
that our troops should know that they will get the equipment that they need and that the defence cost studies translate into better equipment for the future.
Mr. Edward Garnier: May I, as a recent visitor to 24 Airmobile Brigade in Colchester, confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) has just said—that the order just announced will be widely welcomed in military circles? May I also urge my right hon. Friend and the new Minister of State for Defence Procurement—I congratulate them both on their new appointments— whenever there is an opportunity to place large orders of this sort, to keep the British element in the components package well to the fore? If, for example, he is thinking of buying new heavy trailers for tanks, he should think hard about King Trailers in Market Harborough.
Mr. Portillo: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on getting in an early bid for a future announcement. I also echo what he said about 24 Airmobile Brigade. As this is my first opportunity to say so as Defence Secretary, I send that brigade my best wishes on its deployment.
Lady Olga Maitland: I welcome the fact that 3,000 new jobs are likely to result from the decision to buy the Apache helicopter, but will my right hon. Friend tell us how many jobs could have been created by the alternative bids?
Mr. Portillo: I am not prepared to get into that discussion this afternoon, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. The decision has been taken on a whole range of criteria, including the effectiveness of the aircraft, the cost-effectiveness of the aircraft, its performance in the battlefield and its implications for industry. It has been on the balance of those considerations that today's decision has been taken. I put it to my hon. Friend that if I started to unpick one element of that, I would have to start talking about the comparison across the range of how one helicopter performed against another. I am just not at liberty to do that.
Mr. Alan Howarth: As my right hon. Friend has shown today, his first concern must be to ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped and supported, to enable them to fulfil their necessary task of defending Britain and our interests. Will he as Secretary of State for Defence think anew and deeply about the economic, strategic and ethical distortions that arise from Britain's excessive dependence on arms manufacture and exports?
Mr. Portillo: I am bound to say to my hon. Friend that my view of the world is different from his. I do not believe it to be disproportionate. I believe that we are involved in equipping our own forces, and in the process we very often produce products of great use to other countries, and other countries have the right to defend themselves, as well as the United Kingdom.

Business of the House
4.15 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
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 17 JULY—Proceedings on the Appropriation Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill.
Consideration of any Lords amendments that may be received to the Child Support Bill.
Consideration of any 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.
Motion on Parliamentary Pensions.
TUESDAY 18 JULY—Motion on the Special Grant Report (No. 15) (Metropolitan Railway Grant 1995–96).
Motions on the Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme and the Fishing Vessel (Decommissioning) Scheme.
Motion on the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Tuesday 18 July.
[Tuesday 18 July:
European Standing Committee A— Relevant European Community document: 7514/95, Financial Assistance for the Environment. Relevant European Legislation Report: HC 70-xxi (1994–95).
European Standing Committee B— Relevant Community Document: 4966/95, Relations with Mexico. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 60-xi (1994–95)]
WEDNESDAY 19 JULY—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, the first of which will be the three-hour debate on matters to be considered before the forthcoming Adjournment.
Until about 7 o'clock, debate on the First Report of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Debate on sport on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House may be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
As the House may by now have realised, it is proposed that, subject to the progress of business, I intend that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Wednesday 19 July. The House may also like to know that I propose that the House should resume on Monday 16 October.
The provisional businesses for the first week back after the summer Adjournment will be as follows:
1104
MONDAY 16 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1995 (CM 2800).
TUESDAY 17 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a Government motion to approve the Defence Estimates 1995 (CM 2800).
WEDNESDAY 18 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (18th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 18 October.
[Wednesday 18 October:
European Standing Committee B— Relevant European Community document: COM (95) 73, Relations with Japan. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 70-xiv.]
THURSDAY 19 OCTOBER—Opposition Day (2nd Allotted Day—2nd Part). Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced. Followed by a debate on motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 20 OCTOBER—Debate on a science and technology policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Select Committee on Procedure is to report on several issues next week. Will he ensure that there is a debate in Government time on one aspect of its report, the Jopling changes, which have been introduced on an experimental basis this year? When we have such a debate, is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to provide an opportunity for the House to reach a decision about continuing the new procedures with which we have been experimenting this year?
Secondly, is any change to be made in the scope of Question Time to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Is it true that the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State will be answering questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? If such changes are to go ahead, as we have heard indirectly, will the time allowed for such questions be lengthened in any way from the 20 minutes on a Monday, as I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister will not be able to say all that he wishes in just 20 minutes?
Thirdly, as the Prime Minister and others have refused to take action on the abuses of executive pay and share options and have refused to comment on what action might be needed until the Greenbury report is published, and as we hear almost daily of ever higher salaries and ever bigger profits from share options, will the Leader of the House ensure that, when the Greenbury report is published, any statement by the Prime Minister or other Ministers is made to the House, so that Ministers can be directly questioned about the need for real action to curb those excesses, which are so offensive to our constituents?
Finally, should we not have a statement before the recess or even a debate in Government time on the implications for the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty of the French nuclear testing in the Pacific—activities

1105
which the Opposition consider to be completely unwarranted and which could jeopardise progress on the test ban treaty?
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Lady to know that on the last point I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday.
With regard to executive pay, the hon. Lady will know that there is widespread expectation that the Greenbury committee will produce its report in the relatively near future, and I shall of course bear in mind the points that she has made.
With regard to how Question Time will be arranged, no definite decisions have yet been taken and I would envisage further discussion within the usual channels before any such decisions are taken.
Lastly, the hon. Lady is right to anticipate a report from the Procedure Committee on the Jopling reforms and their working in the first year. Again, I would not want to take decisions on that—the hon. Lady might be quite cross with me if I did—before even seeing the report, let alone having chance to discuss it with her. The hon. Lady well knows, however, that I am sympathetic to maintaining the reformed procedures, which have worked well.
Mr. Warren Hawksley: Will the Leader of the House try to arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement next week on the future of Birmingham airport? The need is urgent because the Labour councillors, who have refused to date even to consider offers from West Midland Travel, the Richardson Brothers or other companies in the west midlands, are likely in the next fortnight to enter into a cosy arrangement with an American company to buy a 51 per cent. holding in that airport at less than the best price which could be obtained in the marketplace. It is important that we either debate the matter on the Floor of the House or have a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Newton: For reasons that my hon. Friend will understand, it would be rash for me to make a promise from the Dispatch Box this afternoon of either a statement or a debate, but I have already mentioned the three-hour pre-recess debate on Wednesday morning. If my hon. Friend cares to raise the matter with me, I will try to ensure that I have some useful information to communicate to him.
Mr. Don Foster: I, too, thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
Following the Government's defeat yesterday in the Statutory Instruments Committee on the draft broadcasting orders, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects those orders to be debated on the Floor of the House?
Will the Leader of the House also give an assurance that, if a major change in the disposition of British troops in Bosnia is likely, the House will be recalled during the summer recess?
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing concern which has followed the announcement by the Secretary of State for Employment and Education about nursery vouchers, and the considerable confusion which now exists about the value that those vouchers will
1106
have for redemption purposes? Is it possible for the Secretary of State to write to hon. Members during the recess and for a debate to take place during the spillover period?
Mr. Newton: I do not anticipate a debate about the broadcasting orders on the Floor of the House, but I will certainly give the hon. Gentleman such information as I can when I have had a chance to make further inquiries. As for Bosnia, I have made it clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House for a long time that, if events develop in a way which seems to call for a statement, a statement will be made. It can fairly be said that such statements have been made at appropriate times, including one yesterday.
I have the impression that the plans for nursery vouchers have been widely welcomed, but there is more detailed work to be done. That is the purpose of the current consultation.
Mr. Peter Luff: May I endorse the call by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for a debate on procedure? Such a debate would enable Conservative Members to explain to the Liberals the rights that they enjoy under the rules of the House to protect the interests of their constituents. Twice this week, Liberal party spokesmen have failed to understand what they can do for their constituents. On one occasion they thought that they could not speak during a debate that they had initiated; on another, they wrongly thought that their speaking time had been limited to 10 minutes. Such debate would provide a valuable opportunity to teach Liberals how to protect their constituents.
Mr. Newton: Given what I have heard, that is rather a good point. I must say that the usual channels on the Government side thought it rather strange that they should, in the end, have to assist the Liberals to keep their own debate going.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why is next week's debate on Nolan to last for a maximum of three and a half hours? Will not Government statements, speeches by Privy Councillors, amendments moved by individual Members and Front-Bench speeches completely wipe out any Back-Bench contributions? That is not Parliament speaking: it is a rigged debate. Why can we not have more time to deal with the matter?
Mr. Newton: I can only say that the arrangements that I have in mind have been the subject of discussion through the usual channels, and that I believe that they are for the convenience of the House. That is not to say that everyone will necessarily support them, but almost nothing in this place is supported by everyone.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange time for a debate on Hackney borough council in the near future, so that the Opposition Front Bench can dissociate itself from that council's actions and from the deplorable attacks on one of its officers and on civil servants that were made in the House yesterday?
Mr. Newton: As it happens, I have been given an account of some of the things that have happened in Hackney, which certainly do not make very happy reading. They include the suspension of the council's director of housing after he had complained that some of his staff were illegal immigrants involved in fraud. I am

1107
sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind.
Mr. Alan Simpson: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 383?
[That this House welcomes the introduction of the Energy Saving Materials (Limitation of VAT) Bill by a cross-party group of honourable Members on 11th January; notes that the Bill will reduce the level of VAT payable on energy saving materials to 8 per cent. and that this is the same amount of VAT payable on fuel bills; agrees with the view of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Right honourable Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, that a higher level of VAT on energy saving than that existing on energy use 'makes a nonsense of any attempt to use the tax system to improve the environment'; and hopes that the House will find the time to enable the Bill to become law.]
The motion relates to a Bill that I submitted, which proposed a reduction in VAT on energy-saving materials. Will the Leader of the House note that it now has the support of more than half the House? Will he accordingly arrange a debate next week, in Government time, so that we can debate the matter and my Bill can become law, and can receive the support of the House as well as that of the country as a whole?
Mr. Newton: I think that the answer to that is that it was a nice try. I see that the hon. Gentleman considers that fair comment. As he knows, his private Member's Bill is due to have its Second Reading on Friday and its fate is a matter for the House to decide.
Mr. John Marshall: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) in asking for a debate on Hackney council, which is rapidly becoming known as the Monklands of the south? Apart from acting as a haven for illegal immigrants who are employed there, it has a deplorable record, with a large number of empty council houses and large rent arrears.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard me say that, on the accounts that I have, the story does not look like a happy one. He may wish to raise it further with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at Question Time next Wednesday.
Ms Angela Eagle: May I, too, ask the Leader of the House whether it is possible to have a longer debate on the Nolan proposals next week? As a Back Bencher and a relatively new Member of the House, I stand little chance of getting into a debate of the length proposed. In the last Nolan debate, only two new Back Benchers got into the entire debate—I was one of them—although the proposals affect new Members perhaps more than some of the Privy Councillors, who may be leaving us and retiring at the next election. These matters are important for the reputation of Parliament and we need time for a proper debate about them, not a quick run around the houses in two and a half hours. Will the right hon. Gentleman please reconsider, especially as this Session is ending so early in July and there would definitely be extra days, when we could take time to debate those serious and important issues?
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier, although obviously I take note of the hon. Lady's representations, in line with those from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on Islington council, which has been described in a leader in The Times as a "rotten borough"? Is he aware of the strength of the White report into Islington social services, investigating dreadful stories of child abuse, prostitution, drug taking and paedophilia? Does he agree that it is right that the Labour party should come to the House and explain how it came to give that rotten borough so much support?
Mr. Newton: There are an awful lot of questions that I should quite like Labour Members to come forward with answers on, but that has continued to be a triumph of hope over experience and I dare say that it will remain so in relation to Islington.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: May we have an urgent statement from the Attorney-General on the serious allegations made to the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service by senior Queen's Counsel that during the Roger Levitt case the Serious Fraud Office and its counsel provided information to the Attorney-General which caused him to mislead the House on relevant and material matters? In relation to that matter, should we not have an urgent statement and a judicial inquiry into the circumstances?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to accept what he says, but I will of course draw it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we have a debate on the different standards applying to Members of Parliament and to the people who provide the goods and services here in the restaurants and other such places, and on the contrast between the 88 days' holiday that Members of Parliament will be getting and the vile treatment handed out this week to some of the waiters and others who work in the Tea Rooms and elsewhere, who have been told that they must sign a fresh contract involving lower wages and worse conditions, and that if they do not sign it they will get the sack? One of the proposals by the Select Committee on Catering is to get rid of those workers' staff room and to provide a wine bar. Will the Leader of the House withdraw those proposals and ensure that proper negotiations continue?
Mr. Newton: There are two or three points there. First, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was dying to answer the point about holidays. I think that I will leave Bolsover to Workington for that purpose. On the other points, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be well aware that those matters are for the Catering Committee, but I draw his attention to the fact that large-scale proposals exist for improving the catering facilities, not least in the interests of the staff. [Interruption.] I do not think that I will bother to go on as the hon. Members for Workington and for Bolsover are having their own wrangle on the other side of the House.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we have a full debate on a subject raised this afternoon in a telephone call to my office—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. If there is to be an argument between the hon. Members for Workington

1109
(Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), perhaps they would have it outside. We all know what they are arguing about and most of us disagree with Mr. Skinner on the point in question.
Mr. Flynn: When can we have a full debate on the subject raised with my office by an elderly man two hours ago? He said that he gave his sick wife, who is suffering from multiple sclerosis, a new medicine which led to her having her best night's sleep for 30 years. In the eyes of the Government, that man and his wife are criminals who could be fined £2,500 and thrown into prison. He could have given her heroin or cocaine, which are legal, but instead he gave her a drug which has never killed anyone, which has been used for 5,000 years, is less poisonous than aspirin and is known to provide relief for serious pain. Why do the Government not accede to the request made by doctors, patients, relatives of patients and many others that they should allow cannabis to be used, not for general medical use but for serious cases—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making the case that he should make in an Adjournment debate rather than simply asking for such a debate. Let us hear from the Leader of the House whether there will be such a debate next week.
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate. The hon. Gentleman, who is well informed about these matters, will know that there are proper advisory arrangements for Government decisions about such matters. I am sure that his comments will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health who, as it happens, is due to answer questions on Tuesday.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: In view of the Government's defeat yesterday on the statutory instrument on broadcasting, may we have an early debate to discuss the Government's ability to carry through their own legislation so that we can discuss why the Government were putting forward secondary legislation which could not command the support of their own Back Benchers?
Mr. Newton: That was another nice try. When I was a Back Bencher I engaged in one or two exercises of the kind which appeared to occur yesterday. The hon. Lady will know that she is making too much out of that.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fact that the Leader of the House has once again given us advance notice of the October resumption. Is it possible to find out from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, in those early weeks in October, he will be introducing the new parliamentary boundaries for Northern Ireland? If not, why is there such a delay?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to provide an immediate answer to that and I shall not pretend that I am. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is aware of the hon. Gentleman's points.
Mr. George Galloway: I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 748 relating to unpaid Kuwaiti debts in London.
1110
[That this House is gravely concerned at the plight of London businessman Mr. F. Salus, virtually bankrupted by the refusal to pay debts of £75,400 owed to him by two princesses of the Kuwaiti Royal Family, Princesses Nadia and Fatemah Al-Sabah, daughters of Sheikh Jaber Al Alim Al-Sabah, who engaged Mr. Salus to help build luxury flats in South Kensington at Manson Place, SW7, yet have persistently refused to pay Mr. Salus on the ridiculous grounds that they lost money on this investment which is their problem not their contractors, despite the entreaties of such British personalities as the Noble Lord Bethel, Sir Dennis Walters MBE, the honourable Member for Corby, Robert Evans MEP, the honourable Member for Brent East and many others; and considers that, especially in view of the great debt the Kuwaiti Royal Family owes to this country, the Emir of Kuwait should instruct his errant relatives, who are both multi-millionairesses, to make good their obligations to a British businessman whom they have all but ruined.]
The motion deals with the bankrupting of a London business man by two princesses of the Kuwaiti royal family. That royal family was returned to its throne at the point of British weapons just a few years ago. The early-day motion has been signed by 61 hon. Members from both sides of the House and includes in the first six names several knights of the realm, so great is the feeling that this act of meanness and hard-faced hypocrisy on the part of the Kuwaiti royal family should be acted upon by the British Government.
May we have a discussion about our relations with the emirate of Kuwait so that that British business man, who carried out works in good faith for members of the Kuwaiti royal family, can receive the relatively small amount of money for which he was bankrupted and so that relations can be normal between this country and the emirate? I fear that this issue will be a running sore in those relations if we cannot have such a debate and clear the matter up.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that that is a matter of commercial debt and not something in which the Government could or should intervene. There are methods available to pursue such matters, if appropriate, in the civil courts.
Mr. Don Touhig: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the decision by two universities for large salary and severance payments to be awarded to two vice-chancellors? One vice-chancellor was awarded £411,000 because he agreed not to make any comment for four years about the reasons for his dismissal. Should public money be used to buy the silence of a public servants in that way?
Mr. Newton: I will bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Mr. John Spellar: Does the Leader of the House accept that, although the Government may wish to avoid parliamentary scrutiny for three months, the public outside do not understand why Parliament is shutting down for three months? It leads to the sort of misunderstandings that we have just seen. Does the Leader of the House accept that it does the image of Members of Parliament no good with the public, and will he reconsider that policy for the future?
Mr. Newton: We are experiencing the usual cross-fire at this time of the year. Most of the House recognises that

1111
it is proper for the House to have a break, not least so that Members of Parliament can attend to matters in their constituencies, which they cannot do when the House is sitting four or five days a week. That is widely understood by our constituents and others, but frankly it is not helped when people like the hon. Gentleman seek to mislead them about the true position.
Mr. John McAllion: May we have a ministerial statement next week on today's award of all the contracts for running the Scottish national health service computer centres to a private firm—CSC— especially as I understand that there was under-specification in the contracts to create the illusion of savings in the NHS, as well as a hidden subsidy to the private company through the undervaluing the assets of the computer centres?
Mr. Newton: I will, of course, bring that question to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am bound to say, however, that it is my experience that considerable advantages have been secured by using the private sector to undertake computer operations, very much including the social security system.
Mr. Alistair Darling: Press reports suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister has expressed the wish that the House should have the opportunity for a debate rather than just a statement on the report on Barings being prepared by the Bank of England. I do not know whether the Deputy Prime Minister has taken over the job of the Leader of the House as well, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we are to have such a debate?
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is high time that we had a debate in Government time on the whole question of supervision and regulation so that we can discuss not only the problems at Lloyd's but those relating to the failure of self-regulation generally? That debate should be held in Government time—rather than in Opposition time, as has happened until now.
Mr. Newton: The right time to start thinking about such a debate is when we have the report of the Board of Banking Supervision.

Points of Order
4.42 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday I raised a point of order with you about a rave party that had been arranged at county hall and the possibility of it disturbing your peace and contentment. To prove the efficacy of points of order, I can inform you that I have received a letter from the Serjeant at Arms telling me that, following my point of order, permission for the rave event has been withdrawn by the owners of county hall, so you will now be able to enjoy a weekend of peace and contentment and the whole of London will rejoice with you.
Madam Speaker: I shall not be here this weekend, but in my constituency. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, although it was not a point of order today any more than it was a point of order yesterday.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I have your guidance on how a certain problem can be remedied? Page 4593 of today's Order Paper shows that this evening there will be opportunities for two one-and-a-half hour debates, one relating to the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 5) Order 1995, and the other relating to the No. 6 order on the same subject. We can have up to three hours' debate on that matter; yet the preliminary draft budget for the European Community is not debateable. Surely it is time that we found some way to ensure that Parliament debates issues which matter to many millions of people rather than giving preference to orders about paralytic shellfish, which can be debated for up to three hours.
Madam Speaker: Some of the people who may eat poisoned fish might not appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The debates are perfectly in order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to change our procedures, he should approach the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to bring to your attention a matter relating to the statement on defence equipment an hour or so ago. The Ministry of Defence did not deliver any copies of the statement to the Vote Office, with the result that hon. Members from both sides of the House could not obtain copies and so could not question my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the necessary detail. That appears to be a singular breakdown of the procedures of the House.
Madam Speaker: The usual practice is for the Minister concerned to determine at what time the statement is to be placed in the Vote Office. Some Ministers have the statement put in the Vote Office as soon as they stand up to make it—others when they sit down. It appears that today's statement was not available when the Minister made his statement, but it was for the Minister to determine when it was to be made available. I take the view that it is rather better to have the statement available as soon as the Minister stands up, so that hon. Members can be made aware of what is in the statement and therefore ask rather more intelligent questions.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that there can be a further point of order because I have answered it very

1113
fully. I do not usually take further points of order. If the hon. Gentleman can make it into another one, I shall listen.
Mr. Thompson: I can make it another one because it relates to the issuing of statements to the Press Gallery, which has not been mentioned. Many hon. Members are disturbed when, as so often happens, the press get statements and information long before Members of Parliament. It is something about which I have felt strongly for 10 years. I hope that you will allow that as a separate point of order.
Madam Speaker: I certainly will, because I feel as strongly as the hon. Gentleman does. I quite understand why Government Departments have to keep the press informed, but there has to be a strict embargo and often, I suspect, the embargoes are not kept. That is when Members of Parliament get very upset and rightly so. I give them full support in their strong feelings on that.

BILLS PRESENTED
  RIGHT TO WORK
  Sir Ralph Howell, supported by Mr. Frank Field, presented a Bill to establish the right to work and to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to offer work instead of income support or unemployment benefit to persons who would otherwise be without work in the United Kingdom; to establish a system of grants to certain parents; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 158.]
  FAIR EMPLOYMENT (DUTY ON NORTHERN IRELAND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD)
  Mr. Michael Connarty presented a Bill to make it a duty of the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board to promote equality of opportunity: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 166.]
ESTIMATES DAY
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
ESTIMATES DAY
  ESTIMATES, 1995–96
    Class XIII, Vote 1

      Social Security
      [Relevant documents: Third Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1994–95 on the Review of Expenditure on Social Security (House of Commons Paper No. 132) and the Social Security Departmental Report: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm. 2813).]
      Motion made, and Question proposed.
      That a further sum, not exceeding £18,829,738,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on non-contributory retirement pensions, Christmas bonus payments to pensioners, pensions etc., for disablement or death arising out of war or service in the armed forces after 2nd September 1939 and on sundry other services, on attendance allowances, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, disability living allowance; disability working allowance; on pensions, gratuities and sundry allowances for disablement and specified deaths arising from industrial causes; on income support, payments of spousal and child maintenance, child benefit, one parent benefit, family credit, and on the vaccine damage payment scheme.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      4.46 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this group of expenditure measures. It is perhaps a sign of the difficulties that the House has in coming to grips with expenditure that, just as we are about to debate a social security budget fast approaching £90 billion, those few hon. Members who were here have left. The House was moderately crowded for the defence statement, but the defence budget is small compared with the total social security budget.
      We must try to apply our minds to where that £90 billion is going, how good a job of stewardship the Government have done in safeguarding the taxpayers' interest and, perhaps more important, how successful the Secretary of State has been in his stated objective of controlling public expenditure on social security.
      As I wish to be somewhat critical of the Secretary of State's stewardship, perhaps I should begin with some complimentary remarks. When he was moved to the Department of Social Security, the media, who do not always possess the greatest intelligence, reported his move from Trade and Industry to Social Security as an example of a Minister being dumped by the Prime Minister. Slowly, they have woken up to the fact that if one is not fortunate enough to be Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer, the place to be for someone who wants to be a big player at the top end of Cabinet table is in charge of the social security brief.
      The Secretary of State has brought clear ideas about what he wants to do with his budget. This is, I think, the first full-scale debate that we have had in which we can
      1116
      examine at ease his stated objectives and see how well he is achieving his goals. I should, however, sound a note of warning before we begin.
      If we go back to Tory election manifestos and the excitement of election campaigns, we find that the talk was a little looser than it is today—it was about cutting social security expenditure; the goal then became to cut real growth in social security spending and it was limited to whether expenditure could be restrained so that it grew at a lower rate than the underlying rate of growth in the economy. I want to consider the Secretary of State's programme within that framework.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday that he thought that the economy was growing at 4 per cent. a year. For the purposes of our debate, we should look carefully at the Government's record on growth and use it as our yardstick to compare how successful they have been in bringing the rate of growth of social security expenditure below the rate of growth of GDP.
      Before I do so, I want to emphasise how important the debate is to many of our constituents. A short while ago, I was invited to write a column in The Sun and I willingly accepted. When I write a piece for the broadsheets, I am lucky if I get two or three letters—I am very lucky if I get two or three reasoned letters. I received about 50 letters as a result of that article in The Sun. One or two people said that if Labour had views like mine they were going to vote Tory.
      I am not sure what they read into the article. A recent article in Nature suggested that the ear does not relay messages to the brain but that the brain controls what the ear hears. It is clear that the brain also controls what some people's eyes see. I received two outstanding letters, one of which I shall quote later. The other was written by one of my constituents and said how important it was that we consider carefully how our social security budget is spent. She wrote:
      "I am 65 and have been a widow since 1985, but I am still working 3 full days each week with a Liverpool based company, which enables me to maintain my home (which I own) and to keep a reasonable standard of living.
      I realise I am lucky to have a job and an employer who is prepared to retain may services at my age, but because of my State pension, I am paying Income Tax to the tune of approximately £130 per month on my salary. Money, I may add, which I worked quite hard for and which, if it remained in my pocket, would make a considerable difference to my way of life.
      However, I look around and see, not far from me, people much younger than I who are not working, some possibly because they cannot get a job, but a great number of whom, I am sure, do not want to work, and do not see the necessity to work, whilst they are receiving such good benefits from the Welfare State, and I know that the tax I have to pay is helping to provide these benefits."
      We do not approach this debate in a light mood. We are very mindful of the fact that every day the welfare state has to be paid for by people in work such as my constituent, who is a pensioner and who pays £130 a month towards our welfare state. I shall return in a moment to how we should deal with a dependency culture and meet some of the other points in that letter.
      Not long ago, the Secretary of State give the Mais lecture, in which he gripped his audience by saying that, on average, each day everybody in work pays £13 towards the cost of maintaining the welfare state. Less than 18 months later, he gave a similar lecture which updated his point to the Social Market Foundation. In it he said that, on average, every day people in work paid £15 towards the cost of underwriting our welfare state.

      1117
      We have a paradox. The Secretary of State—of whom, I should have thought, most of us now have the measure—is serious about reforming the welfare state and wishes to cut growth in expenditure on it. A range of Bills has scrapped earnings-related supplements to national insurance benefits, cut benefits for disabled people and scattered asunder the remains of SERPS, but the daily cost of the welfare state to those in work has risen.
      On one criterion it does not appear that the Secretary of State is succeeding. Welfare bills are increasing, but we can look at those figures another way. We know that the Secretary of State has made cuts: I am not accusing him of dishonesty or deceit. At general election time, the Government have always been clear about their programme. If ever a Government have had a mandate for their programme, it is this one.
      After the latest round of cuts, the real budget for social security in the period 1994–95 to 1997–98 will rise by 1.3 per cent. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is a member of Social Security Select Committee. When we were drawing up the report that forms the backdrop to our debate, he noted that the rapid upward push in the cost of benefits is continuing. Between 1997–98 and the end of the century—not many years— the real cost of welfare will rise by 2.1 per cent. That is another criterion by which to judge the Government.
      Over the period of the Government's stewardship since 1979, the growth in the economy has been 1.9 per cent. After the latest rounds of cuts in welfare provision, the real cost will go up by 2.1 per cent. The Government's much-modified objective of controlling expenditure to below the real rate of increase in the economy is going to fail. I look forward to hearing how the Secretary of State will reply to that.
      Their failure, of course, is not across a broad canvas; it is a failure on quite a narrow focus, on which I wish to make my contribution. I hope that it will be followed up by many other hon. Members.
      The welfare state has three forms of benefit—national insurance benefits, for which we pay into the national insurance fund; what are called non-contributory national insurance rates or non-contributory, non-means-tested benefits, which go to people in certain categories such as parents who claim child benefit; and benefits that go only to those whose income is low and who qualify after a test of income. It is crucial that we consider which benefits are growing fastest and cause the most concern among not only the Government and Opposition Front Benchers but people outside such as my constituent who have to pay the bill. They wonder, if the present strategy continues, what scenario will meet us shortly after the turn of the century.
      Let me break down the figures. The Government's record up to 1992–93 shows that the real-terms growth in contributory benefits was 1.6 per cent. The increase in non-contributory benefits, many of which are disablement benefits, was 6.9 per cent.
      What has been the real-terms rate of increase in the means-tested side of the welfare state? I hope that we shall note from the Secretary of State's response to this debate, if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there has been a subtle change in the Treasury's approach to means testing. In the early
      1118
      Thatcher years, Ministers would wave their arms and legs and say that means testing was the way forward to concentrate help on those in greatest need and to target benefits. We hear a slightly different message from the Treasury Bench now, and I hope that we shall hear a development of that theme a little later in the debate.
      Income support for pensioners has risen by 5 per cent. For those below retirement age, it has risen by 10.6 per cent. and for rent allowances it has risen by 15 per cent. Before the latest attempt to extend family credit to those without children, the figure for family credit had risen by more than 20 per cent. The Secretary of State's failure to control the social security budget is not a failure across the whole broad sweep of policy. His failure to meet his objective is caused by the great emphasis that the Government place on means-tested assistance.
      Means-tested assistance is the destabilising part of the welfare state. The Secretary of State argued before the Select Committee that the present bill was not sustainable because of the impact that it would have on the functioning of the economy. There must clearly come a point when, if welfare bills are pushed up to a gigantic level, the economy is impaired. I think that the instability is caused by something much more important: the number of people whom we are now putting on means-tested assistance.
      When I make a charge against that side of the welfare state, I make a charge against us—specifically the Treasury Bench. I am much tougher than the Secretary of State on fraud, and have no room for those who wrongly claim benefit. I am sure that other hon. Members will try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and talk about how partial the Secretary of State still is to dealing with the issue as we would wish to see it dealt with, but he is a happy recidivist on that. Each time, he tries to take a tougher approach to deal with fraud and we are here to encourage him in that.
      Means tests have a double effect on our constituents. First, they teach them to behave rationally and work the system—I shall give an example of that in a moment— and I do not blame my constituents or those from Colchester, where someone who wrote another letter is from, for doing so. They are behaving rationally within the framework that the House has set for them and in which they must operate.
      On the other side of the coin, some people decide that income support and means-tested benefits should be some form of basic income and that they should claim it and continue to claim it while they work and do all sorts of other activities. I am now talking about how it destroys people's sense of worth, their desire to behave as decent citizens and the importance that we stress on working, saving and being honest.
      The second letter says:
      "I am 59 years of age and was made redundant in August, 1994 (for information this was the 7th time I have been made redundant since 1976). In the past, I have always managed to obtain employment, mainly due to my knowledge and management skills. However, although I have applied, written, and telephoned over 300 companies during the past 10 months seeking any form of employment, even down to collecting empty trolleys at supermarkets or cleaning offices/factories, I have had no success mainly due to my age."
      The person goes on:
      "My wife and I have always been great believers in helping ourselves as against making claims against the State and, therefore, when I was unemployed in the past we used our savings, plus our

      1119
      then borrowing power, to pay our bills, rather than claim benefits. This obviously has meant that we have not had a holiday for over 10 years.
      As my wife presently works between 40 and 48 hours per week and has a net wage of an average of £100 per week we are unable to claim any benefits other than unemployment benefit. We are advised by the benefits agency that, due to my wife working over 16 hours per week, once my unemployment benefit ceases in August 1995, we shall have to exist on her wage, or, as suggested by the social benefits and employment offices, my wife should cease work and my claim for benefit would then be considered …
      I am informed that, based on current benefit figures, my wife and I would receive approximately £100 a week plus possible mortgage interest assistance, that being applicable when I reach 60 years of age in September of 1995."
      Is it not absurd that rather than that man's wife continuing to work for £100 a week, he can draw benefits of perhaps £125 or £150 a week if his wife stops working? Would not it be better for him to be able to continue to draw unemployment benefit and for his wife to continue working? The cost of that to the taxpayer would be a third of what will happen under the rules in September, when his wife will be forced out of work because they will be better off on benefit. They are skint, they have used their savings and they are afraid that their house will be repossessed. They continue in the letter:
      "We have already had to live through the loss of our 2 daughters in 1969 and the loss of our home now would be more than we could stand."
      They will stop working and will draw three times as much in benefit. It will appear as a saving in one account but, the following week, it will appear as a deficit and help to explain why the Secretary of State cannot control the budget as he wishes. There is nothing dishonest about those people. As the House has just heard, they have worked hard all their lives, scrambled for jobs and used up their savings. They will now behave rationally within the rules that the Government have set. It often pays not to work and to work the system.
      Others, of course, feel differently and are not quite so conscientious as that person from Colchester; they feel that income support and housing benefit are there for the taking as of right. They think that it is a basic income that people should use, and they add to it whatever income they can get from work.
      The means-tested side of the welfare state is the fastest growing side. It penalises people if they get a job, confiscates their savings and taxes honesty. It cannot be sensible for a country to have a welfare state, the fastest growing part of which has those effects on human character. We have lived through an important time in which the Secretary of State, with a clear vision of what he has wanted to do, has come to his Department, seen the enormous opportunity to apply his own ideas and ideology and bring about change. Yet as I said at the beginning, the figures do not look good given his objectives for the welfare state.
      We can all learn lessons from this tale. I do not believe that we can control public expenditure, or the largest part of it—a third of all the money contributed by taxpayers— if we have a strategy like the one pursued by the Government, which pushes more and more people on to means tests and then finds it impossible to control that part of the budget. It is impossible to control it because, as I described using the example of the gentleman from Colchester, it is rational. The only option is to work the system, and doing so, in that instance and many others,
      1120
      increases the cost of welfare not onefold but threefold, and people feel a failure because they have been unable to get a job. They must now exist totally on benefit— something that the family from Colchester have fought all their lives.
      Other people believe that welfare is an easy touch. I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State made recently—and, I believe, the other eight that he has made—on clamping down on fraud, but he has a long way to go.
      The Select Committee is considering that matter with deadly seriousness. It is easy enough to pick on single mothers and those who work on the side—although the Secretary of State has not quite got the measure of either of those yet in the fraud clampdown that he has announced—but we are equally worried about the fraud that sophisticated gangs must be perpetrating against that £90 billion budget. It is inconceivable that the budget is somehow gated by behaviour characteristic of the garden of Eden. Given what we know about City fraud and fraud in financial institutions, it is unthinkable that similar techniques are not being used against our budget of £90,000 million.
      I believe that we do not yet have the measure of people committing that type of fraud. I fear that the task will be fraught with danger for those officers who begin to get a grip on it. Not so long ago, some people were sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting officers who were checking up on MOT frauds. We shall be tackling very nasty, very vicious, very violent people who are uninterrupted in their activity in ripping off our £90,000 million social security budget on a mass scale.
      For that reason, I call for officers of the highest quality—of Special Air Services quality and rewards—to undertake that task for us, for I fear that it may not be that long before the Secretary of State has to come to the Dispatch Box to announce what has happened to some of the officers in his Department when they do get to grips with fraud in that sector.
      Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Secretary of State's recent estimates about the scale of fraud are correct, it must mean that, during the stewardship—to use one of my hon. Friend's favourite words—of the present Government, billions and billions of pounds have been fraudulently used? Is that not a matter of great concern? In spite of the platform rhetoric at seaside resorts every year, the Government have effectively been soft on fraud.
      Mr. Field: I like teasing the Secretary of State that he is soft on fraud and soft on the causes of fraud, but he is getting better and we should encourage him in that endeavour.
      My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have always heard such rhetoric from the Conservative party at elections and at party conferences. Given the partial nature of the current measures, if they had been introduced in 1979, not only would we have ensured that improved anti-fraud measures were now in place but huge tranches of money would have been saved for taxpayers. My constituent who pays £130 a month in taxes on her three days of work a week is the type of person who has been cheated.

      1121
      I do not believe that the Government have a strategy other than cutting entitlement and, late in the day, trying to screw down on fraud. If we are to bring the budget under control successfully, we must propose an alternative programme.
      In conclusion, I shall mention three things that I believe that we must do. Before the millennium, we shall receive the full force of taxpayers' opinions about what they want to happen to public expenditure. The thought that we can maintain public expenditure at the present level is an illusion that politicians should not have.
      Opposition Members may pretend that it will not happen—and allow public opinion to hit us in the face— or try to devise strategies whereby we leap ahead of where the electorate will be in a few years' time and set out an alternative stall.
      I hope that we shall consider carefully the proposal of hiving off the national insurance side to a corporation or perhaps, to use a more friendly phrase, an organisation run by the punters themselves—both contributors, employers and employees—with the Government having' a say. That organisation would set rates of benefit and gradually take over what is currently the national insurance system.
      It would cover the whole of that sector in time, but it would, for example, tackle the problems that the letter that I have just read reveals. If people could quickly requalify for insurance benefit when they were unemployed, as they could under the 1911 scheme, many more people would be prepared to take risky jobs, hoping that the job would last long enough that they at least got their insurance credits back so that they could again benefit. We know that, if they received benefit, their wives and other members of the family could continue to work and they would not get caught back on means-tested assistance. We know that, once most of our constituents are on means-tested assistance, it is almost impossible for them to break free.
      The second long-running reform is to ensure that everyone has at least one pension other than the state retirement pension: in other words, universalise private provision of pensions; everyone will have to be in. If Tesco can run a pension scheme that admits part-time workers after the first hour of work, everyone can run an equivalent scheme, or at least allow people to opt into a national scheme that provides such coverage.
      The final thing that we must do if we are ever to control the estimates that we are debating today is to change totally the culture of income support, which is that of a passive agency, paying out benefit, into one that is proactive, helping people back into the labour market.
      I propose that everyone on income support who is below retirement age should be expected to draw up career plans and use their income support payments to achieve those objectives.
      In previous debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) has given us a powerful example of why that change should occur. He gave us the example of a single parent in his constituency, visiting her income support office, saying to officers that she wished to become a traffic warden. The officers fell about laughing. They said, "You've got it wrong, love. Our job's to pay out money; it's not to help you get a job."
      1122
      That is an appalling state of affairs. Those officers were behaving properly. Their job was to pay out money, not to help claimants achieve the objective of getting back into work.
      I know that problems are involved with such a scheme, such as how to ensure that child care is available—which probably goes beyond giving a few people already receiving child care, vouchers worth £1,000 a year. However, we must change that culture of drawing benefit and then merely existing on benefit if we are to achieve significantly greater success than the Secretary of State in controlling growth in social security expenditure.
      I finish as I began. The Government have made wild claims about the way in which the social security budget, the largest of any Government budget, will be controlled. Their first objective was to hack it back, then it was to cut it in real terms, then it was to control the increase in real terms and then it was to cut it enough so that in real terms it was growing slower than the real long-term growth in the economy.
      The figures that I gave at the beginning show that the Government have failed on all those objectives. I do not present those figures merely to crow at the Government. This is an immensely serious debate. The social security budget is the largest part of expenditure to which taxpayers contribute each week with their hard-earned money, and the Government have failed to control it. I hope that, before the general election, we shall make proposals that show that there is an alternative to the present regime.
      5.19 pm
      Ms Liz Lynne: I want to praise the report by the Select Committee on Social Security. It is very constructive and it has a great deal of common sense in it, especially the call for more regular information on expenditure and growth and the recommendation for more research, which is needed for the wide range of benefits that we are discussing. The most radical idea in the report is that Government Departments should estimate the cost of their policy decisions on the social security budget. I sincerely hope that the Government will take that idea on board. There are so many areas that such estimates could cover, including housing and employment.
      The abolition of the wages councils obviously had a tremendous effect on the social security budget. The Government spend £2 billion subsidising low-paying employers and they top up the earnings of 1.7 million people. Far from the Government learning from the abolition of the wages councils, they have taken matters a step further and we now have the jobseeker's allowance. On Report in another place on the Jobseekers Bill, the Government opposed an amendment that would have given the right to every person to turn down a job for which the wage was lower than benefit. In other words, the Government have rigged the labour market, because benefit will be stopped if the claimant does not take the low-paid job. Employers will be able to offer wages lower than the wages that they offer at the moment, because they know that unemployed people will have all their benefits cut unless they take the low-paid job.
      For single people and couples with no children, the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance could mean that they will live below the poverty line. I know that the Government are introducing pilot schemes to look at

      1123
      benefits similar to family credit for those with no children and for single people. Already, however, couples with children have to have their earnings topped up by family credit and the family credit budget is continuing to soar; it has doubled in the past four years. Employers are exporting their wage bills to the taxpayer, which is totally unacceptable.
      The same point applies to housing. If Government Departments had to estimate the cost of their policy decisions on the social security budget, would the control of council house receipts remain? I very much doubt it. If that policy were adopted, unemployed building workers could get back into work. Other employers would be able to take on people, because the knock-on effect of houses being built would be to the benefit of suppliers to the building industry. If councils were allowed to spend the receipts, there would be low-cost, local authority housing, which would stem the rise in the housing benefit bill. It must make economic sense for the Government to adopt that policy.
      The Select Committee stressed the disturbing growth in means-tested benefits; it talked about the unemployment trap and about the low-income employment trap. The Committee looked, but it failed, unfortunately, to recommend that the tax system should be looked at at the same time as benefit reform. By close integration of the tax and benefit systems, the effects of unemployment and the poverty trap would be somewhat mitigated.
      At the time of the Budget, the Liberal Democrats suggested that we should take 50,000 low-income earners out of the tax system, which would have helped with the family credit bill. I know that, with all the publicity last week, another report by the Select Committee on Social Security, which dealt with the compensation recovery unit, was somewhat ignored. Reforms would reduce the injustice suffered by personal injury victims and would mean that, instead of the money being clawed back by the Treasury from the victim, it would be clawed back from the employer. That proposal would be revenue-neutral for the Treasury. I would be grateful if the Minister, when summing up, would refer to the proposal.
      Another area that has been well documented in the past few days is benefit fraud and I welcome the Government's initiative on that, although it has to be said that they have introduced many initiatives, but have not followed them through. The initiative will not be taken seriously by the claimants who are defrauding the system unless they can see that tax fraud is treated equally. I welcome the survey by the Department of Social Security and its estimates of the money that is lost in benefit fraud. I would like the Treasury to carry out a similar exercise on tax evasion. How can we persuade people in a lower income bracket and those who defraud the benefit system to be honest when people at the higher end defraud the tax system?
      The main aspect of the Select Committee report which I welcome is that all Government Departments should assess the cost of their policies on the social security budget. That is the way in which to get the social security budget down instead of penalising the people whom the Government penalise at the moment—the unemployed, who will be affected by the cut from 12 months to six months of benefit, and disabled people. I hope that the Government will look seriously at the initiatives set out in the Select Committee report, which I commend to them.
      5.26 pm
      Mr. Tony Banks: I say for the record that the London borough of Newham is the most deprived local authority area in England and Wales, according to statistics from the Department of the Environment. As someone who represents and lives in the area, I can bear witness to the general level of poverty in the east end of London—in Newham, Stratford, Upton Park and West Ham. Strangely, I get far angrier—it is not synthetic anger—than my constituents when I see the poverty that they have to deal with.
      I am unmoved by talk of the need to crack down on fraud, not because I am in favour of fraud, but because I am far more concerned about people who do not receive benefits to which they are entitled. I am more concerned about them than I am about those who are trying to get more out of the system than they should. I am a great supporter of those who want to crack down on fraud, but I am an even greater supporter of those who want to make sure that the benefits go to those who need them most and that people are receiving what they are entitled to.
      I do not understand how some people in my area exist from breakfast to dinner—assuming that they get either a breakfast or a dinner. They have to live on levels of income that Members of Parliament have no experience of whatever. Members of Parliament will spend more on the Terrace this evening—so will I—than some individuals have to spend in a week. I am not claiming that I am impoverished—far from it. However, when I hear Members of Parliament going on about levels of benefit and about how we need to ensure that they are appropriate, I realise that there is a great stench of hypocrisy, as ever, hanging around this place.
      More than 18,000 people in Newham are unemployed and there is an unemployment rate of 19.5 per cent. Some 85,592 people in the borough depend on income support. Unemployed people make up 41 per cent. and lone parents make up 19 per cent. of income support claimants. Those figures show the extent of the poverty in my part of the east end. This evening I draw attention to the changes that will be introduced on 1 October in respect of mortgage interest payments.
      Mr. Frank Field: The figures that my hon. Friend has cited from his borough are very interesting, because they are the exact opposite of the national figures, which show that the number of unemployed people drawing benefit is exceeded by the number of people heading single-parent families and trying to raise children on their own. That illustrates the fact that recent labour market policies have decimated jobs to the extent that inner-city areas do not reflect the national average, which shows that twice as many single parents are drawing benefits compared with unemployed people. In our areas, there are twice as many unemployed benefit claimants as lone parent benefit claimants.
      Mr. Banks: As usual, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point and we all defer to his expertise in such matters.
      Speaking as a lay person, I would like the Secretary of State and his Ministers to sit in my advice surgeries and hear what is going on. I want them to see the situation for themselves, instead of sitting in Departments and receiving advice from civil servants. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State and his Ministers do not visit

      1125
      offices in their constituencies and listen to people's problems, but if they could visit the east end, be a fly on the wall and listen to people's stories, perhaps they might show greater concern for low levels of benefit rather than constantly making accusations and creating the impression that people are living the life of Riley on income support or social security benefit. It is certainly not the sort of life that I would want to lead—even on the most generous level of benefits currently available.
      I want to ask the Secretary of State about some of the changes to come into effect on 1 October. It appears that most people under 60 years of age who buy a house or take out a loan for repairs after 1 October will receive no income support assistance with mortgage interest or service charges for nine months. That is outrageous. Ministers have been lobbied about the matter and some groups have been granted a reprieve. As I understand it, they will be classed as existing borrowers. But what about recently deserted or widowed people, who will be included in that group only if they have children? We believe that the decision will cause great hardship to many women in my area who have spent years as carers and so do not have any employment. The Minister must consider that point.
      There is also the question of the standard rate of interest. Income support mortgage interest is currently calculated on the actual amount of interest. The change to a standard rate of interest for all claimants will be set at the average mortgage interest rate for probably an annual period. Those with high interest rates will have a shortfall, which benefit will not cover, and that will affect particularly those people on low incomes who end up with expensive loans. That will create enormous problems in my area.
      Assistance with accumulated arrears is to be abandoned. Interest will no longer be paid for arrears built up during the initial non-payment period and that will lead to increased debt and homelessness. The Government's excuse for abandoning that assistance is that the calculations are very complex—but so are the calculations for child support, and it has not been abandoned. The calculations could be made if the Government had the political will to do it.
      I return to the effect of the changes in Newham. After 1 October, they will take effect slowly and insidiously over two or three years as new claims are made and more people are affected by the restrictions. Last year, Bow county court dealt with 4,000 mortgage repossession cases. Where do people go after that? They turn to the local authority. I get very angry with the Government for deflecting those problems to the local authority, which then has a statutory obligation to try to house the people whose homes have been repossessed.
      Bed-and-breakfast accommodation comes into play. We are still spending millions of pounds on the provision of short-term and bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The Government simply shift the problem from their jurisdiction to that of the local authority. Conservative Members then talk about high rent arrears and empty local authority housing stock. They say that the problems are the responsibility of the local authority and they ask why
      1126
      nothing is being done. The Government think that they are dealing with the problems, but they are not: they are simply shifting them somewhere else.
      Mr. Field: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. Last Friday I visited Salford, where the citizens advice bureau provides a service in the courts for people who face homelessness through repossession. That work underlines the point that my hon. Friend made earlier about people receiving the entitlements that they deserve. The CAB finds that many people who face eviction because of mounting debts—the situation will worsen when the changes are introduced—are not receiving their proper entitlements. There may be minor savings initially but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there is a massive increase in public expenditure when people whose homes have been broken and whose families have been torn asunder are placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
      Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend represents a constituency that is not dissimilar to my own, and he has seen the evidence. We are not making up the stories. The changes will not affect our personal circumstances, but they will affect the people whom we represent. Members of Parliament have a duty to bring those facts to the Secretary of State's notice. Instead of listening to arid discourse from departmental staff, he should listen to those who represent the people who are most affected. That is why we bring our cases to the Secretary of State.
      The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): In addition to bringing the cases to my attention—I have listened attentively to his comments and I know that his argument has a great deal of force—has the hon. Gentleman had any success in persuading his own Front Bench to increase the level of benefits? Did he hear his leader say this week that benefits should be altered and that there should be massive reform of the welfare state, so that benefits out of work are less than what people receive in work?
      Mr. Banks: Only time will tell whether I am having any success. I assure the Secretary of State that I would be far happier taking my case to a Secretary of State of my own political persuasion, because I am sure that my colleagues understand the problems better and would take a far more realistic approach to the level of benefit.
      I shall be honest with the Secretary of State: my argument will not alter—in fact, I shall be twice as angry—if a Labour Government do not address the problems of the east end, because the people of the east end have loyally supported the Labour party for generations. They are entitled to expect assistance from a Labour Government whom they elect. I am sure that they will receive that satisfaction. But if they do not, I assure the Secretary of State that my voice will be raised most stridently on their behalf. However, I suspect that my support will not be needed to the same extent that it has been needed since 1983.
      I shall not detain the House much longer. I seek clarification from the Secretary of State about two more issues in the context of the estimates debate. I understand that the new in-work benefit pilot, the earnings top-up, is a benefit like family credit, but for people without children. It is a means-tested top-up for people on low

      1127
      wages. It will pay up to £54 per week, with an average of £23 per couple and £19 for a single person aged 25 and over. It amounts to a subsidy for low wage rates.
      Conservative Members ask what a minimum wage will cost, but what is it already costing the taxpayer to subsidise rotten employers who pay lousy, stinking, strip-out wages? No one in this place would work for such wages. They would laugh; they would not even get out of bed. If Members of Parliament were offered that sort of rate for a BBC or an ITV interview, they would turn it down. Of course, I would not turn it down; I would do it for free, as hon. Members well know—but that is another matter. Money does not interest me in the same way as it interests so many on the Government Benches. We are talking about ludicrous wage levels, and we are asking the taxpayer to subsidise rotten employers. The sooner we get a decent minimum wage in this country, the better. In the end, it would be a saving for the taxpayer.
      In the earnings top-up pilot scheme, a number of areas have been selected, but none of those is in London. I would like to know rather more about that. Even though I do not over-approve of the idea of subsidising rotten wages, why has not any area in London been chosen? There are plenty of rotten, low wages paid in London.
      The Secretary of State announced new initiatives to combat fraud on 11 July. I made the point at the beginning of my speech that I am not here to support fraud, but I am also not here to support this hue and cry about fraud and its use as a divisive mechanism in our society. The idea that, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, anyone receiving social security is on the fiddle, seems gradually to be creeping into the public consciousness. It is expressed so often in vulgar opinion. I might add that I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) talk about his article in The Sun. I understand that it pays very well for articles, incidentally.
      Mr. Field: I am still waiting.
      Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend is waiting to be paid. Perhaps he needs a good agent. I am quite prepared, for a reasonable remuneration, to hurry it along a bit.
      The Sun is one of those newspapers that tends to suggest that somehow people who are on benefit are getting some sort of handout to which they are not entitled; it is really a fraud being perpetrated on the population at large. It is very dangerous to use such words and give that impression.
      We understand that fraudulent claims cost the taxpayer £1.4 billion a year and it is absolutely right that something should be done about it. But when do we hear Ministers waxing about the number of people who fiddle their Inland Revenue claims, or employers who fiddle national insurance? Where are all the initiatives to bang that stuff out? Such white-collar fraud in the City, by employers and by those who are evading tax, amounts to billions and billions of pounds and makes the fraud on social security seem like money in the old back pocket.
      I would be much more impressed by the Government's determination to crack down on fraud if they took an even-handed approach; if they were as rigorous in trying to deal with Inland Revenue and national insurance fraud as they are with respect to the payment of benefits.
      I want to ask the Secretary of State a specific question about home visits, because I notice that, in the endeavour to cut fraud, there is talk of 300,000 extra home visits
      1128
      across the country. When a home visit is deemed to be required—for example, when the person involved is a single parent—are they planning to reduce income support until that visit has taken place? This is important. I want to know whether my constituents will lose while they wait for a home visit. Although 300,000 extra home visits are planned, I suspect that the Department will soon start saying that it has not got the staff for them. I do not want to find that potential claimants are penalised for waiting for a visit when there are simply not enough Benefits Agency staff to ensure that that visit takes place.
      I return to the question of those who do not get the benefit to which they are entitled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said. From Government figures, we estimate that in Newham something like £12 million a year in means-tested benefits is simply not being taken up. What is the Secretary of State going to do about that? When he shows as much enthusiasm for ensuring that people who are entitled to benefit get benefit, I will be equally enthused by his attitude towards some of the other things that he constantly talks about, such as fraud and targeting benefits on people who are most entitled to them.
      Perhaps those points put a little flesh on these bare estimates. They come as a witness from someone who has to deal with a whole range of poverty. The worst poverty of all that I have to experience in the east end is the poverty of expectation. The people I represent have a very low level of expectation. I want to ensure that their sights are heightened and that they have a vision of a better society in which they can receive a decent level of benefit when they need it. That is what we want, and I am quite sure that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is the Secretary of State for Social Security, that is exactly what we shall get.
      5.44 pm
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who explained well the plight of the people whom he represents and the poverty throughout the east end of London. Indeed, one would find similar levels of poverty in every inner-city region in England, Wales and Scotland. The Evening Standard report on the levels of poverty in London makes very grim reading. Within a 15-minute car journey from this House, one can find people living third-world levels of existence, health and expectation in a supposedly wealthy and prosperous society.
      The Government complacently preside over a social security budget which they claim is growing very fast, and say that it cannot continue to do so, yet at the same time, statistics have shown that, since the Government came into office, the biggest growth in inequality of any industrialised country, the biggest growth in poverty among industrialised countries and the biggest growth of the super-rich among industrialised countries have all been in Britain.
      That is a direct result of a taxation system and policy that has given huge tax breaks and rewards to the already very rich and soaked the poor to the extent that they now pay more in taxation than ever before. The poorest 10 per cent. of the population, who tend to reside in the inner cities, although not exclusively, have seen their living standards fall by at least 14 per cent. over the past decade and more, and it is getting considerably worse for them.

      1129
      Within that context, we must measure the Government's proposals and plans. I am fed up with social security debates being dominated by two factors: the costs of the social security system and the question of benefit fraud that goes with it. I have no time for fraud, any more than any other hon. Member. The speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and for Newham, North-West outlined that. The Government have an obsession with dealing with the idea that somebody has over-claimed 10 quid on housing benefit or somebody has worked two hours more than he is allowed under the benefit rules and therefore is a serious fraudster.
      Meanwhile, high levels of white-collar crime go on and huge syndicates are at work defrauding the housing benefit system. The London Labour boroughs got together as a consortium to try to sort that out, with precious little thanks or support from the Government for doing so. In fact, the Government condemned the boroughs for allowing such fraud to exist in the first place. It was not the assiduousness of the Department for Social Security or of the Secretary of State that sorted that out, but the inner-London boroughs.
      Mr. Frank Field: Does my hon. Friend recall that some of the London boroughs wishing to bring prosecutions against landlords and landlords' agents who were ripping off the housing benefit budget to a tune which I do not think that the House yet properly understands, and were told when they presented their information to the Serious Fraud Office that it did not understand enough and that the boroughs should bring the cases. Yet those boroughs either have been rate-capped or face capping and therefore do not have the funds to bring the desired prosecutions. Is that not an extraordinary state of affairs?
      The Government say that they are serious about fraud, but when certain London boroughs support them and become serious about tackling it, and there is a chance of bringing into court some very rich people who are taking enormous sums out of the housing benefit budget, the case falls to the ground because nobody wants to foot the bill for the prosecution.
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. He makes a very important point with which I hope that the Secretary of State will deal when he replies. Those big fraudsters should be taken to court and the Government should ensure that the resources are available and that the Serious Fraud Office takes the cases. Whenever there is a growing problem to the extent that the Government cannot handle or control it, they pass it to local authorities. At the same time, the Government make damn sure that local authorities do not have the resources necessary, then criticise them for not solving the problem. Local authorities are the perfect enemy for a Tory Government. It is like an obsession for them.
      The large increase in housing benefit expenditure does not benefit the tenant. The budget has grown because of rent deregulation in the private sector, the rapid increase in housing association rents and the almost as rapid increase in local authority rents. Local authorities do not benefit from administering the housing benefit budget but are penalised for so doing. I am glad that the Select Committee will examine the burden on local authorities
      1130
      of administering a housing benefit budget and all the grief that goes with it, when those authorities are not given the resources to perform that task.
      It is extremely depressing that, any time that we want to examine part of the welfare state, yet another agency is created. Such agencies have succeeded in ensuring large job losses, with fewer people doing the work—often, less efficiently than in the past. The Government's attitude to people who have dedicated much of their lives to making the social security system work is to make sure that those people end up working for an agency, then to change their contracts of employment and conditions of service.
      Government statistics often claim that UK pensioners are at least 33 per cent. better off than they were when the Government came into office. That figure varies— depending on which Minister one talks to, or on which television or radio programme he appears—between a low of 32 per cent. and a high of more than 45 per cent. I have never met pensioners who are better off to that extent. I do not doubt that some extremely wealthy pensioners are doing better than average, but the majority do not have huge occupational pension incomes—if they did, they would be taxed on them anyway.
      Many elderly widows have no income other than their state pension and housing benefit and are often badly off. They have been penalised by the breach in the link with earnings made by Geoffrey Howe in 1980, who called it his greatest achievement as Chancellor of the Exchequer. We can imagine his aspiration. He succeeded in robbing every pensioner in the country of about £20 per week by breaking the earnings link and substituting one with the retail price index.
      Ministers predict that the pension level will become nugatory by the end of this century. That is a standing invitation to everyone in middle age to make some sort of private pension arrangement, because that is the only way of guaranteeing a reasonable income on retirement. That attacks the principle of the state pension. Likewise, we witnessed the Government's use—or abuse—of the Government Actuary in the 1980s, to reduce the value of SERPS and thereby increase market opportunities for the private pensions industry.
      I do not apologise for strongly supporting the principle of a high-level state pension and a fully funded SERPS that can eliminate poverty in retirement years. There is no security in private pension schemes sold by high-pressure salesmen working only for commission. A lot of tragedies are waiting to happen in the next 15 or 20 years. I hope that someone will be around to pick up the tab for the tragedies that will occur as those schemes collapse.
      The Government have done much to make the benefits system more complicated and less effective, including the tragic removal of benefits from 16-to 17-year-olds, changes in the housing benefit system, family credit and now the publication "Piloting change in Social Security: Helping people into work". The Government deregulated the labour market so that hourly wage rates, particularly for young people in service industries, are shameful and a disgrace.
      People throughout the country are being pushed into jobs offering wages of £2 per hour or less. The Government know that it is immoral for people to work for such low pay but, instead of doing something about it, such as restoring the wages council system or supporting a national minimum wage, the Government—to assuage

      1131
      their guilt—introduced family credit and now propose a wider variety of top-up measures, to subsidise low-wage employers. That is a disgraceful vista.
      Some extremely prosperous and profitable firms are deliberately paying low wages because they know that they can get away with it. People in the worst situations will have to apply for social security benefits to top up those low wages, and that is wrong. I strongly support a national minimum wage, which should be fixed at half male average earnings, at about £4.20 per hour.
      Large numbers of people who suffered accidents at work and became invalids now face the most rigorous medical checks possible in the interests of cutting their immediate and long-term benefits. Government expenditure predictions show that they expect to spend less and less on invalidity benefits, mainly in respect of injuries arising from accidents at work.
      Will the Secretary of State comment on the operation of the habitual residence test, which he introduced after his idiotic speech to the Tory party conference, when he said that he would stamp out benefit tourists from Italy? He tried to put on an Italian accent and to speak Italian. He used xenophobic arguments to introduce his test.
      I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how it works. People who go abroad to visit their families, work, or see sick relatives in west Africa, the Caribbean or anywhere else return to this country to be told that they do not merit benefits. They lose income support and the right to receive housing benefit. They can become homeless and children may go hungry—all to appease a xenophobic audience at a Tory party conference.
      Mr. Tony Banks: What happens then is that such people turn up at the borough council's social services department to seek assistance. Again, the problem is shifted to the local authority as a result of Government policy. It is all very well for the Government to claim that they are dealing with the issue, but they are not. They are transferring responsibility to hard-pressed local authorities, which is a disgrace.
      Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right. If people can get through the maze of appealing against a habitual residence test decision, in many instances the result can be reversed, but the family has to suffer the heartache and headache for weeks and weeks, if not months and months. All that was the result of the horrible atmosphere of xenophobia encouraged by the Secretary of State in his Tory party conference speech.
      We have witnessed in our own lifetimes the development of a comprehensive welfare state designed to insure people against poverty, poverty in old age and poverty when out of work. Over the past 15 years, we have seen a systematic attack on those principles. The Government keep saying that the current level of welfare spending is unsustainable—that there are too many elderly and poor people and too many demands on the system. There are not. The Government are more interested in reducing tax for the already rich and redistributing wealth in favour of the wealthy, while letting the poor rot and creating an underclass.
      The Government are fond of quoting international comparisons, but those comparisons show that this country spends rather less on the welfare state than do most western European countries. International comparisons also point up the big con that the
      1132
      Government are perpetrating as a way of cutting back the welfare state. I believe strongly in the principle of a community that supports those in need at all times, not a community that punishes them for being poor and needy.
      We heard a great deal about the international competitive market in the course of the social security inquiry. We were told that our marginal rates of tax are too high in Britain and that we can no longer afford the welfare state. We cannot go on playing ducks and drakes with people's poverty around the world—large employers say that wages are too high in Britain so they will move their firms to Spain unless British workers are prepared to drop their demands. Then the people in Spain are told the same; then the workers in the far east will be told the same, and so it goes on.
      We need international comparisons that eliminate, not create, poverty. We need comparisons that guarantee security instead of creating misery and insecurity. I hope that an incoming Labour Government will reverse the policies of this Government and introduce instead a poverty, or redistribution of wealth, index. Thus, instead of looking at the bald costs of a service, we shall look at the effects of that service and the effects of the social security system as it eliminates serious poverty. I look forward to that.
      Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West and others, I see far too much poverty around me. I see far too many children unable to achieve at school because their families are so poor, with all the attendant poverty of expectations. There are many brilliant minds wasting away on dole queues, many children growing up in overcrowded accommodation—all of which leads to under-achievement at school.
      Our benefits system is failing the people, and the Government are deliberately making sure that it fails them.
      6.1 pm
      Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Much of the debate so far has dealt with past and current trends. We need also to recognise, looking ahead only 10 years or so, that there will be many demands on the social security budget and some newly recognised needs that will need to be taken fully into account. If any Government fail to go in for some radical thinking and some radical restructuring of the social security programme, their leaders, Conservative or Labour, will be left as frustrated Ministers.
      One newly recognised need that I have in mind is the need for long-term care. If Sir William Beveridge were writing his famous report today and assessing, as he did in 1942, the risks that people face over their lifetimes— injury, sickness, unemployment and the likelihood of retirement—I think that he would argue that one of the risks that should be built into our social insurance system is the eventuality that a person will need, if not conventional care, then what we now call long-term care. Many of us who survive into our 80s or 90s will become frail, not necessarily needing urgent medical attention in hospital but needing intensive social care, in our own homes or, failing that, in various kinds of residential institution.
      We all know that many of our constituents need long-term care requiring the payment of thousands of pounds a year, and many of them watch as their lifetime

      1133
      savings disappear because they have to pay for the care if they are not protected by the social security system or social services departments. There is a strong argument for building into our social security system protection against that sort of risk. That will be debated a great deal in the coming months and years; we need such a debate, and we need to examine the different options. If we do cater for that risk, it will place new demands on our social security and national insurance system—
      Mr. Frank Field: One of the other letters that I received was from a woman of 67 whose husband is 72. They have worked hard all their lives and are proud of the way that they brought up their children. They know, however, that, life expectancy being what it is, one or both of them may eventually need long-term care: and they know what the costs will be. They also know what the effects will be on their children; no doubt they will be supportive, but this couple are worried, with fees running at between £300 and £500 a week, that they may outlive any insurance policy that they have. It is not very nice for such people to feel that they may become a burden on their children, who in turn might begin to wish that they would "move over". The family's assets would certainly be endangered.
      The lady writes in her letter that everyone says that she should be insured, but she wonders with whom to insure. It is one thing to know that any money not used up will be paid into the health service; it is quite another to think of a private company benefiting if people die before they need the care. Those problems face many of our constituents, who are worried about losing the free care in the health service for which they have paid but which has been taken away over the past 15 years.
      Mr. Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend. He reminds us that the goalposts have been moved, partly by the Government. Once upon a time, many people spent their final months, when they were ill, in cottage hospitals. Now, increasingly, although we know more about the impact of the wider environment on health care, our national health service is—paradoxically—being encouraged to take an ever narrower view of its responsibilities towards the sick.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): The goalposts have been moved, but not exactly in the way suggested. Owing to an extraordinary distortion in investment over the years, property has been regarded as by far the best place to put money. An enormous number of people have put almost all their assets into their homes.
      Secondly, the age at which children can expect to inherit has risen so much that it has greatly changed many people's need to inherit. Both aspects are ingredients in a debate which, I entirely agree, we desperately need to hold, because this is an important subject.
      Mr. Wicks: I thank the hon. Gentleman. By an historical fluke, inheritance now affects a much greater proportion of the population than it did even 30 years ago—at the very time when long-term care has become much more important. That can set up some delicate problems between the generations.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is keen on examining the correlation between the social security system and behaviour—how some policies
      1134
      promote bad behaviour and others, one hopes, promote good. While some people, through no fault of their own, cannot accumulate assets, others who can, encouraged by the Government and indeed by all parties, own their own homes, or save and invest. It is therefore quite wrong that they should lose all those assets during the last few years of their lives, and watch them being swallowed up simply because they did the right thing and behaved in an economically responsible way.
      Our political parties are turning their attention to this issue now: we are going to hear far more about it in future. One option relates to the social security system, but I must not get sidetracked into a wider debate about long-term care. My thesis is that there will inevitably be new demands on the system in future, so it behoves us to take a radical look at how we spend our social security pound. The needs of families with children, although hardly new, will be discussed much more in the coming months. We are increasingly aware that, in middle England—to use that over-worked phrase—many two-parent families who are not near the poverty line are struggling to bring up children. Increasingly, the costs of children go into the teens, into the university years, yet we are expecting families to pay those costs with less support from the state.
      It is not surprising that people elsewhere in Europe are very worried about low birth rates. It is not surprising that European men, but particularly European women, are finding it too expensive to have babies, which is why on average the birth rate in the European Union nations is now as low as 1.5 or 1.6. In the early 1970s, it was 2.5 or 2.6—that is one child fewer because of the dramatic decline in birth rates. That has come about partly because the women of Europe—less so the women of Britain, where our birth rate is slightly higher—are discovering that it is very expensive to have children. Increasingly, Governments—I know that this Government are doing it in private—are looking at how they can enhance the economic well-being of such families.
      If we want to turn again, so many years after Eleanor Rathbone, to develop a new partnership between the family and the state, that would put added pressures on Government expenditure on social security. Yet social security is already at record levels. Who would have believed 16 years ago—those foolish enough to believe the rhetoric that public spending was going to come tumbling down and that the social security budget would be constrained—that a Secretary of State for Social Security from the new right would be presiding over record levels of public spending in his Department? That is something that will tease the historians in future.
      I believe that there is scope for a radical restructuring of the social security budget. I am not convinced—it would be worrying if one were—by the public expenditure tables and accounts that every social security pound is being spent effectively on what the House would regard as sensible social security objectives. Spending is out of kilter. I shall give three examples.
      My first concerns housing benefit. It is quite extraordinary that the social security programme is so way out of control. Let us remind ourselves of the figures for rent allowances. In 1994–95, we are already spending £4.7 billion on rent allowances. By 2000–01, it will increase to a staggering £8.1 billion. It is quite extraordinary that we are spending that amount on housing benefit. If I, and, indeed, the House, could be convinced that that was

      1135
      sensible social security and housing policy, that would be one thing, but I am not so convinced. The Department of Social Security has been a victim of a housing policy that has neglected the idea of subsidising and encouraging bricks and mortar, and it has, through a means-tested system, with all the problems of the poverty trap that that occasions, decided to subsidise the individual. That has been a green light for the exploitative landlord.
      In my advice surgery some two months ago, although he did not have an appointment, a gentleman rang to say, "I must see you as my MP." He came in with a henchman and said that his problem as the local landlord—a well-known landlord—was that he was no longer getting the money through from Croydon council as quickly as he had in the past. I said, "What do you mean? The housing benefit does not belong to you." He said, "Yes, but I always get my tenants to sign an agreement that the money will come direct to me." I told him that it should not be like that. His complaint was that the council was tightening up and toughening up a bit, was doing some checks and as a result he was not getting his cheques through on time. He was seeking my representations on that.
      I do not believe that the taxpayer supports a housing benefit system that encourages inflated rents, and which in this particular case—it cannot be an exception— involves a cheque going from the public purse straight to the new Rachman landlords of the 1990s, who have been encouraged by the Government's policy.
      Mr. Frank Field: Those cheques are not going only to the landlord, of whatever kind, as they are often for fictitious tenants.
      Mr. Wicks: Indeed, and we have already explored the way in which the Government, despite their annual excitement with the sea air at Tory party conferences, have, in effect, been soft on fraud. There is no doubt about that.
      Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and he is making a thoughtful contribution. This specific issue has featured in a number of contributions. Housing benefit is the one benefit that is handled by local authorities. It was not until the Conservative Government introduced incentives for local authorities to crack down on fraud, and penalties when they do not, that they began to take the issue seriously, as they are now doing. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will also welcome the measures that we are taking to give tenants a stake in getting rents down on above-average rented properties from 2 January next year.
      Mr. Wicks: Because of Government policy, there is a massive housing benefit system, administered by local authorities. We heard a well-earned tribute to those London Labour councils that are not just talking about fraud, because talk comes easy, but are being tough on fraud. Given the Secretary of State's keen interest in this, will he take the opportunity now—I am happy to give way again—to assure us that local authorities will be able to employ the staff to be tough on fraud in the future?
      Mr. Lilley: I can certainly give that assurance. Indeed, they are required to do so. It was the Conservative
      1136
      Government who provided the computer system for 24 London boroughs to co-operate together in combating fraud in London.
      Mr. Wicks: I am encouraged to hear that, but it contrasts rather sharply with some of the evidence that the Select Committee on Social Security is hearing from the Secretary of State's offices. On the one hand we hear evidence that every fraud officer saves the taxpayer a substantial amount of money; on the other we are told that the Benefits Agency is not able to employ more fraud staff because of some extraordinary constraints. The economics needs to be looked at. The rapidly increasing amounts that are spent on housing benefit neither enhance true social security nor represent sensible housing policy.
      Let me move on to another example. Hon. Members have made reference to family credit. I remember when Keith Joseph introduced family income supplement in the House. I was not here, but read about it as a student of social policy. I recall that the cost was some £4 million or £6 million in the first year or so. I do not think that he would have ever dared imagine that spending on family credit would be heading toward £2 billion in a few years' time. We have stumbled into a hole, an expensive new social security policy that is about subsidising the exploitative employer. We cannot easily persuade our constituents as taxpayers that the social security pound should be spent on subsidising low wages.
      There is a clear difference between the political parties. Our arguments for a decent employment policy and a minimum wage are mainly about justice and the fairness of the case, but they are also about using social security pounds effectively. If social security pounds are going to be scarce in the future, as they will be under any Government, it is absurd that we are developing new initiatives to introduce social security programmes for single and childless couples in recognition of low wages.
      Another paradox of new right politics is that the belief that we should not intervene economically and in the labour market, and certainly not make employers pay decent minimum wages, means that the state, commanded by the new right, has to intervene socially through the social security system in a massive way which no Labour Government would ever have dreamed of doing. Soon, almost £2 billion will be spent on family credit because of Britain's low wage policy.
      The third example is income support. Beveridge envisaged national assistance, later supplementary benefit, simply as a safety net. There was to be a national insurance framework and, if people fell through that, for a period of weeks or months they would receive national assistance. Income support has now become in part a major and often long-term social security programme to support one-parent families. Life on income support is a grim life for such families. I do not believe, as saloon bar homily would have us believe, that income support provides a good standard of living, a life of Riley. It provides a terrible standard of living for those mothers and their children, yet, this day, seven out of 10 one-parent families are dependent on income support. The Government have never said that one of their social security objectives is to use income support in that way. It has happened partly because Britain has failed to develop a decent family policy.
      We are having to spend increasing amounts of different social security benefits on what is essentially, yet implicitly, an early retirement programme. Increasingly,

      1137
      many adults, particularly men, are thrown out of the labour market in their 50s. They then have to get by on invalidity benefit or income support with no prospect of work, waiting for their retirement pension. We are now spending substantial amounts of money on that, and again that is a misuse of social security policy.
      We need to liberate the language of social security from social security jargon. The issue is how we promote true social security in Britain. That is an important question when a feel-good factor is absent because there is a feel-insecure factor. If one is concerned about social security, it should not be confused with social security benefits. One starts not with state benefits but with the foundations of social security in a society. The two crucial ones are employment and a strong family.
      Employment has to be the major social security policy. If employment prospects are wrecked and worklessness encouraged, social insecurity is promoted. I mentioned the men thrown out of the labour market. Let me give a statistic because, unlike other hon. Members, I believe that statistics should promote good argument. At present, one in three men aged between 55 and 59—not the five years before retirement, but earlier than that—are not in work. Only two in three are in employment. Yet we have futile debates in the House about whether the retirement age should be 60, 63 or 65, as if that had meaning for the vast proportion of our people. One in three of those men are out of work. A minority of that group are technically unemployed, the others are called economically inactive.
      If some of the economically inactive are new lottery winners, good luck to them. Frankly, new lottery winners will need a good deal of luck if the lottery prize is not to destroy their lives, but most of them are people who have either had to take redundancy packages or have been forced out of work. What we have seen is the rise of the inactive society in Britain. Because of the failure to move back towards full employment, simply too many of our citizens are economically inactive. That is bad news for them and for their families—most do not want it—but it is also bad news for the economy and the social security budget.
      I bring my remarks to a conclusion. [Interruption.] I welcome the encouragement of the Opposition Whip, who I know would like me to go on longer, but I will not. I shall disappoint him as usual. Never please the Whips all the time.
      The role of the Department of Social Security in the future is as a promoter of social security in the wider sense at which I have hinted. The Department of Social Security should not just be obsessed with state benefits. It should ask what are the trends in our society that make for social insecurity and what is the role of Government in promoting social security. The great failure to develop a family policy in Britain is a classic example. The rise of the single, unmarried mother is consuming more and more of the social security budget. Who in Government is taking hold of that issue and asking what are the preventative policies? [Interruption.] Apparently the Minister of State is. If so, he must be less silent on the issue. Who is asking what can be done about that trend, what are the implications for education in schools and for family planning, and what are the wider implications?
      1138
      One could say that that is not the job of the Department of Social Security. The problem is that it is no one's job. In the old days, we had a thing called the joint approach to social policy. The Department of Social Security must become the major advocate for a joint approach to social security in the future. There is an absence now of clear social security objectives. If we could agree on clear objectives, we would see, as I hope that I have argued, that much of the billions of pounds of expenditure is now wasted; it is not used usefully.
      I end with this point. At the moment, there is a correlation between the highest-ever levels of social security spending at a time of record levels of social insecurity. How we move away from that is the key challenge for the future.
      6.26 pm
      Mr. David Shaw: I begin by congratulating two people without whom tonight's debate would not have been possible. First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his Mais lecture speech— it seems like ages ago now, but I believe that it was two years ago—when he started the debate and we began to realise that there were real questions about the affordability of our social security system, especially if changes were not made.
      Some of those changes have been made and some of them have been tough for the Government. One will not please all the people all the time if one is having to say that there will not be benefits for certain groups of people in the future, or that benefits will be curtailed or restrained. Those are tough decisions that must be taken sometimes if one is to run a country on a fair and just basis so that everyone has opportunities in the future.
      I also congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who chairs the Select Committee. He has given us a most enjoyable time discussing this particular subject. We have dealt with many subjects, but on this one we have been able to range widely. We have had much enjoyable debate. There have been times when the hon. Gentleman has been put on the far right of, dare I say, every member of the Committee, and there have been times when the hon. Gentleman has resumed his traditional political position and his position in the centre of the Committee. It has been stimulating. We are confident that the hon. Gentleman finds it easy to stand in for any member of the Committee who may be absent on occasion and put his point of view no matter at which end of the political spectrum that member of the Committee is. Therefore, we have been able to ensure that virtually every perspective has been discussed.
      Having said that, I find it sad that our report should cost £28 while the Department's annual report costs £16.35, a total of £34.35. Most people on social security will not be able to buy those reports. It is ludicrous that something that affects so many millions of people cannot be brought into their households because they cannot afford it.
      Parliament and the Department must consider how to make the reports more widely available. I note from parliamentary answers that no more than 1,000 copies are sometimes available to a population of 57 million. I do not imagine that every man, woman and child in the country will want to read the third report of the Select Committee on Social Security, but many millions might be interested. I have long promoted the Internet and the

      1139
      information super-highway, and I hope that the Department, the Select Committee and the House as a whole will consider ways of providing a wider population with the reports by electronic means.
      Our report started from the beginning, as it were, and asked, "Where is it all going?" Social security currently costs the country some £85 billion; the figure was heading towards £100 billion by the end of the decade before certain changes were made, and it may still touch that amount then. Social security spending amounts to nearly one third of public expenditure, and it has a habit of growing regardless. More people try to claim each year, and although many may cease to be eligible as a result of a change in their circumstances, claimants nevertheless form a never-ending group.
      That causes problems. The main purpose of the original system was to help those in genuine need, but, given the fraud and abuse statistics, there is no doubt that it has failings. It does not always help people in genuine need; it provides money for households where the need does not exist, or is not as great as the claim suggests. We must do more to ensure that those in genuine need benefit.
      We must also ensure that those in temporary need do not become permanent claimants. In many parts of the United States, two-year limits are being suggested in regard to certain types of benefit. Although such limits would clearly not be appropriate for, for instance, the disabled, they would be appropriate for other groups. We should provide incentives to encourage people to work, especially those on income support and unemployment-related benefits.
      As the report points out, one of the main problems is that the social security bill has grown enormously as a proportion of gross domestic product. In the mid-1970s, when we last had a Labour Government, the proportion was 7.4 per cent.; today, even after many years of Conservative government, it is 12.6 per cent. I freely accept that that is an appalling state of affairs. The fact is that, regardless of which party has been in office, the social security bill has increased.
      One good aspect of the way in which the bill has increased under a Conservative Government, however, is the fact that we are now putting nine times as much into benefits for the disabled as Labour did in 1979, the year in which we came to office. Some of that growth has benefited worthy recipients—genuine people whom we wanted to help. None the less, there is no doubt that some of the increase relates to less deserving groups.
      The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and others produce reports suggesting that the growth in the social security bill can continue, but I question the validity of their assumptions. I do not believe that the vast bulk of people want the growth to continue; they recognise that we must invest in industry, technology and business, and that we cannot afford to put ever more money into social security. We must consider our international competitiveness.
      We must also consider the way in which incentives operate. Many would say that, rather than being designed to help people to go to work, they are often designed to help them to stay away from work. Many would say that they are designed to help people to claim, rather than cease to claim. Many would say that they are designed to promote personal irresponsibility rather than personal responsibility. We should deal with such issues increasingly as the social security debate continues, as our Committee intends it to do.
      1140
      In our report, we tried to take account of the possibility of gaining knowledge from other countries, in the context of our competitiveness in business, industry and public expenditure. If our expenditure is too great compared with that of other countries, our taxes and other disincentives will also be too great. We found that in Japan few if any single mothers are kept by the state: the family takes much more responsibility. We also found that the elderly are often cared for by their families, and do not impose a cost on the state.
      There is no doubt that Sweden has a wonderful social security system, but the Swedes do not pay much for it. They have borrowed heavily from overseas, but they must pay the bills in the next century. There are doubts about whether they can afford to do so, as their national debt is now more than 100 per cent. of their national income. Ours is less than half our national income.
      Many problems will arise in the next century, especially in relation to the elderly, owing to the demographic structures that now exist in many European countries. Reference is often made to the inter-generational contract, whereby one generation's contributions pay for the pensions of elderly people. That will be questioned in the future, however, simply because there has not been enough provision in the past for the pensions of the future. We must consider how we are to meet some of the commitments that have been made. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already amended the state earnings-related pension scheme for purposes of affordability.
      I should have liked to say more, but my main point is this. I hope that we shall consider ways in which the private sector can make a greater contribution in the future. Will contributory, non-contributory or income-related benefits point the way forward, or will the state have a smaller role? Will savings and the private sector provide more? I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will come up with low-cost saving schemes in the next few years, and that the Chancellor will support them, so that many more people can have pensions in the future—especially those on low incomes.
      I thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead for a report— much of it the result of unanimity—which, I hope, will take the social security debate into a new phase. I trust that we shall have many similar discussions in which we can explore one of the most important issues facing the nation in the next decade and beyond.
      6.38 pm
      Mr. Donald Dewar: Like everyone else, I welcome the fact that this debate has taken place. It has not been over-well attended, but I congratulate the Ministers on the Front-Bench team. They are all loyally in their place, especially the new recruits on parade. The meaning of flexible labour and labour mobility has been given a new definition by the experiences of the Department of Social Security team in recent times. I thought that perhaps the Department was being used as a boot camp under the watchful eye of the Secretary of State for Social Security to put the younger raw material into some sort of shape.
      At any event, I congratulate everyone who has attended the debate today and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks)—who left just one minute ago but who has sat loyally throughout

      1141
      the debate and who made a speech—because he is the only one who could not, in social security terms, be described as a usual suspect in our exchanges.
      I seriously congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the Select Committee on Social Security. Its report is a valuable analysis. In conveniently packaged and presented form, it gathers together some important facts, and some opinions that, as he, I think, justifiably recorded, were held with remarkable vehemence by the various combatants during their evidence. The report must look forward because it is incomplete. It is a starting point and not a finishing point and it raises issues that are of fundamental importance.
      Sustainability has become something of a buzz word for politicians in a number of sectors, but it is important as a defining factor in social security as well. There is an argument about what it means, and about whether there is a point of no return for social security expenditure and, if there is, where that point is reached. It is not possible to define it in that way as clearly there are burdens that are hard to bear and that one may feel one must bear as a Government and community. Clearly, the point of no return is a combination of the fiscal pain, the political will and the social judgment about the social casualties that may result if that burden is not shouldered.
      All those problems interrelate and bear on each other. They cannot, of course, be reduced into one formula that can be applied irrespective of circumstances at any given time. I take the simple view that there is not a predetermined proportion of gross domestic product that one can say must never be breached, and where, when one has reached it—if one has brought expenditure down to it—one can rest in peace for ever and a day.
      I was interested in the exchanges in our economic debate yesterday, when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury paid his touching tribute to the late R. A. Butler for having in 1955 brought public expenditure as a share of GDP down to 33.5 per cent. Then, in a gracious but inevitable anti-climax, he said that he did not think that he could achieve the same thing. Of course, he is right: he cannot achieve that and none of us could achieve that. It is wrong to conduct the debate in that way.
      We must consider the problems. Some interesting points have been made about some of the new problems and difficulties that will emerge. We must try and balance them against the ways in which they can be tackled, both in the private and public sectors, because, of course, both have a role to play, and we must try to tackle them against the fiscal circumstances that the Government of the day face.
      I am strongly in favour—it would be astonishing if I was not—of further information and having a debate that is based on public information and a well-informed public. It will, I hope, not discourage the Secretary of State to know that "The Growth of Social Security" is a document from which I probably quote more often than any other, because it does, especially if one reads the small print at the foot of the tables, give a fairer picture than is sometimes given of the position in which we find ourselves. I also often quote and find useful the document that the Department produced on international comparisons.
      1142
      It is possible to argue that the European Union is spendthrift in its approach to social protection expenditure. That is a fair point to make, although I do not necessarily accept it, but it is still interesting and important to recognise, as someone mentioned earlier, that social protection expenditure as a percentage of GDP in this country is lower than in the European Union in general.
      It is important that we do not forget the pressures that demographic factors will bring to bear, at least until 2030 to 2040, but it also worth remembering—to quote from paragraph 35 of the Select Committee on Social Security report—that
      "This country is forecast to move from having one of the most burdensome dependency ratios in 1980 to one of the least severe in 2040."
      There is nothing permanent about these states, although it is important that those factors are always borne in mind. I am therefore strongly in favour of information. It helps me, so it is a selfish point, but I hope that it will help the debate as well.
      I also appreciate—I do not have time and it would be wrong to run them through them in detail—the report's points about particular sectors of interest and pressure. Housing benefit has been mentioned. Of course housing benefit is a great growth area of expenditure and it is common ground between myself and the Secretary of State that, whether the policy was right or wrong, it can be traced back directly to Government policy.
      Of course, I want the problems in relation to lone parents to be addressed, but I would state the problems, not in terms of a judgmental condemnation, and certainly not in terms of the scapegoating politics that appeared at least in some parts of Government some 18 months ago, but much more in terms of why, for example, over the years, the number of lone parents in work as a percentage of the total has dropped so substantially. Why has that happened? Given that it has happened, if we can understand why, does it help us to find out how we can get over the problem by offering opportunity to those in that group?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead has probably a more directive view of the social security system than me and possibly the Secretary of State, who has fairly said that he does not believe that one can necessarily change social habits by diktat or Government exhortation. I think that paragraph 57 of the report contains an interesting hint that may or may not represent the mind of the Committee. It remarks, in discussing the group of lone parents who have not had a long-standing relationship that has broken down to produce lone parenthood:
      "How to question the wisdom of this trend, while not blaming the single parents as a group, will call for great political skill. The Committee will be looking in its future sessions at ways by which their route to (never married) single parenthood can be closed."
      I do not know what inference is to be drawn from "can be closed", but I await with some interest how that will be achieved. It is a phrase that has already been commented on to me by quite a number of interested groups, usually with some lack of favour, but of course we will wait to see what emerges at the end of the day.
      In its preliminary description, the Committee is right to draw attention to the fact that, for example, some member of at least half of this country's households receives means-tested benefits. It is right to draw attention by

      1143
      implication—and I am glad that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and figures of great respectability in terms of their dryness have signed the report—to the fact that a contradiction may exist between the condemnation of the growth of means-tested benefits and the by-products of the introduction of, for example, jobseeker's allowance and, to a large degree, incapacity benefit. There are therefore many interesting and important matters to be considered.
      Unfortunately, I do not have time to talk about fraud at any length. I have said already in other forums that it is unfortunate that it has taken us so long to get down to the interesting and important job of trying to define what fraud consists of. The Public Accounts Committee considered that problem in its 58th report published on 27 October 1993. At that time, we were told that efforts would be made for the first time to define the types of fraud. It has happened only now and it is a little belated, but from it some interesting points flow.
      I was slightly surprised to discover that the front-line attack on fraud would come from home visits. I endorse the point that, as some of my hon. Friends said, if there are to be home visits, they should be ensuring not only that fraud and abuse do not exist, but, at the same time, that proper entitlement that has not been taken up is taken up.
      There should be a double purpose for home visits, but I cannot help saying to the Secretary of State that, from contact with the Benefits Agency, my understanding, and I may be wrong, is that, over recent years, home visits have positively disappeared as a result of Government policy. It is a little strange that we are now told that they are to be revived because they are an essential way of fighting fraud. The best thing that we can deduce from that is that fundamental errors have been made in the past.
      Mr. Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Dewar: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am under pressure and I have given an undertaking to allow the Secretary of State some time to reply.
      If the findings of the survey on fraud are accurate, in that only about 12 or 13 per cent. of the total fraud loss came from impersonation, forgery or the stealing of order books and giros—I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead would accept that, judging by his passage on organised fraud—it puts a question mark against the savings that the Secretary of State expects to achieve with his benefit payment cards system. The vast majority of the fraud identified involves people who are working and claiming what they are not entitled to or people who pretend to be single when they are in fact cohabiting. Those things will not be dealt with by the benefit payment cards system.
      I am not taking a hard line on this but, given that the vast majority of fraud will not be touched by that system, the expected saving from the 19 million cards that are to be issued, at an initial cost of £135 million and an estimated running cost of £77 million, could usefully be reassessed.
      I am sorry that my speech has to be so brief, but perhaps we can find another forum in which we can discuss this. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a word or two about a subject raised in the report, which provoked—if that is the right word—the Committee's visit to Switzerland. I am talking about the suggestion about localisation which followed the Mais lecture.
      1144
      I remember the arguments about that and I thought that they had been laid to rest, particularly the arguments about different levels of benefit in different parts of the country. It was raised again on 9 July in The Independent on Sunday. It was a prominent story entitled:
      "Tories plan 'regional dole rates'".
      It said that the cost of living in London is 17 per cent. higher than the national average, and that in Newcastle it is 12 per cent. lower. It suggested that the Secretary of State was considering whether that differential should be reflected in the rate of unemployment and other benefits.
      I understood that that was not on the Secretary of State's agenda, but it would be worth hearing that from him again. It is unusual for a story such as that to appear without at least some prompting—[Interruption.] Well, the Secretary of State can deal with the matter quickly. In the original Mais lecture, the Secretary of State said:
      "It is harder to mobilise local pride"—
      that is, under the present system—
      "to generate positive alternatives to welfare dependence."
      Although I approve of the sentiment that we want to end welfare dependence, given the recurrence of the story, it might look as if that principle still lives. If it does, it should be the subject of an important debate. It would be helpful if the Secretary of State could say a word or two about it.
      I am sure that the House will believe me when I say that I would like to have covered many other things. The Committee's report is descriptive, not prescriptive. It draws attention to the framework for the future and for a continuing debate, which I welcome. There is a long way to go.
      I was interested in paragraph 101, which neatly sets out the future work pattern for the Committee and answers some of the questions with which we are familiar—by "we", I mean those of us who have read the latest book by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, "Making Welfare Work". That book gives a hint about the future of the social insurance principle and so on. It outlines what my hon. Friend thinks should be the future shape of events. It will be interesting to see whether he can carry his Committee down that road as things unfold. Although he expresses his belief in the social insurance principle in a much stiffer way, its general outline is very much in line with what was said by the Commission on Social Justice.
      I recognise that there is great public and political anxiety about where we are going. I may be wrong, but I imagine that the Secretary of State will be saying a word about the Labour party's position. He is not a man who can always resist temptation and I believe that I am safe in that assumption. The Labour party is in hot water with the Secretary of State because it persistently refuses to live up to the caricature that he loves to think is alive and well. The right hon. Gentleman is learning the hard and painful way that it will not sit up to be shot at just to please the Secretary of State.
      The Secretary of State intervened briefly to suggest that the Labour party was in some way being unreasonable by continuing to stress that work should be worth while and that people should not find it financially advantageous to remain on benefit or give up work to remain on benefit. If he thinks that that is unreasonable, he must get used to that sort of unreason from the Labour party. I believe that that is a common-sense approach and that it is right for the future of the welfare system and for those who, at least on a temporary basis, have to use it.

      1145
      We shall continue to argue a responsible approach based upon social need and a system which we hope will reward those who take up the opportunity that it offers while protecting families, children and the vulnerable.
      A number of detailed plans have already been unveiled on welfare into work, and more will follow. The argument is still to unwind, but the general approach set out by myself, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others is right. The application will be different from that which is emerging in Government policy. However, we all believe that that is a matter for the electorate to settle, and on that basis I watch future developments with some confidence.
      6.56 pm
      The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): This has been an interesting debate and the standard of speeches, notably—as one would expect— from members of the Select Committee, has been high. Speeches have been made by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Chairman of the Committee, by the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw).
      There have been some nostalgic speeches from old Labour in the shape of the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). There was the customary elegant speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). With his characteristic courtesy, he curtailed his remarks so that I would have time to reply. I am grateful to him and the least I can do is respond to his specific question about localisation and the reports in the newspapers.
      The hon. Gentleman expressed the belief that, when something appears in the newspapers, it might automatically have some foundation. I can assure him that that has not been my experience. I do not know the origin of the story, but the hon. Gentleman is correct: when I talk about the proposition that, whenever we make a change, we should see whether there is any scope for localisation of the delivery and handling of the benefit, I am not thinking in regional terms or of differences in regional rates. The regional variations in living costs to which the article referred represent mainly the difference in housing costs. The system already reflects that difference through the fact that housing benefit is related to the level of rents in each area.
      I am looking much more to the type of changes that we have introduced on a large scale, through community care, and on a smaller scale, through the changes that I have announced in housing benefit that give greater discretion to local authorities in the handling of that benefit from January next year.
      I particularly welcome the Committee's report on the review of social security expenditure. That report and much of today's debate show how dramatically views on the reform of social security have changed since I called for a national debate in my Mais lecture two years ago. At that time, there was a widespread view that all that our system required was a removal of any restraints on higher spending. In his report "The Future of Welfare—A guide to the Debate", the Labour academic John Hills blithely suggested that there would be nothing wrong, in the long
      1146
      term, with spending an additional 5 per cent. of gross domestic product on social security. By contrast, in this report, a Labour-chaired Select Committee now accepts that the
      "growth of Social Security spending is a cause for concern."
      I recognise that the more realistic position taken by the Committee owes a lot to the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who is almost the only Labour Member who is prepared to face the facts. The very fertility of his ideas should shame his Front-Bench colleagues out of their reluctance to come up with some new policy ideas. To be fair, there were some hints from the hon. Member for Garscadden that they would be more forthcoming in future. I welcome that.
      My medium-term objective when I announced the review of social security spending was not to cut spending, but to stop it outstripping the nation's ability to pay. As I never tire of pointing out, on average, just financing social security costs every working person almost £15 every working day. The cost was set to grow faster than gross domestic product, as it had been doing. Reform obviously takes time. As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said in his recent book:
      "changing the social security budget can be compared to navigating a great oil tanker … once a decision is taken it is a full three miles before any further impact can be made on the direction of the ship."
      The hon. Gentleman granted himself a rather generous 20-year horizon for his programme for reform of the welfare state.
      Reform takes time because most change requires legislation. If, as I usually prefer, changes affect only new claimants, their impact takes time to build up. Nevertheless, the changes that have already been announced should reduce the growth of spending by £4 billion a year by the end of the century and by more than three times as much in the longer term. As it happens, growth in social security spending in real terms during my first three years—which the hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested marked a period of failure—has been less than the underlying rate of 3.3 per cent. a year, although I accept that that is as much to do with the economic recovery as to do with the initial impact of my reforms, which will take a considerable time to build up.
      The real measure of success against which I wish to be judged will be the reduction in the underlying rate of growth in social security. The measures that I have announced should cut the rate from 3.3 per cent. a year faster than inflation to just 1.3 per cent. a year over the next three years, settling at about 2 per cent. thereafter. I do not pretend that that is necessarily enough, but it does mean that the share of GDP taken by social security, which has almost trebled since the war, should decline gently henceforth.
      If Opposition Members complain that spending is still growing too rapidly, they should remember that the Labour party has opposed almost every reform that I have introduced. In effect, the Opposition are telling taxpayers that they want them to cough up the best part of £4 billion a year extra during the next Parliament and £14 billion a year extra in the long term—and that is before implementing any of their, I regret to say, still profligate spending plans.
      The Select Committee was right to recognise that the growth of social security spending is a matter of concern not just because of the tax burden it imposes on people, but because it reflects a growth in welfare dependency. I

      1147
      hope that all of us would prefer people not to be dependent on benefit, but to be self-sufficient. The report illustrates the extent of dependency with the claim, which I am happy to say is mistaken, that half of all households contain someone on income-related benefits. That is incorrect. Some 27 per cent. of all benefit units contain someone on income-related benefits and about 30 per cent. of households do. That is still too high, but it is well short of the 50 per cent. suggested in the report.
      Mr. Frank Field: The right hon. Gentleman should convey that view to the Prime Minister, who used those figures in an article in The Daily Telegraph the day before his re-election as party leader.
      Mr. Lilley: I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was generously quoting the hon. Gentleman, thinking that his figure had been audited. I am happy to put the record straight.
      I want to take this opportunity to address a specific issue raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead in his recent book, which was mentioned in the Select Committee report. The book "Making Welfare Work" is, like everything the hon. Gentleman writes, full of erudition, fascinating insight and interesting analysis and I agree with much of it, but in the final section he makes a number of assertions, as he did in his speech today, about the role of means-tested and contributory benefits which I venture to suggest are mistaken.
      The hon. Gentleman states that the Government have pursued a policy of increasing the number of people on means-tested benefits at the expense of contributory benefits. I do not think that that was ever a deliberate policy of this Government—or, indeed, of previous Governments of most complexions, as there has been an increase in the number of people on means-tested benefits over a long period.
      The hon. Gentleman knows that that growth primarily reflects three things—first, the growth in lone parents, which is the largest single cause of the increase, and he does not suggest that that could be replaced by contributory benefits; secondly, the impact of the earnings dispersion affecting lower-skilled workers, a subject with which I have detained the House frequently and which I spelt out at some length in my Ulster lecture; and, thirdly, the transfer of support for housing from bricks and mortar to housing benefit, which is a means-tested benefit.
      I have certainly not had a preference for extending means testing as an end in itself. In my Mais lecture I criticised those
      "proponents of means tested benefits who emphasise the fiscal savings but tend to ignore the disincentives on claimants."
      I emphasised that other methods of targeting benefits were usually preferable to means testing. As a result, most of the reforms that I have made have involved such methods—changing or tightening up on conditions of entitlement other than people's financial means and making benefits, where appropriate, more conditional.
      For example, my main changes involve equalising the age of entitlement to state pensions for men and women and ensuring that incapacity benefit goes to those genuinely incapable of work. Both remain contributory benefits. Only a tiny fraction of the £14 billion of savings announced so far—some £200 to £300 million—arises from the one reduction in the contributory element, that
      1148
      which relates to the jobseeker's allowance. That will be offset by other measures that will reduce reliance on means-tested benefits.
      I have explicitly ruled out means testing the state pension because that would penalise and discourage people who make additional provision for retirement. The contributory basic pension provides a platform on which people can—and, I am happy to say, increasingly do— build extra pension provision. Indeed, as a result of that, the proportion of pensioners who rely on income support has fallen since income support was introduced. That is an area in which there has been less reliance on a means-tested benefit.
      The hon. Member for Birkenhead is not being remotely realistic when he suggests that contributory benefits could replace means-tested benefits for everyone who is out of work, thereby—as he implied—restoring incentives, eliminating fraud and saving money. In the first place, any form of unemployment benefit, whether contributory or not, must be means tested against earnings. Both unemployment benefit and income support are withdrawn if people earn more than a certain amount. Consequently, both contributory and non-contributory benefits for people who are out of work are equally likely to act as a disincentive to work and to create opportunity for fraud through working without declaring the work.
      The suggestion that replacing income support and housing benefit by contributory benefits could save money is simply untenable. All of us who look realistically at social security know that there is a great prize to be gained if the budget can be curbed, but we also know that there is a political cost to be borne from those who have to forgo the money that we save.
      We would all love to find a philosopher's stone that enabled us to spend less without creating losers. The hon. Member for Birkenhead seems to think that replacing means-tested benefits with contributory benefits is the stone. If it was, I should have no hesitation in stealing it from him, but, alas, there is no such thing in the sphere of social security as a philosopher's stone that would enable us to curb benefits without creating some losers.
      A switch from means-tested to contributory benefits could save money only if some people who currently get means-tested benefits did not get the contributory benefit that replaced it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not seriously propose to let people who have not been able to pay contributions starve or go without benefit. He plans to pay their contributions for them out of taxation so that they would still get benefits. It would be much like the present system, but with the names changed.
      I will believe that the hon. Gentleman's system offers me the prospect of savings when he tells me who will be the losers from it. He is more forthcoming about who will be the winners. He implies that people who are not in work but excluded from benefit because they have a working spouse or sufficient savings to support themselves will be entitled to benefit. The cost of that would be very considerable indeed.
      I hope that we can all agree that the best way to save money, and the way in which we are all obliged to seek to save money in the social security system, is by curbing fraud and abuse. I am glad that all hon. Members who have mentioned the subject have supported that view. The attack on fraud has always been a priority for me, and the Department has been increasingly successful in detecting

      1149
      and stopping it. The figures that I announced this week show that some £717 million of fraud was detected—well over £60 million ahead of the target that we set ourselves.
      A couple of hon. Members suggested that we are not being sufficiently vigorous on housing benefit fraud; it is expected that an additional £170 million—double the savings last year—will be saved in the current year. That is in addition to the savings made by the Benefits Agency and is the result of the changes that we have introduced to incentivise local authorities to set about combating fraud in their areas. Many of them simply were not doing so before. In future, they will be penalised if they do not. They will be helped by the computer system that we have provided, initially for the London boroughs but which will possibly be extended nationwide, if it works, to help combat cross-border housing benefit fraud.
      However, prevention is better than cure. We have been developing a strategy that is a quantum leap from a system based on detecting fraud that has already happened to one that prevents and deters it. In the past, we have been hamstrung by our ignorance of how much fraud there was and what sorts of fraud were going on. Unfortunately, those who defraud the system do not report to us. No one reports fraud as people report other crimes.
      No other country has, up to now, found a means of measuring the amount of fraud. I have been wrestling with the problem since I came to the Department. During the past year or so, we have been carrying out pilot studies. We have tried to involve outside research bodies.
      We have finally developed a system of benefit reviews which, I believe, represents a breakthrough, nationally and internationally, in providing us with a measure of fraud and a baseline against which we will be able to measure future success in preventing it. That, in turn, has enabled us to spell out our strategy and the three main methods that we are proposing in a programme of 20 different projects, details of which I have put in the Library.
      First is the benefit payments card, which is designed, first and foremost, to stop abuse of the payments order book system. It will also contribute to the elimination of identity fraud, but the savings on abuse of the order book system—the giro system—will provide substantial savings that, alone, are sufficient to justify the change we are making.
      The second method is more home visits and checks on people to ensure that they do not make a fraudulent or false claim initially and do not subsequently become false claimants through failure to report a change in circumstances which renders the original claim invalid. The third string to our bow is more data matching and the use of information technology so that we can identify false claims and focus our effort on areas where false claiming is greatest.
      1150
      The programme that I have announced has generated a very positive response nationwide, as have the changes and reforms that I have introduced in the welfare state as a whole. Indeed, I found myself the recipient of rather unfamiliar praise from newspapers such as the Independent and the Evening Standard. That seems to have provoked the Leader of the Opposition into a speedy attempt to sing our song in another outbreak of karaoke conservatism, as I have labelled it in the past.
      Hon. Members will recall that, last October, the Commission on Social Justice published its report. Most commentators rightly dismissed it as 400 pages of uncosted waffle, but the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) begged to differ. After all, it had been commissioned by his predecessor and was the product of almost three years work by 16 prominent Labour sympathisers. He described the report as
      "a remarkable piece of work … undoubtedly the most significant and comprehensive analysis of the welfare state since Beveridge … The Labour party",
      he pledged,
      "will now discuss the proposals themselves."
      Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield gave another speech on welfare. He did not mention the commission or its proposals. Instead of 400 pages of uncosted waffled, it contained only 400 words of—hon. Members have guessed it—uncosted waffle.
      The right hon. Gentleman went on to indulge in imitation—which, I am told, is the sincerest form of flattery—of my approach to the welfare problem. He first followed me by setting out six principles. He then tried to do so by aping Tory language, but Labour's approach has only three principles. The first is to mimic Tory rhetoric. The second is to oppose any policies that are actually consistent with that rhetoric, and the third is to avoid any commitment to specific policies of its own. In short, Labour's only consistent welfare policy is hypocrisy.
      As the hon. Member for Birkenhead said, reform of the welfare state is becoming the central issue of the politics of our time. It is the key problem facing all Governments worldwide. It will be a key issue in the forthcoming general election, as it was in the major election upset in the United States. This debate has shown that we are winning the welfare debate. I believe that that bodes well for my party and for the country.
      7.18 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: The debate has shown, at least to me—and this is a surprising finding—how limited is the Secretary of State's view of the impact of social security changes on people's character. While he may worry about new Labour, we clearly have no need to worry about old Toryism. I think that we will continue this debate on Monday.
      Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

    Class III, Vote 3

      Animal Diseases (Prevention and Control)
      [Relevant documents: Fifth Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1993–94, Health Controls on the Importation of Live Animals (House of Commons Paper No. 347–1), the Government's reply thereto, Cm. 2735 and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Intervention Board Departmental Report 1995: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98, (Cm. 2803).]
      Motion made, and Question proposed.
      That a further sum, not exceeding £263,921,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for cash limited and demand led operational expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to: promote food safety, take action against diseases with implications for human health, safeguard essential supplies in an emergency, and promote action to alleviate flooding and coastal erosion; to encourage action to reduce water and other pollution and by other measures to safeguard the aquatic environment including its fauna and flora, to improve the attractiveness and bio-diversity of the rural environment and protect the rural economy; implement MAFF's CAP obligations efficiently and seek a more economically rational CAP while avoiding discrimination against UK businesses (including expenditure on existing CAP measures and schemes), to create the conditions in which efficient and sustainable agriculture, fishing and food industries can flourish, take action against animal and plant diseases and pests, encourage high animal welfare standards; provide specialist support services and allocate resources where they are most needed; provide for some inter-agency payments and undertake research and development.—[Mrs. Browning.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss vote 4. I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democratic party.
      7.19 pm
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate issues raised by the Agriculture Committee's inquiry into health controls on the importation of live animals. I note that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Liberal Democrats, and I understand that the subject that they wish to raise is about the health of animals within the United Kingdom. I shall not, therefore, go down that road but shall simply deal with our report. I do not wish to minimise the importance of the other subject, which relates to tuberculosis in badgers. As my Committee will investigate the whole of the dairy industry, I have no doubt that we shall receive evidence from the west country on that emotive but important subject during the autumn when we take evidence.
      When we set out to do this inquiry, we decided to concentrate on two separate subjects: first, the movement of live animals, particularly farm livestock, into the UK under the new single European market rules; and, secondly—the importance of this area became apparent to us—the rules concerning rabies, quarantine and the importation of pets, particularly dogs and cats. We were fortunate to be advised by Mr. Howard Rees, formerly chief veterinary officer with the Ministry of Agriculture,
      1152
      Fisheries and Food, and the late Mr. Tony Crowley, formerly head of the MAFF rabies section, who had advised the channel tunnel company on rabies prevention. We were shocked to learn that, sadly, he had died shortly after our report was published.
      Those who simply believe everything that they read in newspapers may think that our report was only about rabies. It was not. However, the interest in that matter is fully understandable so I shall deal with our findings on rabies and quarantine first. Before doing so, I quote the Government's response to our report as it relates to farm livestock. It says:
      "The Committee's investigation of this subject, including those incidents in 1993 linked to imported animals, is a valuable service to the public as it puts the disease threat firmly into perspective and refutes the more extreme and alarming predictions about imported disease made by some in the agriculture industry and the veterinary profession."
      We approached the question of rabies in a similar fashion. We were open-minded, sought perspective and appropriate solutions, listened and made recommendations. I may not speak for the whole Committee, but it would not be unfair if I said that at the outset the majority of us felt that quarantine was absolutely necessary. The fact that we then unanimously agreed to move away from quarantine shows that we took evidence with great care. The result is perhaps all the more remarkable for the fact that our initial prejudices were moved.
      The deep-seated concern—indeed, hatred, worry and fear—about rabies is well merited. Rabies is an extremely unpleasant disease. If no treatment is given, it results in a lengthy, horrible and painful death. Furthermore, the antidote to a dog bite in a country where dog rabies is endemic consisted of a series—more than 30—of extremely unpleasant injections straight into the intestine. So not only was it a frightening disease but the treatment was none too good, either.
      MAFF has been spending some £750,000 a year on advertising the horrors of rabies in all ports, airports and some railway stations. It has been issuing leaflets about the dangers of rabies and a great culture of fear of the disease has been generated.
      Let us examine the position as regards human beings. There are two sorts of rabies: fox rabies, which is endemic in Europe; and dog rabies, which is endemic in Africa, India, South America and elsewhere in the world. I have never met a Frenchman or German who worries about getting rabies. Our European neighbours do not regard the fact that some wildlife has rabies as a particularly frightening factor.
      Moreover, science for human beings as well as for animals has moved on. I understand that, if one is bitten by a rabid dog in India today, provided that one receives the antidote within two to three days, one would have no problem in surviving. The antidote is now a series of injections—five or six—rather like tetanus, so it is not as frightening as it was. The official advice from doctors if one is travelling in those countries is that, unless one expects to be more than a week away from medical attention, there is no need to be vaccinated against rabies. So we must put the whole matter in context. The world has moved on, and medical science has changed.
      Nothing that the Select Committee has recommended or would want to do would increase the chance of rabies entering the United Kingdom. We emphasise that point at

      1153
      the beginning of our report and say that our recommendations would not endanger the desirable rabies-free status of these islands. I remind the House, however, that the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order was passed in 1974 and is therefore more than 20 years old. As I said, science has moved on in the human and animal worlds and the current rules are now outdated and expensive. I shall say a word about animal welfare in a moment.
      Our recommendations should provide protection at least equal to, and arguably better than, the present quarantine arrangements. We have recommended a belt-and-braces system whereby a pet cat or dog would be permanently identified by tattoo or implanted chip. It would be vaccinated and then tested to ensure that the vaccination had taken. In any event, we have recommended importation of cats and dogs only from Europe and countries where rabies is not endemic.
      The present system has two great weaknesses. The first is cost. Various figures have been given to us, but it seems unlikely that six months' quarantine for a dog would cost less than £1,200 and it could be as much as £1,800 or £2,000. For a cat it would be less—£800 or £900. None the less, it means six months' confinement. We all know that smuggling goes on and I have some figures on that. However, the inducement now is to get over those expenses and there is a very positive financial advantage if one can smuggle an animal into the UK.
      I shall now discuss animal welfare. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) is sitting behind me. He takes a strong interest in animal welfare matters. I would say to him and to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that to lock up a domestic pet in strange surroundings for six months, if not cruel, is highly stressful. The figures show that a proportion of cats and dogs do die in quarantine, and it is probably accepted that that is frequently a result of the stress induced by being parted from their owners.
      We recommended that animals would be allowed into the United Kingdom without quarantine only in certain circumstances. The animals must enter from another European Union state or a country that is recognised as being rabies-free and which carries out appropriate policies to maintain its rabies-free status. They should be permanently identified by a unique number, which should be marked as a tattoo or contained in an electronic microchip. They should have spent at least six months continuously in the approved country before becoming eligible to enter the United Kingdom. Thus, a dog that had come from India would have to pause elsewhere in the European Union for at least six months if it were to be eligible for the scheme, and there are very few cases of dogs carrying rabies for six months.
      The animals would have to have been vaccinated with an approved inactivated rabies vaccine at the age of three months or older. About four months after vaccination, a blood test would have to be carried out by an approved laboratory to determine whether the animal is immune from rabies. The four months between vaccination and blood testing would act as a pseudo-quarantine period.
      After being blood tested, animals can enter the UK within 12 months of the initial vaccination. If they travel frequently between the United Kingdom and approved countries, they must receive annual booster vaccinations
      1154
      and travel within one month of such vaccinations being administered, and then only subject to a satisfactory blood test.
      The pet owner would have to obtain an import licence from MAFF, specifying the port and time of entry into the UK, and the divisional veterinary officer responsible for the point of destination would have to be informed. Finally, the animal would have to be accompanied by a passport giving a record of its vaccinations and its health certification. That is a pretty demanding and onerous requirement—certainly more than we require of any human being that I know. If there was any failure to comply with such requirements, the animal would have to go into quarantine or be re-exported. We recommended that, at this stage, quarantine should be required in all other circumstances.
      What are the risks? What are the real risks of a rabid dog entering the country? They are very slight. Since 1972, 100,000 dogs and 50,000 cats have been through the UK quarantine system, of which only two developed rabies—one dog from the United States and one dog from Zambia, countries which, under our proposals, would continue to be subject to quarantine.
      It is worth bearing in mind the fact that, as I said earlier, the rabies in Europe—the strain adapted to foxes—is not nearly as threatening to human beings as dog-adapted "street" rabies in other parts of the world. Dogs and cats can contract fox-mediated rabies, but it would seem that they are unable to pass it on.
      We have recommended a system similar to that introduced in Sweden. Sweden has been rabies-free since 1886. It has two borders, one with Norway and one with Finland, which are open borders. It has a high reputation for animal health. It wishes to remain rabies-free, yet it has adopted that system. Even more remarkable, when we went on our visit to Denmark, we found there a country with a 50 km open border with Germany, where there is endemic rabies, and not far away—and from time to time a rabid fox will cross into Denmark and cause trouble.
      The Danes have gone much further than the Swedes; they have allowed importation of dogs from any country in the world, with a passport, a certificate of vaccinations but no double test. I doubt whether any country in the world relies more for its living on a clean health chit than the Danes do. Their main livelihood lies in dairy and pig products, and without a high reputation for health standards, Denmark would find it extremely difficult to make its living exporting, as it does, worldwide.
      In addition, the prevalence of rabies in Europe is decreasing rapidly. The World Health Organisation report shows that, between 1989 and 1994, the annual number of cases of rabies in European Union member states fell from a peak of 8,509 to 1,582, and it continues to fall. That is entirely due to the European Union's oral vaccination programme, using inoculated baits for foxes. We were privileged to have a briefing on that matter. The original bait was chicken heads. The foxes thought that that was quite clever and used to collect them up, 15 or 20 at a time, so it was not the most economical method of vaccination. A new and more luscious bait was therefore devised which apparently produces in excess of 80 per cent. successfully vaccinated foxes. Once the amount of rabies in a fox population has dropped below a certain level, there are not enough host animals to sustain it, so that programme is proving extremely successful. I should

      1155
      say that it was never our intention that we should import foxes or, for that matter, any other wildlife from the European Union.
      The Standing Veterinary Committee in Brussels calculated that, if 1,000 unvaccinated dogs per year were picked randomly from the population and imported into the United Kingdom, it might be expected that a dog incubating rabies would be imported once every 1,250 years. If 5,000 dogs were imported randomly each year from Germany, which is the European Union country with the greatest incidence of rabies, only one animal every 31 years would be expected to be incubating rabies. With vaccination and blood testing, that already remote risk would be reduced even further.
      We should consider what motive might drive someone to seek to bring in a rabid dog. Every pet owner wants their pet to be healthy. They spend money on inoculations; they will take it to the vet; they want it as their companion. If some malicious person wishes to introduce rabies into the country, they could have done so a long time ago illegally anyhow, so what are we defending against? The answer must be the cost and welfare considerations.
      I have explained that the vaccine technology has changed since the Waterhouse report. The Waterhouse committee was set up after a case about 20 years ago. The modern vaccines were available in the late 60s and early 70s and even then quarantine was recommended, but nowadays there is a substantial smuggling problem. Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who earlier said how difficult it was to find or quantify cases of social security fraud, I fear that we have no way of quantifying smuggling, but it is worth bearing in mind that, between 1985 and 1993, HM Customs and Excise dealt with 492 cases of illegal entry involving dogs and 273 involving cats—and I suggest that that is very much the tip of the iceberg. One does not have to go very far to find examples. Among our forces in Germany, one can hear a good deal of talk about how they might get over some of the little problems, such as the six months of quarantine and the cost involved.
      We see the present system as a ludicrous and unnecessary waste of money. We believe that it is bad for animal welfare and distressing for the owners, and that it restricts freedom of movement. I read in an evening paper today that the Battersea dogs home spends £40,000 on advertisements about the problems associated with people turning their pets out at the beginning of their holidays, leaving them on the streets and abandoning them. Pets could go with their owners to Spain, Italy, France or wherever these people go. Much more importantly, the French, the Italians and the Spanish could bring their dogs here. I understand, although it is not mentioned in our report, that the barrier to bringing pets here is a serious inhibition to tourism. If we had the arrangements that we have in mind, people could bring their pets with them and it would be good for business.
      The Government's response was that they were quite happy about our recommendations on farm livestock, presumably because they suited the Government's purposes. We remain extremely surprised, however, at the negative response to our recommendations on rabies. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in her place and I am sure that she will wind up with encouraging words.
      1156
      She will recall that on many occasions we have argued strongly that Ministers, when taking advice on technical matters from their scientists, should do what their scientists tell them. We do not understand why the scientific advice that Ministers are being given on this subject is so at variance with the experience of countries such as Sweden and Denmark. I shall therefore press my hon. Friend to make her case clearly.
      This week, the British Medical Association sounded off on the subject of rabies. There followed a series of statements in the association's report, mostly restricted to the basic principle that if we have not had rabies we should not change anything because the system has worked. Of course it has worked. We are simply saying that there is a better way to achieve the same objective. There is quite a piece in the BMA recommendations about foxes—I was a bit mystified by the BMA's apparent expertise on foxes—and the British Veterinary Association took a similar view. It just so happens that Mr. De Vile, who is president of the BVA, served on the BMA committee as well. Presumably his prejudices have been carried from one organisation to the other.
      Sir Roger Moate: I think that I heard my hon. Friend say a moment ago that he recommended that the Government should accept scientific advice. Does my hon. Friend not cast the BMA and the British Veterinary Association as sources of good scientific advice? Why does he reject their advice?
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I certainly do not. However, if my hon. Friend studied the BMA report, he would find that there is nothing at all scientific about it. It is simply a statement of prejudicial facts, written on BMA paper. It is very irresponsible of such an organisation to produce statements based on prejudice and not on fact.
      Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it not the case that, if the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) had been on the Committee six months previously, he would agree with the hon. Gentleman today? He would have changed his mind too.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) has to say in a few moments.
      When the Community passed the Balai directive, the United Kingdom found itself in a difficult position. Here was a directive which said that, if people complied with a series of precautions not dissimilar to those that we have suggested—although somewhat more stringent, I admit— so-called traded dogs and cats could come in and out of the United Kingdom without quarantine. In theory at least, that system has been working for a few months.
      The conditions are so stringent that, I understand, the few dogs and cats to have tried it have mostly failed the tests. However, the fact is that the Government, advised by their scientists, are prepared to allow traded dogs and cats to come in and out, but are not prepared to allow this to be the case with pets. What is the difference? What is the difference in risk? Surely the Government are right to agree to the principle. In that case, it is quite illogical not to agree to its extension.
      The international panel of experts on animal diseases— the Office Internationale des Epizooties—sees a system of vaccination and blood testing as a perfectly viable alternative to quarantine for rabies. Even the BMA, about

      1157
      which I was not very polite just now, suggests only that quarantine should remain until additional requirements can be fulfilled. My Committee feels most strongly that the UK should move towards a more rational and appropriate means of protecting our rabies-free status.
      I am delighted to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Front Bench, and I welcome him to his new position. We look forward to having him in front of our Committee in due course. I hope that he has been listening with an open mind to this debate and that he will, in due course, study our report with care.
      We are having to wait until other countries, such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, have satisfied us that all their precautions work perfectly well. For a country of our size, that is a great pity. In a debate in the other place on 15 March, Earl Howe—then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—hinted that with effective enforcement, alternative systems could provide the same level of assurance as quarantine. That would be a welcome step forward in Government policy since the reply to our report was published. Incidentally, during that debate, of the nine Lords and Ladies who spoke, all except the Minister were in favour of our report and against quarantine.
      To deal briefly with the subject of farm livestock, we found that there was considerable feeling about various problems which had arisen, especially in relation to warble fly. Imported animals had clearly been given fraudulent certificates or had simply not been properly inspected before being imported. We had a look to see whether the new arrangements, under the single market, were satisfactory. We considered foot and mouth disease, brucellosis, Newcastle disease, Aujeszky's disease and many others which cause farmers a great deal of concern.
      Diseases in animals are detrimental to the animals themselves, to good husbandry and to the wealth of farmers. Disease threatens livelihoods and the survival of businesses. Some diseases are transmissible to humans, putting the health of farmers, farm workers and their families at risk. We in the United Kingdom have never taken lightly the diseases of farm animals, and nor should we. Our island status has allowed eradication of the worst livestock diseases and has prevented others from becoming established.
      Our high animal health status has been achieved at great cost and we should not allow the Community's rules, or anybody else's, to reduce that status. Between 1983 and 1990, £38 million was spent on eradicating Aujeszky's disease, of which pig producers contributed £27 million. Indeed, I remember replying to an Adjournment debate on that subject and reminding farmers that, although we were happy for Aujeszky's disease to be eliminated, we did not see the Government contributing too much to that effort. As I have said, the farmers contributed most of the money and there has been a very successful campaign which must not be damaged.
      We fully understand that the single market caused the farming community some concern. The new system of veterinary checks is very different, and there was considerable concern, especially in the case of cattle, that it might have been at fault. The Committee did not find that to have been the case, but we recognised that things had changed.
      1158
      Under the previous system, importers applied for an import licence from MAFF and the animals were then certified by the vet in the country of origin. The certificate was then checked on arrival at the point of entry in the United Kingdom and the animals were held for a further 21 days as a precaution, particularly against foot and mouth disease.
      Both those procedures have now changed. The European Union adopted an eradication scheme for foot and mouth and it is now free of that disease. The United Kingdom could no longer justify the 21-day holding period, and it was removed in 1992. As of January 1993, point of entry checks were abandoned in favour of spot checks and checking at the point of destination.
      Under the new system, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is notified of animals to be imported, the points of entry and journey plans via a Europewide ANIMO computer network. It was not working particularly well when we went to see it in operation, but the officers were managing very well with faxes and they seemed to know when and where the animals were coming from, so we were satisfied that all was in order.
      The removal of the point-of-entry holding period for foot and mouth disease eliminated an economic barrier to the import of lower value cattle as dairy replacements. Livestock has been bought recently from countries such as Holland and France because it is cheaper than the rather higher class stock that is available in the United Kingdom. Between 1990 and 1993, the number of cattle imported from France and the Netherlands increased from 90 and 150 to about 6,200 and 5,500 respectively. With that increase in numbers came a heightened disease risk, which we accepted.
      The Committee considered that the majority of problems were caused by the increased volume of imports and by the type of animals imported—particularly those originating from behind the former iron curtain. Some of the disease scares may not have been detected under the old system. That is particularly true of imported cattle infected with warble fly larvae and those vaccinated against foot and mouth disease, which contravenes the principles and rules of our scheme. We decided that there was no disease time bomb and we gave a general endorsement to the system, which was borne out by subsequent events.
      The Committee was concerned that some aspects of the system needed fine-tuning. We urged the Government to ensure that the European Union devoted sufficient funds to the Community veterinary fund to allow the disease control and eradication programmes to operate effectively. There is a substantial problem with swine fever in Germany, and the Germans are very keen to give up their slaughter policy and return to inoculation and vaccination. That would be completely wrong, and it would undermine the purpose of the central programme.
      We urged the Government to make clear representations to the European Commission about the need to consider and rapidly approve the additional trade guarantees which allow member states to impose conditions on imports where special circumstances apply. Perhaps more importantly, we suggested that there should be a one-week compulsory holding period for imported animals at the point of destination to allow the state veterinary service to conduct appropriate checks on health certificates. That point of destination could well be the

      1159
      farm of ultimate destination, but the animals should be kept separate and examined. That is a common-sense precaution.
      We also suggested that the European Union should instigate measures to assure itself that the standards of veterinary training and of the state veterinary services in all member states are of a uniformly high standard; that adequate penalties are applied to any veterinary surgeon who is found to have falsely certified an animal; and that certification procedures throughout the European Union are harmonised, with documentation in the languages of both the importing and the exporting countries.
      It was very difficult to get the vets and Ministry officials to admit to the Committee that the training schemes for vets in Greece were not adequate, but I can tell the House that they are not. The European Union was wrong not to take a more open approach to the issue. It investigated the veterinary services in all member states and reported its conclusions to the state concerned, but it did not make the report available elsewhere. It is crucial to the operation of a health scheme that those who certify animals are trained to an adequate standard. We have the highest standards of qualifications and experience in this country and we should insist upon the same standards in our EU partner countries.
      The Committee was grateful that the Government were in broad agreement with its main recommendations, but it would be helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), could indicate what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations.
      We suggested that stock imported into the United Kingdom should be marked with specially coloured tags and we found it difficult to understand why the Government failed to accept our recommendation. Their view was that the new animal identification system, which was introduced under directive 92/102/EEC and came into effect in the United Kingdom on 1 April 1995, would ensure that an animal's country of origin could be established. However, I am afraid that the Government have missed the point of the proposal. We wanted to ensure that an animal in a pen with a special coloured tag could be identified immediately as an imported animal. It should stand out as such, as occurs in other countries in the European Union. That was virtually the only recommendation in that part of the report with which the Government did not agree.
      We welcome the fact that MAFF has relaunched the "Don't import disease" campaign. We hope that we set out the principle that those who buy stock abroad should ensure—if necessary at their own expense—that the stock is healthy before bringing it into the country. We would like to know more about the progress of Government efforts to persuade the EU to publish the full Bendixen/Dexter report on the quality and structure of veterinary services in member states, to which I have referred.
      The Committee also dealt with problems with horses, birds and fish. Hon. Members will be interested to learn that yesterday MAFF appointed a new inspector of imported fish. While we welcome that move, there are many other problems to consider also. Caged birds continue to be smuggled into the country and the prices at which they are advertised for sale clearly show that the birds have not come through the normal importation
      1160
      procedures. We are worried that bird smuggling will lead to the introduction of Newcastle disease, which could have a disastrous effect on our poultry industry.
      I will not go into the details of spring viraemia of carp or viral haemorrhagic septicaemia and other such matters, as they are set out in the report. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will mention them in her winding-up speech.
      We believe that the recommendations in our report, whether relating to the importation of farm animals or to protecting the United Kingdom from rabies, were based on a thorough assessment of the risks and that they constitute appropriate responses to the threat that is posed to the United Kingdom's high health status. We are disappointed at the Government's seemingly blinkered defence of the status quo with respect to rabies and quarantine and we hope that the new team will rethink the matter. The Government do not appear to dispute the facts on which our proposals are based, and we have detected a growing hint of acceptance in recent Government statements. Let us hope that that acceptance will grow a great deal more this evening.
      7.57 pm
      Ms Jean Corston: As a member of the Agriculture Select Committee, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on our report entitled "Health Controls on the Importation of Live Animals". The inquiry took place because of the need to remove barriers in a single market, but I think that every member of the Select Committee was determined to ensure that we should not use that as an excuse for relaxing health controls when importing animals into the United Kingdom, because over the years we have achieved very high health standards, particularly with domestic pets and farm livestock.
      I was particularly concerned about the vulnerability of fanners who purchase livestock from abroad, as it seems that they will receive only a warranty and an indemnity against purchasing a sick animal. I believe that such a warranty and indemnity would not be enforceable in law, and therefore not worth very much. In that context, holding periods for livestock and coloured ear tags to identify imported livestock would prove a useful protection for farmers. For example, the Danes use coloured ear tags on imported pigs, and if the Danes can do it, I see no reason why we should not do so.
      As the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), said, a great deal of the Committee's time was spent examining the rabies question. I began the investigation absolutely convinced that rabies was right, that we ought to keep it— [HON. MEMBERS: "Quarantine."] That quarantine was right. I apologise, and I thank my hon. Friends for putting me right.
      I was absolutely convinced that quarantine had protected this country against rabies—a disease that all of us find utterly horrifying—and that at all costs our report should conclude with the recommendation that quarantine should stay. I make no apology for being persuaded by the evidence that I was wrong. A system of vaccination with an inactivated virus followed by blood tests would be much more satisfactory than quarantine and would serve the needs of pet owners and the general population.

      1161
      In living memory there have been two cases of rabies in dogs in this country: one in 1969 in Camberley and one in 1970 in Newmarket. Both dogs had been through quarantine and developed rabies subsequently. I notice that the British Medical Association report, to which reference has been made, says that quarantine, which was introduced in 1901, has been effective since 1971. If a dog develops rabies after quarantine, we should first consider that indication of its effectiveness.
      The other thing that I did not know about rabies was that there are two kinds. The kind that most of us are terrified of—the image of the dog salivating—is dog rabies, which is endemic in parts of the world such as the Indian subcontinent and, primarily, the southern hemisphere in Africa. In Europe, fox rabies occurs. In that context, the fox vaccination programme in the European Union was one of the aspects of EU policy with which I was impressed. With fox rabies, the dog which is bitten, if a dog is ever bitten by a fox—it does not happen often— is called the end host. The dog almost never passes on the rabies.
      To people who are concerned, shake their heads or look puzzled, I say that there is no difference between fox rabies in a dog or a cat and fox rabies in horses, sheep and cattle, because all mammals are susceptible, but that does not stop imports of farm livestock. Nobody suggests that we should not bring in horses, sheep or cattle or that they should all be locked up for six months to see whether they develop rabies, because we think that the risk is so negligible that it is not worth considering. Yet we say that precisely such rules should apply to domestic pets. That inconsistency of treatment between domestic pets and farm livestock was one of the first reasons why I became uneasy about quarantine.
      It is important to remember that the last known death of a human from rabies in Europe was in 1928 in France, and that since then excellent vaccines have been developed against fox rabies and rabies in humans.
      Between 1972 and 1993, a total of 150,720 dogs and cats went through quarantine, during which time there were only two cases of rabies: one of a dog imported from the United States of America and the other of a dog from Zambia. Both had dog rabies from countries where dog rabies was prevalent. There was not a single case from areas where fox rabies was prevalent. That leads me to conclude that, although the risk is minimal, we obviously want to guard against it, but with a better system than quarantine.
      I consider quarantine a blunt instrument. It costs approximately £1,200 to quarantine a dog. I note that the BMA discounts the possibility of smuggling and says that there is only anecdotal evidence of it. It is not anecdotal. The Chairman of the Select Committee gave the figures of detected cases, which amount to about 100 a year. That is probably the tip of the iceberg, because travel between the European continent and Great Britain is now much easier. The volume of traffic has increased enormously because of the channel tunnel and cross-channel ferries, and opportunities for smuggling have grown tremendously.
      Sweden, a country which I admire, has been free of rabies since 1886. I think that it is right to say that the Swedish are as concerned about their health and their protection from the risk of rabies as we are. The Select
      1162
      Committee went to see the Swedish system in operation. It was launched on 1 May 1994, it involves vaccination and subsequent blood testing to ensure that a dog is rabies-free, and it seems to be virtually foolproof. Seeing that system in operation finally convinced me that it was the way forward for this country.
      The Committee proposes a system which is better than quarantine. It involves microchipping or tattooing the dog or cat, vaccination with an inactivated vaccine, testing the blood for the effectiveness of the vaccine after four months and requiring that the animal is brought into the United Kingdom within a 12-month period with an import licence and an animal health passport.
      As Select Committee members and people who are responsible for animal welfare and public health in this country, we want a better system and one that does not encourage smuggling. We have to set that, as I have said, in the context of the channel tunnel, the growth in ferry traffic and the fact that the single market provides for the free movement of workers. If people have a right to move between countries of the European Union for work, the question should then arise: what about those with domestic pets? How will those people behave in the face of Britain's quarantine system? That problem is not confined to service personnel; it affects many people's work, holidays and other situations to which I shall refer.
      I congratulate the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on one achievement: it has had the most tremendous success in terrifying people about the risk of rabies. The placards showing the skull and crossbones at every port put the fear of God into everybody—they have certainly always terrified me, and were part of the reason why I thought that quarantine was a thoroughly good idea. During our inquiry, it was pointed out by a couple of experts from whom we took evidence that Britain was becoming the laughing stock in Europe on this issue, and I believe that that is true.
      Although the risk might be minute and it is vital to have a safe and secure system, the issue of quarantine is important for certain groups of people. Recently, the House has been quite rightly concerned about civil rights for disabled persons. I ask hon. Members to stop and consider the case of guide-dog users. Guide-dog users cannot travel if they are British because if they leave the country with their dog they cannot bring it back until it has been quarantined for six months. That is ridiculous. There should be a system under which a dog can be protected from rabies, humans who have any contact with that dog can be protected from any risk and a blind person can enjoy foreign travel like the rest of us.
      I have concluded that our policy on rabies is a little like the man who used to go round snapping his fingers all the time. Somebody finally asked him why he was doing it and he said that it was to keep elephants out of the country. When it was pointed out that there were not any elephants in the country, he said: "It just goes to show how effective it is." It seems ludicrous to suggest that a policy that keeps out dogs, the ineffectiveness of which was shown in 1969 and 1970, should not be replaced in the modern world with a system that, with the free movement of people, provides for the protection of animals and public health.
      8.9 pm
      Sir Roger Moate: The great privilege of serving on the Agriculture Select Committee was bestowed on me only a few months ago, so I carry neither blame nor credit for the report.
      Throughout my political career, however that might be described, I have always been sceptical about Select Committees, but I have come to appreciate the quality and quantity of the work undertaken by the Select Committee on which I serve. I was most impressed by the commitment shown by its members of all parties and by their non-partisan approach to matters that are examined in the Committee's latest report.
      I was also impressed by the professionalism of the staff in respect of matters of extreme technical difficulty and physical sensitivity. The work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) in conducting the affairs of a difficult lot with great humour, diligence and application was first-class. As with the report, a tremendous amount of high-quality work is done by the Committee and I was agreeably surprised. I hope that I may enjoy continuing to serve the Committee for some years.
      The report's introduction emphasises how seriously the Committee's latest and other investigations are taken. The report is impressive, but I do not agree with its conclusions. Incidentally, although the report required a visit to Scandinavia, we also visited the quarantine station at Heathrow airport, quarantine kennels near Deal, a farm near Rugby, the Folkestone terminal and, inevitably, Brussels. I place that on record for the benefit of critics outside the House, because that is hardly a Cook's tour of exotic destinations.
      One criticism I have of Select Committee reports is that their conclusions are too general, too wordy and insufficiently politically challenging. In this case, the proposal to change quarantine policy is specific, clear and challenging—and in my view, totally wrong. I agree with the Government's response and look forward to hearing the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister. I welcome the Government's determination to maintain the existing quarantine system, and I am glad that policy is strongly supported in the powerful paper from the British Medical Association that was circulated to Members of Parliament earlier this week.
      I do not ignore for one moment the powerful voices in favour of change. I read the Select Committee and British Medical Association reports thoroughly, but I can claim to have read the evidence only to the extent that the Chancellor of the Exchequer read the Maastricht treaty. However, it is an impressive dossier. I read carefully the impressive evidence from pet owners, who pay the price financially and emotionally. The stress of enforced separation for six months, or for ever in many cases, is a real factor that I do not disguise.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) referred to the single market argument. The Conservative ex-MEP for East Kent, Christopher Jackson, presented a powerful report on the subject from the point of view of the European Parliament. I do not underestimate the dramatic progress made in Europe in controlling rabies and its elimination in many parts of the continent—a remarkable change in the life of our nation and of the continent. However, the European Union is enlarging rapidly to the east and will no doubt do so to the south, to the Mediterranean.
      1164
      In a few years' time, the EU could have twice the number of member states. It would be a brave man or woman who asserted that those new frontiers will be as rabies-proof as the frontiers of the EU's present members. One welcomes the optimism that rabies might be eradicated in the EU by the turn of the century, but there are overwhelming arguments against the likelihood of that happening.
      Britain can be thankful that it is free of rabies, while Europe can rejoice that the disease is being defeated on the continent. We must not, however, lose sight of the horrifying nature of the disease. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare almost struck a note of complacency with regard to the nature of the disease elsewhere in the world. He said that the world has moved on, but the good research paper produced by the Library states:
      "Worldwide, around 6.5 million people receive treatment every year after being bitten or scratched by dogs, and 33,000 people die each year from dog rabies."
      As the hon. Member for Bristol, East said, most of those deaths occur in India. My point is that the world has not moved on that much.
      The hon. Lady said also that she was frightened by the skull and crossbones posters at ports. That is a good thing, because—even if the Select Committee's recommendations are accepted—the threat of rabies will remain, from all the non-approved countries in other parts of the world. I hope that small and large ports throughout the country would still display skull and crossbones posters to stop the entry of rabid animals from the many countries that will not become rabies-free.
      Ms Corston: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Select Committee recommended that quarantine should stay in the countries to which he referred.
      Sir Roger Moate: That was my point, so posters would need to remain and we would have to maintain justified public fear of rabies returning from other parts of the world.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare referred to the horrifying nature of rabies. Anyone who doubts its effects will find in the Library paper a couple of pages that make gruesome reading. It is easy to understand why we are so concerned to ensure that there is not the smallest risk of rabies being reintroduced into this country.
      I have often thought that our island status has given us the best of all worlds. It makes us a strong nation state and allows us to be one of the most international outward-looking nations on Earth. At the same time, our island status allows us to be insular when that happens to suit our purpose, which has proved a superbly successful bastion against rabies in particular. The quarantine system has not only worked remarkably well but has given the public crucial confidence—the belief that we are and can remain a rabies-free nation. That confidence is a priceless asset. If there were at any time a revival of the fear of rabies, which could be generated by fox rabies as much as dog rabies, there would be serious consequences.

      1165
      It is proposed to remove that bastion and end the quarantine system and to replace it with a system of pet passports, chips and tattoos.
      Ms Corston: Vaccines.
      Sir Roger Moate: Yes, the pet passport is a record of those. I do not want to trivialise these techniques, especially as they are being used by other nations.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: My hon. Friend is perfectly right about the fear in people's minds. He is a well travelled man. Would he say that his friends in France and Germany ever talk about this matter, or worry about it, or take any medical precautions? The fact is that they do not.
      Sir Roger Moate: I suspect that the issue would seldom be a topic of conversation because Britons travelling abroad have become so used to not taking their pets with them, as they know that they cannot be brought back here, that they have long ceased discussing it. My hon. Friend is right: only fox rabies is a problem in those countries, not dog rabies—but that is not the point. My hon. Friend himself said that the system that he is proposing is far more onerous and demanding than any that we apply to human beings, so he is not really suggesting free movement at all. The logic of his case is that there should be free movement, without controls or vaccinations.
      I do not want to trivialise or minimise the value of the pet passport, even though someone suggested to me earlier that it might mean queues of black labradors waiting to have their passport photographs taken. I realise that microchips are seen as a useful form of international control, but we cannot take tattoos too seriously, although the Committee seemed to do so. The Government point out that tattoos on dogs are hard to read and are easily altered.
      My worry is that all these systems are easily susceptible to fraud and error. Documents are easily forged, and information for computers and microchips can be easily tampered with when it is being put in. Such systems require scrutiny at a very limited number of ports of entry. As I understand it, we do not have the structures to allow these inspections to take place.
      I ask the House to compare these proposals with the certainty that the quarantine system gives us. The only element of uncertainty comes with smuggling, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has already said, the new regime would be onerous and time-consuming—and there would still be smuggling. That possibility is not eliminated.
      I suspect that most caring pet owners will not break the law and do not break it now. The fact is that six months' quarantine, although painful to some, is a system that gives the public great confidence that the disease is unlikely ever to re-enter this country. The BMA states:
      "Although the risk of a rabid animal entering the country is small, the consequences could be disastrous … Changes to the British way of life … would be far reaching. All pets would require vaccination; everyone involved with work with animals would need to be vaccinated; and any bite or scratch from a sick animal … would have to be treated immediately. The well-known British affection for animals would have to be tempered by caution".
      Ms Corston indicated dissent.
      Sir Roger Moate: One cannot deny that these would be the consequences. In the past, the spread of rabies was
      1166
      prevented by the muzzling of dogs. It is noteworthy that one of the contingency plans of MAFF for the outbreak of rabies would be poisoning foxes with strychnine, at serious risk to other animals. No one in his right mind wants to risk that. It is a fair point to make to distressed pet owners facing enforced separation from their pets under the quarantine system that the pain, suffering and cost of the spread of rabies would be far worse for pets and people alike.
      I want to turn briefly to the question of risk, because that is what the argument is all about. How much greater would the risks be, if at all, if we abandoned the quarantine system and adopted the system of vaccination and microchips? It is here that I found the Select Committee's report and the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare least convincing.
      He said that we could import a rabid animal, in certain circumstances, once every 31 years. That is the statistical consideration. I remember severe floods in the town of Sheerness in my constituency one Christmas in the 1970s. Several hundred houses were flooded, and we were told that it was a one-in-a-thousand-year flood. A week later, the same houses were flooded again, but we were told that that did not alter the statistics— it was still one-in-a-thousand-year flood. So much for statistical averages.
      I was therefore not impressed with the idea that only a very low risk is involved. I believe that, when the system was changed in Finland to one similar to what is proposed by the Select Committee, 10 times as many animals were imported to the country. Given the pet-loving nature of our nation, I suspect that there would be a huge increase in the number of pets brought to this country as well. The risks must therefore be seen in the context of a tremendous increase in the numbers.
      It is easy to say, as the Committee does, that these risks would be small; but I prefer the verdict of the BMA, which says that one case introduced into a susceptible population may be enough to start an animal epidemic. I do not know why we should change a system that works and which brings with it so much confidence.
      When it comes to foodstuffs, pesticides, herbicides, nitrate levels and organophosphates, we are told by the scientists that we should take no risks whatever. I remember the recent carrot episode, when it was discovered that one carrot in thousands might have too high an accumulation of something unpleasant. The whole system had to be changed, and the British population was warned to top and tail its carrots before eating them raw. The margin of safety had been reduced from 100 to 93— a minuscule change, but apparently we must not take risks with carrots. On the other hand, it seems that we can with rabies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come on."] It is the same. If we take the scientific advice, we should have to decide that, if there is any risk at all in removing the quarantine system, we ought not to remove it. Most of us fear the rabid fox more than we do the carrot.
      The Committee went wrong by failing to understand the incalculable value of the sense of security that has been achieved by current procedures: they work and they inspire confidence. Pet owners going abroad know the rules. Over the years, the British people have come to accept the system. Of course there are many who do not like it, but it is seen by the vast majority as an effective system. Preventing rabies from re-entering the country must be our paramount object. It is only when rabies has

      1167
      been virtually eliminated around the world—diseases are being eliminated around the world—that we can contemplate abandoning our unique advantage of the ocean barriers which have allowed us to operate a highly effective quarantine system.
      8.28 pm
      Mr. Paul Tyler: I beg to move,
      That Class III, Vote 3 be reduced by £1,000 in respect of subheads B2 and D2 (Talcing action against diseases with implications for human health (PP2): current costs).
      I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that our amendment is merely a device to underline the urgency and sense of frustration that a great many right hon. and hon. Members feel about some very difficult questions. Indeed, if the rules of the House permitted it, we would seek to increase the sum available for this purpose, not to decrease it.
      I want to touch on rabies only briefly, because I want to discuss three other matters of concern to a large number of hon. Members. I also want to mention BSE, bovine TB, and sheep scab and blowfly. I do not do so as my party's spokesman on those issues, because there is a great deal of cross-party, non-partisan concern and interest. I have been fascinated to find that, on balance, I shall be on the same side as the Minister on rabies, and with the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate), although I do not take such an apocalyptic view, which he appears to take, about the Select Committee's recommendations.
      On the other side, I notice that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has the cross-party support of the Committee. There has already been an eloquent explanation from the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) on why Members have changed their minds on the subject. I am sure that we are all seeking the same objectives. We arrive at them, perhaps, by different means.
      I now deal with the Select Committee's report. I have the highest regard for the Select Committee—although I am not a member of it, and perhaps that increases my respect—collectively and individually. It has done the House a considerable service, not just with this report but with much of the other work that it has done. I believe, however, that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, as Chairman, did not do justice to the arguments when he dismissed out of hand the concerns of the British Medical Association and the British Veterinary Association. I shall refer to those associations in a moment.
      My approach—I am quite frank about it—is that I wanted to be persuaded by the Select Committee. I would have been delighted to feel that we could move away from the present restrictions, because I am only too conscious of the concerns and the unfortunate effects that the present arrangements have on pet owners—not just service personnel, as the hon. Member for Bristol, East said, but the large number of people who now travel for work purposes and who find that they cannot take their pets with them. We should recognise that the recommendations of the Select Committee will not solve that problem overnight.
      On the BMA report, I shall quote from the guide that we have been given by the doctors, in which they say:
      "Britain cannot tolerate any lowering in the standards of precautions for keeping rabies out of Britain, as the consequences of their being breached could be so great. Although quarantine is
      1168
      very expensive for those individuals who use it, the costs of eradicating rabies, if this were actually possible, once it had entered Britain, would be very much greater."
      I notice that the Select Committee, in its reliance on the Swedish example, is not followed by the BMA, which points out in its own report, published on Monday of this week, that the Swedes have not experienced, and did not expect to experience, a reduction or elimination in smuggling as a result of the change. The report says:
      "A risk assessment of Sweden's then proposed vaccination system, carried out by the Swedish Board of Agriculture, concluded 'It is by no means self-evident that smuggling will be reduced if the rules are altered' (from quarantine to vaccination and certification)."
      So let us not be fooled into thinking that even those who have the experience on which the Select Committee places such reliance really expected to stamp out smuggling or have experienced a reduction in it.
      The BMA and the BVA have demonstrated to great effect the differing circumstances in different countries. They point, for example, to the prevalence and growth in the number of urban foxes in the United Kingdom, which is totally different from anything experienced in the Scandinavian countries referred to in the debate.
      In the circumstances, we have to take seriously the misgivings of the professionals. It is wrong simply to sweep them aside as if they did not matter, or to say in the words, I think, of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), "Oh, well, they would say that, wouldn't they? They have a financial interest." That reduces the value of the debate, and we have to take seriously what they say.
      The BMA says of a rabies epidemic that there would be
      "massive killing of wildlife in affected areas, muzzling of dogs, keeping cats housebound and killing strays."
      That is not a prospect that any of us can consider with equanimity.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I did say, although not today in the House, that I was suspicious of the motives of the BVA, and I did imply that there might be some financial incentive in the quarantine system. I am convinced that that is not true and that is wrong, and I wish to withdraw it publicly. Indeed, if our system were to be adopted, I suspect that the veterinary profession would gain handsomely from the work involved in vaccination and certification.
      Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It was actually an Opposition Member who made that suggestion this evening. It is precisely because I think that the hon. Gentleman and his Committee have taken a level-headed approach to the issue, and I sympathise with it, that I regret the fact that they were rather dismissive this evening of the misgivings of the BMA and the BVA. I am with the Minister on this issue. I hope to demonstrate to her that, on this issue at least, I take a non-partisan view.
      Sir Roger Moate: It is very courteous of the hon. Gentleman to give way. He suggested that I was being apocalyptic. In fact, I was quoting from the same sources as he is and used almost exactly the same words as those that he has just used.
      Mr. Tyler: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman made, but I still think that perhaps he

      1169
      overplayed his case. On balance, this is not the right time to make the change. I understand that to be the position of the Ministry.
      I now deal with BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy—I think that I have just about got it right—or what most people call mad cow disease. I ask the Minister, as this is the first opportunity that we have had to do so, to explain precisely how the Ministry views the changes in the arrangements that have been announced in the past few days. We have all assumed that the ban on the use of potentially affected parts of animal carcases in feedstuffs was the essential element in our protective system, and that once they were out of the food chain, we could look forward to a substantial improvement in the situation. That has been the accepted wisdom of the scientists who advise the Ministry, and, indeed, Members of the House.
      However, the EU Commission's decision this week to change the arrangements, apparently under pressure from the German Government, raises some difficult questions. We are told on the one hand that it raises questions about the scientific basis on which our Ministry has been operating. It suggests that perhaps there is some way in which the disease can be inherited from cow to calf— otherwise, how can the Commission possibly justify changing the date—or, alternatively, that somehow the possible sources of the disease have remained in the food chain for longer than was previously anticipated. I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that.
      I notice that the Meat and Livestock Commission had at least two views on that last Thursday. One veterinary officer was saying that it would make it easier to export from this country to other member states in the European Union, while another was saying that only
      "a sea change in the attitudes of German consumers to beef"
      would result in any change in the export situation.
      The critical issue, surely, is: are the policies, to which we refer in our amendment and which we are debating tonight, still as scientifically and intellectually substantial? Can we rely on them in the same way as we have in the past, if, as seems likely, the EU has changed its stance and raised questions about the matter? We need to know whether our Government are satisfied with the integrity of the scientific thesis on which they are operating, and if they are not, is it just German protectionism in disguise?
      I now deal with bovine tuberculosis. The Minister and I had a brief exchange on that at Question Time last week and she has been kind enough to write to me since. I wish to make it absolutely clear that I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject; no doubt other hon. Members are more expert than me. I look to the Select Committee—it has done a very good job on many subjects, including the import of livestock—as being the only effective mechanism that we have to get evidence from a wide range of different interests where clearly the reputation and credibility of the Ministry are in question, and they are in question.
      I recall a briefing by the Minister's predecessor, which I have no doubt other hon. Members recall, on the subject of TB—it must have been two or two and a half years ago—when we were given to understand that there was real confidence that a change in the Ministry's policy in terms of live testing would not eradicate—we would not
      1170
      expect that—but would dramatically change the situation. We were all given real confidence that that would be the case.
      We have to look at the figures. We can dispute the exact scale of increase. The Minister has been kind enough to point out that the extrapolation of the figures that I gave the House last week would imply a steady rise over the year, and that may not be true. I accept that. But the Minister has also been good enough to say:
      "I am very worried about the incidence of bovine tuberculosis … the cause of that is badgers."—[Official Report, 6 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 505.]
      If that is true, I have to tell the Minister that an increasing number of fanners no longer believe it. I have had examples in my constituency, which I have brought to the Minister's attention, where the testing of badgers produced no results, where there is no obvious badger activity in the immediate surrounding area, where the animals have not had contact with other neighbouring farms, where there are few visitors to the farm and where it would seem that there is no obvious connection between a contaminated badger sett and an outbreak of TB. There are several examples of that, and farmers are as worried about it as anybody else. Yet the system relies entirely on the assumption that the circle of infection is due to badgers, as the Minister said again last week.
      The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) may be equally positive that badgers are not to blame, but I am more sceptical. [Interruption.] No doubt in due course the hon. Gentleman will put his view. I am an agnostic. All I do know is that dairy farmers and the animal welfare groups do not believe that the Ministry can continue with the present policy without independent objective analysis from outside the Ministry. It cannot remain judge of its own case for any longer.
      It is for that reason that I have urged the Ministry to accept the need for such a study. If it can be included in the Select Committee's currently projected studies into the dairy industry, so be it, but if it has to be a separate study, I hope that the Chairman and the Minister will co-operate in some such independent objective inquiry. Otherwise, I cannot see how the two sides in the argument will stop their dialogue of the deaf.
      In the meantime, I hope that no one is under any illusion about the substantial cost to the industry. I have here an example of a farm in Gloucestershire that was extensively analysed in a recent edition of Farmers' Weekly, where the estimated cost of the testing, direct movement restriction, changing farm policy, insurance costs and so on is £111,000. That is a net cost after compensation has been received. It is a huge sum.
      The farmer, Mr. Rowe, says:
      "MAFF is so behind with badger trapping that, in some cases, there is a six to 10-month gap between a breakdown and trapping … We shall have to turn our stock out on to pasture which is riddled with badgers that we know have TB. A badger vaccine, with food used as a vector, is the main answer. Otherwise TB in cattle will continue. MAFF knows the problem but it needs more funding from the Treasury."
      There are other examples.
      I am sure that hon. Members from dairy areas will be able to confirm that there is real concern about the lack of resources. Even if one accepts the MAFF thesis, the lack of resources means that there is a long delay before action is taken. I had another example at my advice surgery last weekend, of a farmer who was crying out for

      1171
      live testing. Apparently, the veterinary service is prepared to provide it, but the lack of resources means that there is a long delay.
      It is the responsibility of Members of Parliament to monitor, scrutinise and call the Government to account. That is the precise purpose of today's debate. I do not pretend that I have a solution to every complicated aspect of the problem. I certainly have not. A great many much wiser heads than mine have been applied to it. But what I do believe is that, just as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare could claim that his Select Committee had approached in an open-minded and thorough way the problem of the import of livestock, it should be asked to look at this problem with exactly the same approach.
      Finally, I come to the problems of sheep scab and blowfly and the products that are used to treat and prevent those diseases in sheep. The Minister has been kind enough to meet a small all-party group on a number of occasions, as did previous Ministers of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Members for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) and for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I think that the Minister acknowledges that there is all-party concern.
      Here we have a problem where the animal disease that we are seeking to cure is not going away, but at the same time the apparently most effective way of dealing with it has the most horrendous side effects in terms of human health. The products to which I am referring are the organophosphorous compounds that are most often used in sheep dip to try to deal with those problems.
      For many years, sheep scab was a notifiable disease. For many years, the Ministry effectively enforced twice yearly and then, for a few years, annually, the compulsory dipping of sheep. Suddenly, in 1992, without much warning, that was removed, either, according to one version, because sheep scab had been eradicated or was in the process of being eradicated, or because, according to another version, it did not seem to be doing much good as there was still a lot of sheep scab about. They were curiously conflicting arguments.
      Whatever may have been the rationale then, the rationale now is surely inadequate. Since 1992—the Ministry has just issued some more information—sheep scab has been on the increase. The Ministry has been monitoring carefully what has been happening in markets. It cannot give exact and detailed figures but, as a result, it is increasing sheep scab surveillance. The Minister has announced in my part of the world in the south-west that fines of up to £5,000 are possible for sheep scab—not, it should be said, under the notifiable disease legislation, as I understand it, but under some environmental health or animal cruelty legislation. That is fair enough. Sheep scab is a serious disease.
      But hon. Members surely cannot be satisfied when the Government are spending quite a lot of money, as is the industry, without achieving any improvement. All we are doing is causing a great many people the discomfort, cost and, potentially, the damage to their health, from a product that clearly is not the answer.
      At the meeting with the Minister on 28 June, she undertook to examine urgently a number of specific issues affecting human health with her opposite number at the Department of Health. I hope that this evening she will briefly—I understand the difficulties of time—refer to the outcome of those discussions.
      1172
      One of the issues that we specifically asked the Ministers to address was the apparent correlation of high suicide rates in some parts of the country, which appeared to follow closely on some of the areas where dipping with organophosphates was most prevalent.
      I have a letter here from one of the consultant psychiatrists who has particularly studied the problem, Dr. Davies, of the Avalon NHS trust based in Taunton. He not only draws attention to the weight of evidence, from his own experience and that of his colleagues, of a connection between sheep dip exposure and high suicide rates, but offers his services to try to improve the amount of information that could be available to the Department of Health on this specific issue.
      In that letter, Dr. Davies says:
      "I am sure that if dealing with a pharmaceutical agent, such a weight of evidence would result in its withdrawal from the market and I find it difficult to understand why the same criteria are not applied to environmental toxins. Every organophosphate exposed fanner that I have interviewed, whether as a NHS referral or part of my research activities, has admitted to intense episodes of suicidal ideation well beyond the 'life is not worth living' stage."
      I hope that the Department of Health will take that evidence as seriously as I know the Minister does. I also hope that the offer to undertake additional research into the effects of organophosphates in terms of neuro-psychiatric toxicity will be taken up.
      There are ways in which the Minister can respond proactively. For instance, we must return to some form of notifiable disease arrangement if the industry is to take sheep scab seriously. A return to the old compulsory dipping scheme will not be sufficient, however. I hope that a compulsory treatment scheme using the new products—the non-OP dips that are now available, and the injectables—will deal with the problem more effectively. Ironically, there is now a blowfly that is immune to OPs, while some humans at least seem to be sensitive to them.
      We must recognise that manufacturers of new products will not be able to reduce the unit cost, allowing take-up to be effective in the industry, until some help is given with the transition. I hope that, now that it is recognised that the use of OP dips imposes considerable costs on the industry, the Ministry and, indeed, the health service, the Government will find a way of subsidising the transition to allow the withdrawal of those products and the introduction of new products that are safer for all concerned.
      I am sorry to have had to cover so much territory at such speed, but this is an unusual opportunity. I am grateful to the House for listening so patiently, and I hope that in due course the Minister will respond to all four of the points that I have made.
      8.52 pm
      Mr. Roger Gale: I wish to return to the general question of the Supply estimates, which relate largely—although not exclusively—to animal welfare and animal health issues. Let me again thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the diligence with which she has promoted animal welfare issues throughout the European Union, and welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister to his new job.
      On behalf of the all-party animal welfare group, which I chair, I applaud the sentiments that my right hon. and learned Friend expressed at the opening of the new offices of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons last week. I

      1173
      was delighted to learn that he intends to target the banning of veal crates as the Government's next objective. I hope that scientific evidence will enable real progress to be made by the end of the year.
      We have dealt largely with matters relating to the single market and open frontiers. It has been said—correctly— that free trade in animals sometimes means free trade in diseases. In recent months, there have been outbreaks of equine viral arteritis. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary laid an order relating to the control of EVA in the United Kingdom. I hope that, when she winds up the debate, she will be able to give us some idea of the measures that Ministers are taking to control the movement of shedding stallions, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the European Union.
      Contagious diseases have also been imported in culled sheep from Poland and Spain. In a number of instances, animal diseases that we had thought to be either under control or eradicated in this country have been imported. That demonstrates the need for rigid controls in the country of origin, and strict on-farm quarantine when animals arrive in the United Kingdom.
      Outbreaks of that kind underline the importance of veterinary education and the maintaining of veterinary standards throughout the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned that in connection with the Select Committee report. Is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary able to make a further announcement about the availability of European Commission funds for veterinary education? We had the impression that the Commission would look favourably on that, but there seems to have been a hiatus. A settlement is overdue.
      Clearly, in the minds of the media, this is "the rabies debate". I mentioned free trade in diseases. I have no wish to see rabies spread throughout the United Kingdom, but I believe that, if there is a free trade in diseases, there is also a free trade in hysteria and prejudice, particularly about rabies. I am persuaded by the scientific arguments—as, clearly, are many other hon. Members— that the time has come to make real progress.
      I listened with interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, and I studied his Committee's excellent report with great care. Like earlier speakers, I started from the premise that the controls that we have, we hold; they work, and we should not mend things that are not broken.
      Let us examine a couple of the myths. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said that quarantine worked. Does it? That must be the first myth. We know that animals are smuggled into this country on ferries, possibly—now—through the channel tunnel, and on sailing yachts entering the many ports along the south and other coasts. I am told—much of the evidence is anecdotal—that it is relatively easy to obtain an anaesthetic for a dog in northern France. One can knock out the dog, chuck it into the boot and put a blanket over it and it wakes up after half an hour through the tunnel, 45 minutes on the hovercraft or one hour on the ferry, somewhere in the United Kingdom. The risk of detection is minimal. If one weighs that risk against a bill of £1,000 or £1,200 for six months' quarantine—we have heard various figures—and the real distress that one feels at
      1174
      having to quarantine one's animals, it must seem worth taking. Yes, the penalties for detection are severe, but the chances of detection are fairly remote.
      The stories are anecdotal, so let me put my own anecdote on the record. As chairman of the all-party animal welfare group and a Kent Member of Parliament, I received a third-party approach from an American, apparently resident in Switzerland, who wanted to bring a dalmatian into the UK and, peculiarly, sought my advice as to how that could be done by bending the rules. I had to say that he had come to the wrong person, but the approach was made.
      The second myth is the huge number of cases. It is a half-myth; it is a misrepresentation of fact. I took part in a radio discussion on Saturday morning with an "expert" on this subject who said that there were 15,000 cases of rabies worldwide every year, but I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham that, based on a House of Commons Library report, there are 30,000 or more such cases in India alone. I am not sure where these figures come from, but the implication is that they affect us throughout northern Europe and the UK. Perhaps someone in the House can tell me when the last case of human rabies was detected in northern Europe. I do not think that the British Medical Association referred to that in its report and I have no reference anywhere else.
      What I do know, because the figures are given in the report produced by the Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, is that 150,000 dogs and cats have been imported into the UK since 1972 and that, as was mentioned earlier, out of those 150,000 animals, two from third countries developed rabies; none from the European Union developed the disease. No one I know is suggesting that there should be any relaxation of the rules from third countries. We are considering the European Union specifically at present.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: Rabies-free countries.
      Mr. Gale: I am coming to that.
      I want to ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, not to give an answer tonight, because if I receive one tonight, it will be no, but to consider two proposals. First, will she consider that we should allow the importing of animals owned by members of the armed forces and by members of the diplomatic corps, and the importing of guide dogs owned by anyone, provided that they are vaccinated, have proper documentation, have had blood tests and are identifiable?
      In the case of forces personnel coming from rabies-free countries such as Cyprus, I see no difficulty with that. It would be possible to vaccinate a dog or cat six months before return, because the date of return is always known, to have that animal examined by an officer of the Royal Army Veterinary Corps and certified as okay. At present, soldiers and airmen coming from Cyprus having done a two-year tour of duty have two choices: they either bring the family pet home and kennel it at a cost of some £1,200 for six months, or they use the services of the excellent British Army Rescue Centre to have the animal rehomed in Cyprus.
      There is—I was going to say a trade, but it is not a commercial business—an enterprise that recycles family pets so that outgoing services families are able to take on, not unwanted, but unimportable animals left behind by their return home. That is daft, unnecessary and inhumane

      1175
      and there is no reason for maintaining it. If we cannot trust the members of our own diplomatic corps to have their animals vaccinated and properly documented, and allow them to move around the world without having to quarantine their animals every time they are brought home at the end of a tour of duty, we should be able to.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) mentioned guide dogs. Clearly, certainly in the European Union, we should be able to make immediate provision for people travelling abroad or returning with guide dogs, provided that they are properly documented.
      My second proposal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is this. In her letter to me of 30 June, in response to a constituent's inquiry, she said:
      "It is possible to regulate commercial imports through a system of vaccination, blood testing, controlled transportation, advanced notification and checks at destination. It is difficult to see how checks of this kind could be applied to pet animals travelling with their owners. At the very least, to ensure the same degree of certainty about the health status and identity of the animal would require a considerable increase in administrative action and administrative costs."
      I am dreadfully sorry, but I do not accept that. We usually agree, but on this issue my hon. Friend is right in the first half of the paragraph but absolutely wrong in the second.
      I want to make a proposal. I want my hon. Friend to introduce a pilot scheme through the ports of Ramsgate in Thanet and Dover, two of the most widely used Kent channel ports. Initially, my proposal would not allow the importing of animals from the European Union, but would allow the reimporting of animals taken out from the United Kingdom by United Kingdom citizens going on holiday. That should be done provided that those animals have been vaccinated six months in advance of travel, have been blood tested after six months, have a canine or feline passport certified by the vet who carried out the test and that they are microchipped to what I hope will become the FECAVA—the Federation of European Companion Animals Veterinary Association—common European standard of identification.
      Given all that information, I can see no reason why it should not be perfectly feasible to allow a family to take a dog or a cat on holiday. They would book on to a given ferry—which they do anyway—and have the animal placed in a holding kennel at the port upon entry.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham referred to black labradors. I happen to have a black labrador and I would love to take it on holiday with me. We do not want a long queue of cars at ports, so I would be happy to leave my animal in a holding kennel. I would be happy to allow that animal to be collected with others on the same day and taken to a quarantine kennel where it would be blood tested again and identified. I would then collect my animal from the quarantine kennel. There would be no massive bureaucracy at the port and no massive cost except to me, the owner. If I am prepared to pay the entire cost, I cannot see why it is not possible to do it.
      There is an added advantage. We have had representations from members of the Quarantine Kennels Owners Association who have justifiably expressed concern about the future of their considerable investment in their facilities. I believe that, with the system that I have outlined, they would benefit from the trade in animals coming in from third countries where quarantine would continue and from the additional business generated by those who would use the kennels on their return from holiday.
      1176
      I am fortunate in that I never leave my home unattended so my animals stay at home. Not everybody is that lucky. Some people have to put their cats or dogs into kennels or catteries for a fortnight when they go on holiday. I cannot believe that those people would prefer to put their animals in a kennel for a fortnight rather than for two or three days. Equally, I can see no reason why the quarantine kennel should not have the business that would be generated by such a scheme.
      I can see no risk to animal health in the United Kingdom from that process. I believe that if we can establish that that works on a pilot basis, it should be possible to extend the process of vaccination, blood testing and microchip identification to the whole of Europe so as to allow European Union citizens to bring their animals into the United Kingdom on the same basis.
      I believe that we have a choice, but to do nothing is not part of that choice. There will be more, not fewer, animals smuggled into the United Kingdom. As has been said already, the risk is not from the responsible, law-abiding animal owner but from the smuggler—the person who is most likely to bring in an animal that may not have been vaccinated. A responsible pet owner—from any country in Europe, including the United Kingdom— will want to look after his or her animal. The risk is from the smuggled animal.
      We must forget the mythology about rabid foxes wandering through the channel tunnel. If we are to eradicate the risk caused by smuggled animals, we must remove the incentive to smuggle. Provided that it is cheaper—what I am proposing would be a great deal cheaper than the average £1,200 quarantine fees—and that it is relatively simple to go through the necessary processes, people will not take the risk of a fine or imprisonment for smuggling.
      There is a way forward. If we are to prevent the growing illegal trade and accept that in a wider Europe people will want to travel with their companion animals, we must do something positive. I believe that what I have suggested, which is based on scientific evidence taken by the Select Committee—details of which are contained in the report—is a way forward.
      The estimates make provision for the funding of European negotiation and for matters relating to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. My hon. Friend the Minister may feel that what I am about to say is a matter for either the Home Office or the Department of Trade and Industry, but she would not expect me to miss this opportunity to place on record, again, the case for funding the work of the European centre for the validation of alternative methods to the use of animals in experimentation. There is a great deal of work to do and every penny of the money in the estimates, and much more, will be needed to support that work.
      9.11 pm
      Mr. Colin Pickthall: I want to speak briefly in support of my colleagues the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) in what they have said this evening. I also support much of what was said by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), especially his comment that doing nothing is not a choice.
      I confess that I entered into the investigation on health controls on the importation of live animals with a strong prejudice in favour of the retention of quarantine. It

      1177
      appeared to me that one of the great benefits of this country being an island was the possibility of keeping such diseases as rabies at bay. Quarantine had appeared to work for most of the century and I was predisposed to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
      In addition, the advent of the channel tunnel had agitated many of the rural population in my constituency to the point where they had calculated that as a fox could travel at about 25 miles a day, rabid animals would be through the tunnel and biting people in west Lancashire in less than a fortnight.
      Mr. Elliot Morley: Faster than a train.
      Mr. Pickthall: It is certainly faster than a train on the west coast main line.
      Rabies is such a horrible disease that we must take such fears seriously. It was my belief that any relaxation of quarantine would seriously affect public confidence. That view was echoed by the then Minister when she gave evidence to the Committee. She said:
      "Our scientific advice and our veterinary advice is that quarantine continues to be the most practical, most effective way of keeping rabies out."
      I must add to my predisposition in favour of the retention of quarantine the fact that my withers are not at all wrung by the laments of pet owners at being separated from their dogs or cats. I am not a pet owner and I am not especially a pet lover. In the context of rabies, such emotion from pet owners is, to put it bluntly, irrelevant.
      My change of mind during the course of the Committee's investigation was based strictly on the practical evidence that we heard and examined. First, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, the cost of quarantine is somewhere in excess of £1,000—indeed, we heard estimates of up to £1,500. Therefore, on at least a financial level, quarantine is a relatively easy option for the well-heeled, but a considerable burden for people of average means, such as many of the service personnel who gave us written evidence.
      Secondly, as has been said, the cost of quarantine provides a positive incentive for the smuggling of animals. On our visit to the Heathrow quarantine station, we were given evidence of animals that had been abandoned in panic on the airport tarmac; we were shown a bush-baby with its hind legs broken, which had been smuggled in in someone's top pocket.
      I might say, by the way, that when we were being entertained by the entire security staff of that quarantine station—we were in the reptile section—we suddenly found in front of us a splendid looking snake wriggling about on the floor, much to the alarm of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). That incident was, I recall, rather spectacularly recorded by the BBC.
      On the issue of smuggling, I have not had a chance to read the British Medical Association document that came out a few days ago but, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East, I have had a chance to read the covering letter. In two consecutive sentences, the letter states:
      "Anecdotal evidence suggests few obstacles face those attempting to avoid quarantine by smuggling animals, particularly by car, from France to Britain. The present quarantine system has had a 100 per cent. success rate since 1971."
      1178
      What sort of success rate is that? Of course, for the animals that are trapped by quarantine, there is a 100 per cent. success rate, but what about the others to which hon. Members have referred?
      Mr. Wykeham of the Quarantine Kennel Owners Association pointed out to us in his evidence:
      "Instances have occurred when the carrying agent for the quarantine kennel has failed for one reason or another to make the rendezvous with the ferry and the car carrying the animal has driven off the vessel and out of the port without check or hindrance."
      We are talking not only about smuggling but, in some cases, about incompetence and lack of security.
      Those incidents alerted me and, I am sure, other Committee members to the vastness and intricacy of the British coastline and the increase in the use of boats for pleasure and business. Ironically, the one link that seems secure from rabies is the channel tunnel, which has, as we saw for ourselves, very comprehensive defences against rabies. Virtually everywhere else seems to be vulnerable.
      We also heard of—I will not go into this because my colleagues have discussed it—the experience of other countries such Sweden and Denmark. We also dealt with—this seems to me important—the arrangements for trading dogs and cats under the Balai directive and the exemptions for farm animal imports. Both point to an absurd discrepancy which is, not surprisingly, leapt upon by pet owners abroad who see that commercial advantage can remove quarantine like magic in some cases but that they remain trapped by quarantine. That is an injustice and illogicality which the Committee's recommendations properly address.
      The Committee's recommendations on rabies control— in the end, unanimously and without reluctance—is, in my view, a stricter control than that offered by quarantine. They make no change to the importation of animals from non-approved countries—that is, countries where rabies is widespread—but introduce vaccination, microchipping and blood-testing regimes, retain import licensing and introduce animal passports.
      As our report said, if we have erred, it is very much on the side of caution. The fact that the Government do not approve those recommendations emanates from their understandable desire to address what they perceive as a strong emotional desire on the part of much of the population to retain quarantine—the sort of feeling that I had about the matter when we started the investigation— and also the public perception that quarantine is the only answer.
      It must be the Government's task occasionally to challenge emotional perceptions, and this is one such case. If the Government retain the status quo, they must say precisely why our recommendations would not strengthen the UK's defences against rabies and correct an illogical injustice.
      The Committee's report covered a wide range of concerns. I shall raise just one, which particularly interested me. We were made very much aware—it was the main purpose of the investigation—of the increased problems in farm animal health created by the single market, the relaxation of borders in the EU, and the increased speed of the transit of animals. Despite our reservations, and those of our witnesses, about some areas of the European Union, on the whole the EU seems to take the problem seriously. However, we continually returned to the vexed question of movements of animals across the borders between eastern Europe and the EU.

      1179
      Mr. Anthony, the retiring president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, identified three major disease corridors: first, Russia-Poland-Germany; secondly, Turkey and Iran through Greece to Austria; and thirdly and potentially, north Africa to Spain and Italy. He specified that veterinary training and standards of certification were unsatisfactory in some areas and that
      "the checks at the borders"
      of the EU
      "are not as high as we would wish."
      For example, he told us of the importation of loads of Polish sheep early in 1994, on which there were many documentary deficiencies. One load had animals that were unfit for human consumption and some dead on arrival. In Poland, those sheep are sold for £2 a head and the transporter gets £5 a head. They are sold in the UK for £27 a head—approximately £6,000 profit per lorry load. That is a considerable incentive for at least cutting corners in crossing the Polish-German border, an area that Mr. Anthony said was "very difficult to administer". Once such loads of animals are in the European Union, their movements are relatively unhindered.
      Mr. Neal King, vice-president of the RCVS, told us:
      "Over the years we have kept disease out by quality … we have done this by our own certification."
      He said that we now depend on others and went on:
      "We depend on their attitude to the animals coming in over their third country frontier rather than our attitude when they come in from the Channel to us".
      Mr. Kershaw-Dalby, secretary to the National Cattle Breeders' Association, told us of animals going from Poland to France, where they tested positive for foot and mouth disease. He said:
      "Some of those animals were never traced. The monitoring of ports is non-existent".
      He said that some of the documentation was "obscure" and that, for example, the instruction that all cattle imported from Europe must be treated for warble fly appears
      "on page 37 in minute print".
      The NCBA also gave evidence of eastern European cattle being "laundered" in Austria, which at that time was a useful staging post because of its favoured status.
      We therefore have four problems to face up to. The first is the leaky nature of the border between the European Union and the east and the clear deficiencies of the border inspection posts. Clearly, that is a task for the European Commission to tackle, and part of that job must be some hard education work in the eastern European countries, which is all the more necessary because of the likely closer relationship with Poland, former Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the not too distant future. The second is the need for much tighter monitoring and inspection of animals coming from Europe to the UK. The third is the need for clearer and tougher guidelines for dealers, importers and farmers, and the fourth is a much tougher pan-European regime for veterinarians.
      I welcome the Government's response on holding periods, but the enthusiasm with which they embrace the notion in paragraph 7 of Command 2735 that the primary responsibility for preventing the introduction of disease now rests with importers is bothering. That is the only weak part of the Committee's report. Of course, most importers and farmers take their responsibilities seriously. They do not want to damage their herds; they do not want
      1180
      to introduce disease. However, in the case of the diseases that we have discussed, it takes few people—perhaps only one renegade—to create a catastrophe. The importer's responsibilities must be backed by the Government sanctions, which the Committee recommends. It is ultimately a communal priority and a communal responsibility, not only a responsibility of the importers.
      Although our report rejected the alarmist "disease time bomb" theory outlined for us by some witnesses, there can be little doubt that, as movement of animals from eastern Europe and possibly also from north Africa and the near east increases, there is a clear potential danger of disease spread, accelerated by ease of movement in the EU. The specific recommendations made by the Committee in paragraph 47 of its report are a serious attempt to minimise risk. Naturally, there are financial implications, but the potential cost of a breakdown of fail-safe mechanisms is astronomical.
      In a sense, the problems of combating rabies importation and of combating the importation of farm animal diseases are similar. In each case, success depends on accurate information, especially identification, on rigorous monitoring, on punitive sanctions against transgressors, on cost-effectiveness so as not to push people into transgression and on partnership between Government and the importers and farmers to ensure that risks are minimised, in all our interests.
      I find it hard to reconcile the Government's deep suspicion of the European Union's progress on rabies control with their sanguine opinion of the disease importation problems of farm animals and the exemptions under the Balai directive. I can only conclude that the Government are responding with emotion in the first case and with some practical logic in the second case.
      In my opinion, as a member of the Select Committee, who is not easily convinced of anything, the Committee members tackled both those main issues with scrupulous practicality. I urge the Government to make it a priority to reconsider the recommendations on replacing quarantine as soon as, in their own terms, the Swedish and Danish experiences can be reliably examined—I would hope, in 12 months.
      9.26 pm
      Mr. Richard Alexander: I shall be brief, so that others might have an opportunity to speak.
      Probably no aspect of man's contact with the animal world creates more fear and anxiety than possible contact with rabies. It is an understandable fear, which the House must recognise, and which was articulated earlier, yet the Select Committee is telling the House, "Perhaps time has moved on; perhaps we should consider the issue again".
      The popular reaction in the country is, "We have not had rabies in Britain for many years; let's not take risks now," or, "The channel tunnel is creating greater opportunities for rabies to come in; let's not take risks now." That was the gist of some of the evidence that the Select Committee received, but it also received evidence, which was new to many of us, of the unintentional stress and distress caused to animals—as well as that experienced by the owner—as a result of quarantine.
      The animal must, as we know, be kept in quarantine for six months, which is a significant part of its life. It does not know that it is there for the good of the public; all it knows is that its owner and its friend has put it away

      1181
      for six months. The Association of RAF Wives described quarantine as "an extremely cruel procedure", involving unnecessary expense, when there are obvious other ways in which to establish that there is no risk.
      I shall not discuss cost in detail, but I shall emphasise the arguments that have been made about quarantine being expensive. It is expensive for the expatriate and for the diplomat and his family, and the cost increases the possibility of smuggling, which other colleagues have mentioned. The paradox is that, by imposing stringent controls and making the process expensive, the less responsible pet owner is tempted to smuggle and the decent, responsible pet owner has to pay the cost.
      The British Medical Association has submitted a memorandum to many of us. We must recognise the concern of the people who would give medical care to anyone who was affected by rabies, which is an appalling prospect for the medical profession. In the memorandum, there is little scientific evidence to back up what the association says. In addition, the BMA, unlike the learned bodies that gave evidence to us, gives no evidence for the concern that it is now raising with hon. Members. It would have been helpful if the association had come to the Select Committee and told us its views.
      We await the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary with interest. The Government's response to the Select Committee report was in three parts. The then Minister of Agriculture, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), said that the problem was "onerous for some people." That is precisely the point that the Committee made. The Committee would say that the problem is not merely onerous, but intolerable for thousands of decent British people who want to travel with their pets.
      The Minister also accepted that microchips were reliable and that the blood test was effective one month after vaccination, yet the Ministry does not draw the obvious conclusion that a pet passport would be a safe method of taking a pet out of the United Kingdom into certain other countries and bringing it back. I suggest that Customs and Excise could easily control that method with the red channel at ports and airports—anywhere where there is a possibility of a pet coming in.
      The report is far-sighted. The issue obviously raises emotions, but fortunately—and rarely in the House—it is a non-party political issue. The arguments have been set out and they have been adduced here tonight. It is up to the public and to their representatives to take the discussion further. I am sure that the House waits with great interest for the response from both the Government and the Opposition to what has been said today.
      9.31 pm
      Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): This has been an interesting and lively debate; it has also been instructive. All the members of the Select Committee who have spoken, other than the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin)—I am privileged to be a member of the Select Committee—came to the inquiry utterly convinced that the quarantine regulations had to stay as they were. It was the conduct of the inquiry and the evidence we heard, especially the overwhelming scientific evidence, that convinced us that the rules had to
      1182
      be changed and that quarantine eventually had to come to an end in a limited way in the United Kingdom. In our report, we have described the way in which the rules can now be changed.
      Although I listened with great care to what the hon. Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said, I am pretty convinced, knowing his attitude to the Committee's work, that if he had been a member of our Committee at the time, he would have started from the same position as us, but would have been persuaded, as we were, by the evidence we heard. It was a tall task to expect us to change our minds, but we did and it is right that those of us who are members of the Select Committee place that fact on the record.
      There were four reasons for my changing my mind. First, I was convinced, in view of developments since the Waterhouse report in 1970, of the effectiveness of vaccine, of the use of microchips and of developments in medicine and technology. Secondly, I was convinced because of the success of the oral vaccine programme in the European Community. We had a briefing that it was likely that rabies would be eradicated, to take the most optimistic approach, in two or three years. Even the pessimists said that it would be eradicated by the end of the century. We are making excellent progress, from 8,500 cases of animal rabies in 1989 to 1,200 in 1993.
      Since 1994, we have allowed in commercially traded dogs and cats, subject to certain conditions. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend—if I can call her that—the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston). The overwhelming evidence presented when the Committee visited Sweden and Denmark was the clincher for me. Those countries have traditions and problems that are similar to ours and Sweden has been rabies free since 1886. They examined all the evidence—including the fact that Sweden and Germany share a border—and they were utterly convinced that they should change the rules.
      Finally, if we had thought for a moment that our recommendation would increase the risk of rabies, we would never have suggested it. The tests that we propose are as safe as the quarantine regulations, but they are far more efficient, less costly and much less distressing for the animals. We have put forward a proposal for the new century that is compatible with advances in medicine and in technology.
      9.35 pm
      Mr. Elliot Morley: On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the fifth report of the Agriculture Select Committee. It is up to the Committee's usual high standard, and we congratulate the Chairman, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), and the other Committee members on the way in which they have presented the report. I am a former member of the Committee and I enjoyed serving on it. I am familiar with the detailed work involved in preparing a report.
      Controls on the importation of live animals are a key issue in terms of animal welfare and the economic impact on the country. We must ensure that we maintain our very high standards and our disease-free status. With the advent of the single market, concerns were expressed about the relaxation of checks at points of entry, so it was important to examine the issues in some detail.
      I believe that we should continue to examine those controls and, in some cases, to tighten them. The suggestion of using coloured ear tags to identify the

      1183
      country of origin of animal imports is a good idea that is worth further examination. The reintroduction of a holding period at points of distribution also has many advantages, not least in the context of the controversy surrounding live animal exports and imports. The holding period would provide an opportunity to examine the condition of the animals, to check for disease and ton ensure that they were being treated properly. In their response, the Government accepted the argument for a period of three working days and, while I welcome that concession, I prefer the Committee's original recommendation.
      The Government have made it clear that importers must act responsibly. The campaign involving the distribution of "Don't Import Disease" leaflets has proved helpful. However, to be fair, some sectors of the industry—such as the pig sector—have introduced their own quality control measures and they deserve credit for that. The National Farmers Union also deserves commendation for its attempts to introduce a warranty and indemnity scheme.
      However, guidance has not prevented outbreaks of disease such as warble fly in 1994. While I am aware that inspections have been increased at ports of entry, the Government must address a number of remaining problems. The first is accurate and consistent veterinary certification, as mentioned by the Committee. The second is a common standard of veterinary competence. That problem was recognised in the Bendixen-Dexter report, which I agree should be made public.
      Thirdly, there is the problem of the absence of the system for information inspections at frontiers—SHIFT— computer system, which monitors animal movement. Even when computer systems are in place and working properly, there may be an accuracy problem. The Minister might recall the problem with the ANIMO system, which I identified in written questions that I tabled to him. I drew the Minister's attention to fraudulent certification— which is outside his control—and the fact that mistakes were being made when details were being entered into the database.
      Fourthly, we must have adequate inspection procedures at points of entry. I do not believe that the single market precludes that and I note that the French are considering reintroducing spot checks at their borders. The state veterinary service has a major role to play in that process. I believe that the Government risk undermining the high standards of animal health in this Britain by cutting the state veterinary service. There has already been a staff cut of 31 per cent.—their number has decreased from 580 in 1979 to 403 in 1994. In 1979, there were 25 veterinary inspection centres; now, there are only 13.
      There is concern that, after seven years, there are still quite a large number of outbreaks of BSE, but we welcome the overall sharp reduction in the number of cases. As has been said, sheep scab raises all-party concern. I note that, after many representations, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has admitted that there has been an increase in sheep scab outbreaks since compulsory dipping ended in 1992. On MAFF's own figures in its recent report, private vets have reported an increase from 254 outbreaks in 1994 to 595 so far this year—more than double, only half-way through the year.
      I also refer the Government to the recent report by the Farm Animal Welfare Council on the welfare of sheep. It calls firmly for sheep scab to be reinstated as a notifiable disease. The Government's response to that report was
      1184
      inadequate. The FAWC also recognises concern about the use of organophosphate sheep dips and the need for tight control as well as the development of alternatives. In effect, the Government said that the sheep industry should play a role in financing the development of alternatives. That is just not a realistic response because sheep farmers are among the poorest in the agriculture sector. They often have small farms, run by small self-employed families who are tough and self-reliant but not really in a position to provide a major contribution to such research.
      I recently met a Mrs. Brenda Sutcliffe of Sheepbank farm, Littleborough and Saddleworth, with whom I had the privilege of discussing sheep dips and the problems of organophosphate dips. Incidentally, she probably knows more about the chemical composition and effects of OP sheep dips than anyone I have met. The Government owe people like Mrs. Sutcliffe and her family an open and detailed examination of claims about OP dips, and they should give some thought to how to help such people, who might not be able to work for their full working life if the claims about the detrimental effect prove to be correct.
      I have a particular interest in bovine tuberculosis and badger control. It is a major area which deserves a debate on its own. I know that it has been proposed to refer the issue to the Select Committee, which would be a welcome step forward. At this stage, the Opposition remain unconvinced that the badger culling policy is either acceptable or, indeed, effective. I know and sympathise with farmers who are facing the problem and the financial impact of the outbreak of bovine TB. Nevertheless, there are a great many anomalies in the approach to the problem. The science is really shaky, because it has not been scientifically proved that badgers cannot be infected by cattle. That needs to be considered very carefully and, at the moment, too many people have set their faces against examining it.
      As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, there would be an opportunity to look into that matter if the dairy industry were considered. I know that, given the hon. Gentleman's affection for badgers, he will look into the matter very sympathetically.
      The part of the Select Committee report that deals with rabies has obviously attracted a great deal of attention. That is understandable, because rabies is a very emotional issue. It is a terrible disease, people are very concerned about it, and we have to ensure that we maintain our rabies-free status. On behalf of the Opposition, I have to say that the Select Committee's representations on the issue were well researched and well argued. It put forward a very convincing case, but we do not differ from the Government in that we want to ensure that the controls on rabies are effective. Before we move away from them, we must be convinced that any changes are workable.
      Having said that, I believe that the Government's response has been somewhat negative. I have been impressed by representations made by people who have pets abroad and by those who believe that there are alternatives. The Government could be more open-minded, bearing in mind the changes in the directive. I wrote to the Minister suggesting that she consider a trial scheme in Cyprus, which is a rabies-free island, on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). The system could be put in place and its effectiveness, or otherwise, examined. There would be no risk, because the animals would be travelling to and from

      1185
      rabies-free islands. The Minister gave me a courteous written reply, but her point that other countries have a stronger claim was not convincing. Perhaps she will give that suggestion further thought.
      We must not compromise Britain's rabies-free status, but there should be wide consultation, careful consideration and proper research into rabies and animal health control in general.
      9.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): I have a sense of déjà vu, because one forfeit of becoming a junior Agriculture Minister was losing my place on the Select Committee so ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin). I am grateful to the Select Committee for prompting this debate, and I will attempt to reply to many of the questions that have been put, particularly by Select Committee members.
      Last year's report was an invaluable investigation into the problems associated with the import of live animals. The members of the Committee must be congratulated on their clear and detailed analysis of the risks that our current arrangements present to our high animal health status. I pay tribute to the veterinary and medical professions for their contribution to the debate. It is clear that the two professions share the Government's cautious attitude to this important issue.
      The Government welcome the Committee's endorsement of the health controls that have been put in place following completion of the single market in 1993. That vindicates the Government's approach in dealing with the threat of imported animal disease, although we are by no means complacent. We welcome the Committee's conclusion that the risk of disease entering the United Kingdom through imported livestock has not increased to any appreciable extent.
      We are pleased at the support given by the Committee to the introduction in 1993 of strengthened measures designed to maintain the United Kingdom's high animal health status. We agree with the Committee that primary responsibility for protecting the United Kingdom's high animal health status under the new single market arrangements rests with the importers of animals.
      In November 1993, my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now Secretary of State for Education and Employment, announced newly strengthened measures to maintain Britain's high animal health status. Those measures, which remain in force, include 24-hour periods of blanket surveillance at all south and east coast ports, and targeting consignments where there is a particular animal health disease risk—with up to 100 per cent. checks and increased checks at points of destination so that, on average, between 50 and 60 per cent. of consignments are checked.
      Where there is specific cause for concern, additional steps have been taken. They include 100 per cent. checks for warble fly on all cattle imported from France, serological testing of all cattle imported from eastern Europe for FMD antibodies, and increased checks at the point of destination of cattle from France and the
      1186
      Netherlands for brucellosis. All those measures have played, and continue to play, a vital part in preventing the importation of disease.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) mentioned the Bendixen-Dexter report. We agree that it should be made available in full to all member states by the Commission. We shall continue to press for that, together with an indication of the action taken where inadequacies have been found. We consider that to be most important.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) for his kind comments. We agree on most things, but we may not agree on everything tonight. My hon. Friend mentioned the new rules for protection against equine viral arteritis. Anyone interested in equine health will welcome that measure. When I have met interested parties in the past, I have had to say, "That measure is coming shortly." I am pleased that it is now in place. In addition, stallions imported from third countries to the Community must have originated from a country that has been free of EVA for at least six months, or the stallion's blood or semen must have been tested, with negative results for EVA, before export. That, I think, will be welcomed.
      The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned several issues, one or two of which were picked up by others. He talked about BSE. When we receive scientific information, we put it in the public domain as quickly as is practically possible. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the attitude of the Germans, who at times have been less than fair in the way in which they have assessed the stringent measures on BSE that we have taken.
      We have made changes recently because, as new evidence has come to light, we have felt it important to act. We have changed the rules in feed mills, where we thought that there could have been cross-contamination for quite some time after the ban. Feed was being processed for the pig and poultry industries on the same lines, and that may have created some cross-contamination. We have tried to put that right, and the industry has responded well.
      As for the case of the post-92 birth, the Germans and our partners in the Commission have renegotiated the two-and-a-half-year rule. I do not think that that will press the industry hard or cause it problems. It was important to act as the evidence emerged.
      The hon. Member for North Cornwall also discussed maternal transmission. All the evidence shows that, if BSE had been caused by maternal transmission, it would not have resulted in the numbers affected. Those numbers are now falling, but we have never ruled out the vertical—
      Mr. Morley: Ah.
      Mrs. Browning: That is precisely the sort of irresponsible remark that brings the red meat trade of this country into disrepute. We have never ruled out categorically either vertical or horizontal transmission. That is why we have some pretty strong regulations. I know that the farming community finds them inconvenient, but we felt it necessary to ensure people's continued confidence in our red meat industry.
      The hon. Members for North Cornwall and for Glanford and Scunthorpe also mentioned bovine TB. They know that I am concerned about that, and the hon.

      1187
      Member for North Cornwall asked the Select Committee to look into it. I can assure him that the Government would welcome giving evidence to the Committee if it proceeds to do so.
      As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are also examining OP dips, a subject that I take seriously. We are giving sheep scab and the problems of OP dips our fullest attention. I shall continue to work with the hon. Gentleman and with his committee to share any information that is available. I hope that he appreciates that.
      Rabies took up the major part of tonight's debate. The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) said that the last death from rabies in Europe occurred in France in 1928. In fact, the last recorded death was in 1990, in Leipzig, which at the time was in East Germany but which is now in the Community. In Europe, there have been 198 cases of human rabies since 1977.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare talked of the advantages for tourism and said that in France the subject is rarely spoken of. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Bristol, East said that this country is a laughing stock in Europe. I must tell them both that 10,000 people a year in France get rabies treatment as a precaution after bites and scratches. So this is not a trivial matter, and it is discussed in France. Those 10,000 people are concerned about their personal health. That helps to put the issue in perspective—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady should listen to the facts, instead of calling this country a laughing stock. We are not a laughing stock. We have taken careful and proper action to protect the health of our animals and the health of the human beings in this country.
      Quarantine for rabies is, as tonight's debate has shown, a sensitive issue. It is also technical and scientific. I know that there are arguments from both sides of the House, and we heard many of them tonight, but we believe that one must recognise that rabies remains a serious health risk in many parts of the world, including mainland Europe, where, for example, there have been four deaths—in Hungary—in recent years. It is not just a matter for the Indian subcontinent, as it affects all of us on mainland Europe. Although both wild and pet animals can be vaccinated against the disease, and humans can be treated if the disease is caught in the early stages, it is an extremely unpleasant disease and once the symptoms emerge in man, the disease is invariably fatal.
      When rabies was eradicated from the United Kingdom in the early part of the century, we believed that the consequences of the disease re-entering the United Kingdom would be severe and that there would be considerable public concern about it. An outbreak would lead to the destruction of wildlife over a wide area, and onerous controls would be put on pet owners until the disease was wiped out. We would have the same situation as that in France: anyone who was scratched or bitten would immediately feel the necessity to go and seek medical help. Whether or not a diseased animal was involved, the fear would be there in the population.
      The Government therefore endorse the view expressed by the Select Committee in its report that it would never support a change in our rules that increased the likelihood of rabies entering the United Kingdom. We consider that that central principle must be borne in mind when considering any change. We believe that the quarantine rules have been effective since 1922.
      1188
      It has been suggested that quarantine encourages smuggling and that an alternative system would reduce the risk of smuggling. Animals under three months cannot be vaccinated. They would then have a six-month period before they were free to travel, so we are looking at all animals under the age of nine months not being able to travel. It is often those sweet little kittens under nine months that people smuggle back into this country in their pockets. I am not convinced that the argument made tonight would in any way contribute to solving the problem of animals, particularly kittens, being smuggled into this country.
      Sir Roger Moate: Can my hon. Friend therefore put at rest my fears about a story that was reported in the Sunday Express a few weeks ago, in which it was said that she was going to have a trial period for relaxing quarantine regulations between here and Cyprus and Malta?
      Mrs. Browning: Indeed. I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. I wrote to the editor of the Sunday Express. He has not yet published my letter, in which I explain that that was not true. I hope that he will find the space to do so and put it on the record this Sunday.
      This has been a detailed and, sometimes, quite emotional debate. It does bring out emotions, because people feel very strongly about their pets. Although hon. Members who take the opposite view from that of the Government may find it hard to believe, I am a cat owner and I would find separation very difficult. When it is safe to make changes, the Government will do so, guided by the principle that I mentioned at the outset. We will not support changes that increase the likelihood of rabies entering the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Tyler: I very much appreciate the positive response from the Minister to the points that I raised this evening.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Sir Jerry Wiggin: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. I am satisfied that we have won the argument this evening. I hope that the Government will allow common sense to overcome emotion, and that they will keep the matter constantly under review, observe our European partners, who have made these substantial changes, and after a short time, look at the whole matter again to relieve suffering, cost and danger to our community.
      Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions which he was directed by paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), to put at that hour.

    ESTIMATES, 1995–96

      Class XIII, Vote 1
      Question,
      That a further sum, not exceeding £18,829,738,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on non-contributory retirement pensions, Christmas bonus payments to pensioners, pensions etc., for disablement or death arising out of war or service in the armed forces after 2nd September 1939 and

      1189
      sundry other services, on attendance allowances, invalid care allowance, severe disablement allowance, disability living allowance; disability working allowance; on pensions, gratuities and sundry allowances for disablement and specified deaths arising from industrial causes; on income support, payments of spousal and child maintenance, child benefit, one parent benefit, family credit, and on the vaccine damage payment scheme.
      put and agreed to.

      Class XIII, Vote 2
      Question,
      That a further sum, not exceeding £6,104,207,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on rent rebate, rent allowance, council tax benefit, community charge benefit, community charge rebate and rate rebate subsidies and on sums payable in respect of anti-fraud measures to housing, charging, levying and local authorities; on transitional payments to help certain housing benefit claimants significantly affected by the changes to the housing benefit scheme and certain supplementary benefit claimants not entitled to benefit under the income support scheme; on sums payable into the National Insurance Fund to increase its income and as compensation payments in respect of statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay and on sums payable into the Social Fund for expenditure on maternity expenses, funeral expenses and heating expenses in exceptionally cold weather.
      put and agreed to.

      Class XIII, Vote 3
      Question,
      That a further sum, not exceeding £211,869,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on sums payable as grants to Independent Living; on subsidies to housing and local authorities towards the cost of administering the housing benefit scheme and to charging and levying authorities towards the cost of administering the council tax benefit scheme, as grants to Motability towards their administrative costs and to enable them to assist invalid vehicle users and others to have adapted and/or to purchase or lease cars from them, as grants to the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association to enable them to assist certain other disabled vehicle users to have cars adapted, and on sums payable to the Social Fund to finance budgeting loans, crisis loans and community care grants.
      put and agreed to.

      Class XIII, Vote 4
      Question,
      That a further sum, not exceeding £1,450,436,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Department of Social Security on administration, for agency payments, the promotion of Government policy on disability issues, and for certain other services including grants to local authorities and voluntary organisations.
      put and agreed to.

      Class III, Vote 3
      Question,
      That a further sum, not exceeding £263,921,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for cash limited and demand led operational expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to: promote food safety, take action against diseases with implications for human health, safeguard essential supplies in an emergency, and
      1190
      promote action to alleviate flooding and coastal erosion; to encourage action to reduce water and other pollution and by other measures to safeguard the aquatic environment including its fauna and flora, to improve the attractiveness and bio-diversity of the rural environment and protect the rural economy; implement MAFF's CAP obligations efficiently and seek a more economically rational CAP while avoiding discrimination against UK businesses (including expenditure on existing CAP measures and schemes), to create the conditions in which efficient and sustainable agriculture, fishing and food industries can flourish, take action against animal and plant diseases and pests, encourage high animal welfare standards; provide specialist support services and allocate resources where they are most needed; provide for some inter-agency payments and undertake research and development.
      put and agreed to.

      Class III, Vote 4
      Question,
      That a further sum, not exceeding £181,719,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1996 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on departmental research, advisory services and administration, executive agencies and certain other services.
      put and agreed to.
      It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question which he was directed by paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates,&c), to put at that hour.

      ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1995–96
      Resolved,
      That a further sum, not exceeding £85,741,525,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1996, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 271, 272, 273 and 465.
      Ordered,
      That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of the Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, Mrs. Angela Knight and Mr. Michael Jack do prepare and bring it in.

      CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
      Mr. Michael Jack accordingly presented a Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March 1996; to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament; and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 137.]
      STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),

      CONTRACTING OUT
      That the draft Contracting Out (Highway Functions) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.— [Mr. Bates.]
      Question agreed to.

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

      PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET FOR 1996
      That this House takes note of European Community Document No. COM (95) 300, the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1996; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the European Community.—[Mr. Bates.]
      Question agreed to.

      Public Health
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the two motions on public health.
      Resolved,
      That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 5) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1714), dated 4th July 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
      That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 6) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1737), dated 6th July 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.—[Mr. Raymond S. Robertson.]

      Probation Service
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]
      10.1 pm
      Mr. Anthony Coombs: In initiating this debate on the probation service, I refer first to what the Home Secretary said in March this year when he introduced the current consultative paper, "Strengthening Punishment in the Community". He said:
      "The probation service can be rightly proud of its work and I appreciate the dedication and commitment shown by probation staff and members of committees in their work."
      I was quoted in the 1993–94 Hereford and Worcester probation service annual report when I spoke approvingly of much of the work that it does and, in particular, of the community projects and their effect on reducing reconviction.
      There is no doubt that the work of the probation service has increased dramatically. Last year, there were 233,000 pre-sentence reports, 2,000 of which were in Hereford and Worcester, which is itself a 12 per cent. increase on the previous year; 151,000 people were under probation service supervision, and there were 32,800 community sentences.
      The probation service was involved in a huge area of work, some of it to do with the criminal justice system— liaison with the courts, prisoners and hostels and pre-sentence reports—and some outside the criminal justice system such as child welfare, family work and crime prevention in a more general context.
      That increase in work occurred despite the fact that it in the current year its total budget has fallen from £395 million to about £392 million, which has been translated into a 6 per cent. reduction in Hereford and Worcester.
      In 1993, the Minister of State, Home Office said:
      "If the probation service did not exist we would have to invent it".
      The service does valuable work, and what I am about to say is in no way a criticism of the dedication that many probation officers bring to their task. "Strengthening Punishment in the Community" reminded us:
      "The present arrangements suffer from the drawback that probation and supervision orders do not appear to the public to offer sufficient punishment."
      Commenting on the consultation document, The Times said that the Home Secretary had
      "taken measures to rid the public of the idea that community sentences are a soft option."
      Unfortunately, many members of the public feel that probation and community service orders, and other community sentences, are not as rigorous as they should be, and that the probation service looks too much to its rehabilitative role and too little to its role in preventing further crime and protecting the public from crime by ensuring that sentences are not only rehabilitative but a deterrent to further offending.
      There may be some justification for that view. Only 26 per cent. of indictable offences that come before the courts result in community sentences, and only 11 per cent. result in imprisonment. That means that some two thirds of offenders are either fined or given a non-custodial sentence of some other kind. The public do not consider that a sufficient deterrent. There has also been a huge increase in cautioning. Some of that may involve first

      1193
      offences, but much does not. One can understand the feelings of many members of the public, including my constituents, who want elements of punishment to be returned to non-custodial sentences and community service orders.
      Recently, there have been several cases of young people aged 14 or 15—sometimes they are as young as 11 or 12—acting in a grossly irresponsible and, indeed, criminal way in the leisure centre in my constituency. That has caused outrage in the community, but local magistrates seem powerless to effect a remedy.
      Part of the problem appears to be the ethos of the probation service. It is very social-work oriented, as most of its members have a social-work qualification. The Hereford and Worcester 1994–97 plan for the probation service identified crime as a community problem, saying that one of the service's roles was to ensure that the community could respond to and reduce its offending. Although a third of the male population aged 30 may have some form of criminal record, the fact is that the vast majority of the community does not, and does not need to reduce its offending. My local police force tells me that, if just 20 offenders could be dealt with locally, crime could be reduced by some 50 per cent.
      Too often, the probation service sees the offender, rather than the victim, as the actual victim. Although there is a correlation between dropping out of school, unemployment and family instability and crime, I do not think that the problem is as "reactive" as the probation service wishes to make out. According to the service,
      "Personal and social problems might put them"—
      young people—
      "at risk of further offending",
      as though offending were something that happened to people rather than their taking a specific decision.
      In Hereford and Worcester's "Link" magazine, the assistant chief probation officer recently quoted approvingly some Liverpool university studies showing a correlation between unemployment and crime. We are all aware of that, of course. He said that this was bad news for the
      "let's get tough and punish lobby".
      In other words, the probation service believes that the idea of punishment is something for the far right of the political spectrum rather than, as is the case, a reflection of the views of the vast majority of the population.
      That is especially so as the Association of Chief Officers of Probation has quoted recent Home Office studies that show that, despite what the probation service might like to argue, the two-year reconviction rate of the probation community service is not much different from that of prison. I think that the relevant reconviction statistics are 53 per cent. for prisons, 49 per cent. for community service and 45 per cent. for probation, so the idea that probation is a major panacea against further convictions is erroneous.
      In certain cases, the probation service seems totally unwilling to recommend custodial sentences as appropriate, despite the wishes of the population. The Hereford and Worcester annual report of 1993–94 showed that pre-sentence reports recommended a custodial sentence in only 11 cases in the whole year, despite the fact that 484 sentences were passed.
      1194
      If we are to improve public confidence in the probation service, we need to change the culture. That is why I am especially pleased at the first of the Government's three major reforms, which will do away with the probation service's exclusive entry qualification: the certificate in social work. It is vital that we increase the number of people who come into the probation service by bringing in people from other sectors than social work.
      As the Home Secretary has reminded us, the work of social workers and of probation officers is significantly different. People who have never been involved in social work have an important contribution to make to social work. If we can ease their passage into the probation service through additional qualifications, which must be nationally validated—they cannot be left entirely to local validation—we will be effecting a major and important reform.
      Equally, I agree that there should be a more flexible continuum between community service orders and probation orders. Community service orders are oriented more towards punishment; probation orders are oriented more towards the prevention of further offending. Any effective order should contain significant proportions of both. Community service orders and probation orders should be available to the courts for all offences and not for ones that are merely imprisonable.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I appreciate that my hon. Friend has only just begun to expand his argument, but it seems that he is arguing very well for the total abolition of the probation service. Is he not saying that the service is no more effective—in fact, probably less so—than prison and other sanctions in stopping people committing other crimes, and that it is not a deterrent?
      Mr. Coombs: There are other reasons for doing non-custodial work apart from those involving deterrence. The probation service has an important role to play, but the element of punishment and deterrence in its work has been undervalued and, as a result, the Government's reforms, in particular those in relation to the greater control by magistrates of the details of community sentences, are extremely important.
      I shall give an example of what can go wrong. I recently took up the case of some constituents who were worried about a hostel and the activities of its residents. It is not directly supervised by the probation service, but there is a liaison officer. I was told by the probation service's chief officer that she understood that, in the past two years, hostel residents had committed no offences. I checked with the police and found that its residents had committed 343 offences in 1993 and 390 offences in 1994–26 per cent. and 27 per cent. of the crime in the town in which the hostel is situated. Is that an example of protecting the community via community service in hostels?
      I should like to emphasise one or two other areas in which the work of the probation service could be significantly improved. I have already mentioned the very young criminal. I should like to see the minimum age for community service orders reduced from 16. At present, for a 15-year-old offender in my area, magistrates can impose a fine, which may not be paid because parental fines are difficult to enforce under the present legislation, or he could be locked up in a youth offenders' institution but, understandably, magistrates are reluctant to do that.

      1195
      We no longer have an attendance centre in Hereford and Worcester, so that is not an option and supervision is too often not effective to the extent that the Home Office has recently had to lay down standards saying that the impression should not be given of providing reward for offending. It is my view that community service orders, which can be made rigorous, should be extended to 14 and 15-year-olds under any new legislation.
      I believe that, short of youth custody, attendance centres and boot camps should be established on the lines of those set up by the airborne initiative in Scotland and down on the south coast—and, hopefully, soon in the midlands. About two thirds of those who successfully get through those camps do not reoffend. I believe that probation supervision grants, which are currently not available to fund the capital costs of such schemes, should be made available so that more of them can be set up. I believe that better co-ordination is necessary between the probation service and local employers and training and enterprise councils. Someone who is offered a job after having been on a community service order is less likely to reoffend. That is beyond peradventure. Very good work is going on in the Hereford and Worcester area through the Doors project.
      The criminal justice system for juveniles is too slow. It can take anything from six to nine months between an offence being detected and arrest being made and a punishment being imposed by the courts. A pre-trial meeting is necessary with social services, which means a delay of two or three months, then the trial itself, pre-trial sentence reports cause further delays and then sentencing. Because there is no immediacy, it is difficult to identify the offence with the punishment in the minds of the young offenders. That is a view held by the clerks to the magistrates in my local area, and I am sure that the Government will wish to investigate it.
      Currently in Hereford and Worcester, nine of the 15 members of the probation committee are magistrates. Magistrates do have an important role to play, but it is not an exclusive role. I believe that the scope of probation committees should be extended to include laymen who are looking for a more deterrent and retribution-oriented community service provision.
      It is crucial that we change the way in which sentences, whether custodial or non-custodial, are organised for young offenders in particular. Too often, the sentence increases in severity with the criminal record of the individual involved. I understand that it is important that individuals are not unduly involved in the criminal justice system at too early an age. However, in certain circumstances, it is important to frighten young people away from a life of crime, especially if it looks as if they are just about to begin one.
      I am not convinced—and certainly many people involved in the magistracy in the Hereford and Worcester area are not convinced—that there are sufficiently severe and deterrent penalties available for young people at the beginning of their criminal careers to deter them and their friends from further criminal activity. A magistrate's clerk recently explained to me that, sadly, under the present structure there is no question of frightening the life out of a 17-year-old, thereby preventing further criminal behaviour, if he has gone a long way down the tracks towards a criminal career.
      1196
      What is beyond peradventure is that, if the criminal justice system is to work effectively, either through custodial sentences or through non-custodial community sentences, it must concentrate not only on rehabilitation, the needs of the offender, his place in society and appropriate programmes to prevent reoffending but on the certainty and rigour of punishment—deterrence as well as rehabilitation—because only then will the confidence of the community as a whole in the criminal justice system— and, by implication, in the work of the probation service—be maintained.
      The Home Secretary has spoken about the current consultation document and strengthening punishment in the community. If he wants, as he has said, to rise to the needs of the 21st century in significantly reducing crime and the causes of crime, the sort of change in culture and in operational procedures that I have mentioned will be crucial to improving and maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.
      10.21 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): The title of this debate is the probation service, but the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) go much wider than that. There is rightly a great deal of concern about the high levels of crime committed by a small number of young people. We are determined to tackle the problem of persistent offending by juveniles, and I am grateful for this opportunity to explain some of the action that the Government are taking to combat it.
      I know that my hon. Friend will be meeting my colleague the Minister of State shortly to take these discussions further. In the time remaining to me tonight, I shall try to cover the points raised by my hon. Friend, but if I do not cover them all I am sure that his discussions with the Minister of State will provide an opportunity to continue the debate. I think that my hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that what he says and what the Government are doing have a great deal in common.
      The supervision of juvenile offenders in the community, as my hon. Friend is undoubtedly aware, is for the most part the responsibility of social services departments. He also raised a number of issues relating to the probation service and I am grateful to him for that. There are too few opportunities to debate the work of the probation services and the contribution they make to the prevention of further crime and to the protection of the public. I therefore welcome this valuable opportunity to explain the action that we are taking to toughen up community penalties, to which my hon. Friend referred, and to strengthen the performance of the probation service.
      I understand that my hon. Friend visited Hereford and Worcester probation service's community services schemes last summer and was impressed. I am delighted to hear that, but I am not surprised. Probation services have moved a very long way from their original welfare-oriented approach, especially in recent years. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 turned the probation order into a sentence of the court, and it now takes its place as part of one of a range of community penalties available to the courts.
      The Government have taken a number of measures to ensure that probation services deliver a high standard of service to the courts and that they deliver tough and

      1197
      demanding punishments and protect the public from the risk of further crime. The prevention of reoffending is an important part of that work, but I think that my hon. Friend underestimates the extent to which the ethos of the probation service has moved away from rehabilitation. The 1995 national standards, to which I shall refer in a moment, ensure that that objective is properly placed against the need for supervision and enforcement of community sentences.
      I shall say a word about the problem of persistent offending juveniles, to which my hon. Friend referred. The vast majority of young people are perfectly law-abiding, but that makes the behaviour of a small number even more inexcusable since it tarnishes the image of young people, most of whom lead responsible lives and contribute a great deal to their communities. However, persistent offending is a significant problem.
      A high percentage of crime in any particular area is most often found to be committed by a small number of offenders, sometimes very young offenders. My hon. Friend referred to that. For example, one study of persistent offending found that, by age of 17, 1 per cent. of all boys born in 1973 were responsible for 60 per cent. of convictions in their age group. We are determined to tackle this problem of persistent offending. To do so, it is essential that the courts have available to them effective and appropriate powers.
      My hon. Friend referred to the remedy of secure training centres. I would like to say a word about that because, where the crimes are serious enough, it is right that the courts should have a range of tough measures to deal with them, from custody to community sentences. In particular, when young offenders go on and on committing crime, rejecting the chances offered them by courts to change their ways through supervision in the community and continuing to cock a snook at the public, the law and society, then the courts should have tough sanctions against them. There, my hon. Friend's point about early penalties being more effective may well be relevant to what we have in mind.
      The Government introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 a new sentence—the secure training order—to strengthen the courts' powers in respect of 12 to 14-year-olds who persistently offend and who fail to respond to a community sentence. It will provide the courts with a much-needed sentence for this group of offenders combining a period of high-quality training in detention with a close supervision after that in the community. The order can be for as long as two years.
      We are now pressing ahead with the building of five new secure training centres. Invitations to tender for the provision of secure training centres at Gringley,
      1198
      Nottinghamshire and Cookham Wood, Kent are currently been assessed. Invitations to tender for building and running the other three centres will be issued as soon as the necessary planning consents have been granted.
      The courts also need a range of tough community sentencing options for those offenders who commit crimes which are not sufficiently serious to warrant custody but which ensure that offenders pay for their actions. Community sentences have a crucial part to play in punishing offenders in appropriate cases and in ensuring that offenders put back something into the community. The Government are determined that community sentences should be rigorous and that probation services take quick action, if offenders continue to misbehave, to return them to court.
      I said that I would say something about national standards, because that is why, in March, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary published new national standards for the supervision of offenders in the community. They apply equally to probation services and social services departments. The new 1995 national standards are designed to deliver greater protection of the public from further crime and more vigorous enforcement of community sentences by probation and social services departments. These new standards ensure that offenders serving community sentences face demanding programmes of supervision or work or both, in which the courts and the public can be confident that supervision will be physically or mentally demanding and that no community sentences can be properly or validly described as a soft option—as some do describe them, as my hon. Friend remarked.
      The public want to see offenders make reparation to the community, and they want to feel safe. The new standards emphasise the development of programmes of supervision, which have those objectives as their primary aim. That means that the loophole in the old standards, which resulted in a number of offenders going abroad, looking like a reward for their offending, has been closed. Every activity must now be assessed to ensure that it cannot be seen as a reward for offending.
      I have run out of time and must conclude by urging my hon. Friend to continue his discussions with the Minister of State. As I said at the beginning, I am grateful to him for raising this issue so that I could remind the House of some of the Government's recent initiatives to combat serious and persisting juvenile crime and strengthen community sentences. I have listened to my hon. Friend's concerns with great interest, and I hope that he will continue his interest in this important subject, to which he has made an important contribution.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Paper Week Exhibition (Upper Waiting Hall)
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to paper week to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 30 October to Friday 3 November 1995.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rainbow Warrior (French Attack)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the French Government about the attack on the Rainbow Warrior; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in respect of this incident. [34156]

  Mr. David Davis
  No representations have been made to the French Government about the Rainbow Warrior action. We have however reminded the French authorities of their obligations in respect of any UK nationals who might be detained.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the intergovernmental conference reflections group to discuss the reform of the common agricultural policy. [33609]

  Mr. David Davis
  The IGC study group has not yet discussed the common agricultural policy, and may not do so in any details. The 1992 MacSharry reforms demonstrated that the problems of the CAP stem less from the provisions of the treaty than from the policy which has been developed on the basis of those provisions. We shall continue to work for reform of the CAP in the appropriate fora.

  Embassies (Vehicles)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 326, if he will provide a breakdown of the figures for vehicles bought for posts abroad, specifying where possible the post and type of vehicle. [34290]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall arrange for the information requested to be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Consulates and Embassies (South Pacific)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the United Kingdom consulates and embassies in the south Pacific region, indicating the number of diplomatic staff employed at each location(a) currently and (b) 10 years ago. [34186]

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of UK-based staff slots at each post in the south Pacific region is as follows:

  Post

  1995

  1985

  Canberra

  28

  48

  Sydney

  4

  4

  Perth

  2

  2

  Brisbane

  2

  2

  Melbourne

  2

  2

  Wellington

  14

  15

  Auckland

  2

  4

  Port Moresby

  4

  4

  Suva

  4

  6

  Nuku'Alofa

  2

  2

  Vila

  2

  2

  Honiara

  2

  2

  Tarawa

  0

  1

  Mrs. Quereshi Bibi
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for the Home Department of 29 June,Official Report, column 765, when a decision is to be taken by the post in Islamabad, in the case of Mrs. Quereshi Bibi—ref. BV100/25109; and if he will make a statement. [34319]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33893]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The FCO is involved in a number of strategic projects to develop and enhance its communications and information handling facilities. As such, it has dealt with many different software suppliers and consultants. The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33862]
  685
  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The FCO spend on computer consultancy over the last five years was:

  1990–91: £3,985,000

  1991–92: £4,074,000

  1992–93: £4,527,000

  1993–94: £5,076,000

  1994–95: £4,984,000

  1995–96: £6,300,000

  1996–97: £6,100,000

  1997–98: £5,700,000

  1998–99: £5,700,000

  1999–2000: £6,000,000

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Land Registry
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the outcome of the triennial review of Her Majesty's Land Registry. [34822]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Her Majesty's Land Registry, a separate department of Government since 1862, was established as an executive agency in July 1990 and a Government trading fund in April 1993. Under its statutory powers it guarantees and grants legal title to property rights in England and Wales and provides the statutory machinery for the creation and transfer of these secured rights. The department, wholly financed from fees paid by those using its services, makes no call on public funds.

  An evaluation report, the results of which were made known to the House on 14 July 1994, concluded that the Land Registry had benefited considerably from its move to agency status. It had been a major enabling factor in promoting sound public sector management. By the achievement of progressively improving performance targets and a successful computerisation programme, the Land Registry has made a major contribution to the simplification of conveyancing in England and Wales, particularly through the development of faster and easier access to the public land register. It reduced fees by 10.6 per cent. in October 1994.

  In order to supplement this evaluation, consultants were appointed to carry out a "prior options" review to consider a range of options for involving the private sector in delivering the services provided by the Land Registry. They confirmed that the present status arrangements would ensure the continuing credibility of the Land Registry consistent with a cost effective, high-quality service likely to result in lower land registration fees to the public.

  The consultants identified scope for private sector partnerships in a number of important Land Registry initiatives. This includes further development of electronic access to the public land register, taking forward the national land information system promoted by the citizen's charter, and the potential conversion of the title plans of England and Wales to computer format. Consultants also saw scope for the Land Registry, in partnership, providing specialist advice to those overseas Governments seeking to establish stable private property
  686
  rights, secured lending and inexpensive systems of property transfer.

  The Lord Chancellor has concluded that it is right for Her Majesty's Land Registry to continue as an executive agency and trading fund. The Land Registry will concentrate on its existing plans to further simplify and reduce the cost of conveyancing in England and Wales by meeting the financial, productivity and developmental targets set for the next five years and by continuing its full market testing programme, all set out in its corporate and efficiency plans. The registry will also actively pursue private sector partnerships for the important initiatives identified. It will continue to capitalise on the scope for contracting out where this contributes to its strategic aims and objectives. A new framework document is being drawn up to cover the next five years and on completion will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much he estimates it will cost to extend legal aid to qualifying persons bringing personal injury claims up to the value of £10,000 on the proposed civil litigation fasttrack. [34245]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Until there has been an opportunity for the Lord Chancellor to consider the proposals in greater detail, it will not be possible to make an assessment of the potential cost or savings to the legal aid fund.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much he expects the Legal Aid Board to save if children are no longer able to be parties to legal actions brought on their behalf against the decisions of local education authorities. [34242]

  Mr. Taylor
  No estimate has been made.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what factors led to the delay in the Legal Aid Board sanctioning of funds for the appeal to the High Court in the case of Emma Van de Velde v. Special Needs Tribunal. [34246]

  Mr. Taylor
  The administration of civil legal aid is the responsibility of the Legal Aid Board. However, I understand that both of Miss Van de Velde's applications were dealt with promptly by the board; the first within 12 working days, and the second, for an emergency certificate, within 24 hours.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to(a) estimate and (b) publish the potential cost savings to the legal aid fund to be made from raising the upper limit on small claims from £1,000 to £3,000. [34243]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor has announced his intention to implement Lord Woolf's recommendations that the small claims limit should be raised to £3,000 for all claims except those for personal injury. Lord Woolf's recommendations is based on the desirability of making the less formal and more affordable small claims procedure available to more litigants. There are likely to be some small savings to the legal aid fund from increasing the limit. The level of such savings is still being assessed. I will write to the hon. Member when this work is completed.

  Civil Justice Reform
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing Lord Woolf's proposals for civil justice reform, with particular reference to(a) those relating to the greater use of information technology by judges and the Court Service, (b) a greater case management role for judges, (c) the appointment of a head of civil justice and (d) enhanced judicial training. [34244]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Until there has been an opportunity for the Lord Chancellor to consider the proposals in greater detail, it will not be possible to provide any cost estimates.

  Courts Agency
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average time his Department took to respond to a letter from an hon. Member before the establishment of the Courts Agency; and what is the average time taken by the agency to respond to a letter from an hon. Member in the first three months of its operation. [33166]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested in the first part of the question could not be provided without disproportionate cost. However I refer the hon. Member to the Official Report for 18 April 1995, column 22 in which the Under-Secretary of State at the Office of Public Service and Science, replying to a question from the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) said that in 1994, my Department replied to 83 per cent. of correspondence from right hon. and hon. Members within its 20 working day target. The second part of the question, concerning the average time taken by the Court Service to respond to a letter from an hon. Member, concerns a specific operational question upon which the chief executive of the court service is best placed to reply. I have accordingly asked him to do so.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Chris Mullin, dated 13 July 1995:

  RESPONSES TO MP'S CORRESPONDENCE
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question concerning the time taken to reply to correspondence from Members of Parliament.
  From the latest information available I am able to let you know that the average time taken to reply to a letter from a Member of Parliament was 22 days. I understand that a separate response is being provided by the Parliamentary Secretary about correspondence dealt with by his office.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Staff Shareholdings
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years, indicating the companies concerned.

  Mr. Newton
  The answer in both cases is none.

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what will be the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister in the work of his office.

  Mr. Newton
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 11 July,Official Report, column 496–97.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Lord President of the Council 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.

  Mr. Newton
  I visited Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong from 5 to 24 September 1992. The principal purpose of the visits to Australia and New Zealand was to meet my counterparts and to exchange experience in the field of procedural reforms, preparation and scrutiny of legislation etc. The principal purpose of the visit to Hong Kong was to study measures against drug misuse, in the context of my chairmanship of the Ministerial Committee on Drug Misuse; this visit was however curtailed by the recall of Parliament that year. The only official accompanying me was a private secretary. The cost to public funds was £20,904.

  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Wakeham, when Lord Privy Seal, visited Dubai from 24 to 26 April 1994 to open the "Britain in the Gulf' exhibition. The only official accompanying him was a private secretary. The cost to public funds was £2,619.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal accompanied His Royal Highness the Duke of York to the French Government's 50th anniversary commemoration of the liberation of southern France from 13 to 15 August 1994. The only official accompanying him was a private secretary. Travel was in an aircraft of the queen's flight. There was no further cost to public funds.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Commodity Exchanges
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been given by(a) his Department and (b) EU aid to establish or develop commodity exchanges for cocoa, coffee or sugar in developing countries; and if he will list the date, location and value of any aid projects of this type approved by his Department or the EU in the past five years. [34301]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have supported a number of commodity-based projects in developing countries, bilaterally, through the EC and through the common fund for commodities. The objectives have included assistance with production, diversification and marketing, but the development of commodity exchanges in developing countries has not, to date, been one of our principal aims.
  689
  A list of bilateral projects and those supported through the command fund for commodities in the field is being placed in the Library of the House. We are investigating whether a similar list exists for EC-funded projects.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sex Shops and Cinemas
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all legislation under which unauthorised sex shops and sex cinemas can be prosecuted; and how many prosecutions under each provision there have been in the last five years. [32966]

  Mr. Maclean
  The legislation under which unauthorised sex shops and sex cinemas can be prosecuted is the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The relevant provisions are as follows:Schedule 3, paragraph 20(a), (b), (c) and (d)—offences relating to operating a sex establishment without or in contravention of the terms of a licence.
  Schedule 3, paragraph 21—making a false statement in a connection with the application, renewal or transfer of a licence.
  Under Schedule 3, paragraph 22(1) a person guilty of an offence under paragraphs 20 or 21 shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20,000.
  Under schedule 3, paragraph 22(2) a person who fails to comply with paragraph 14(1) (display of copy of licence and standard conditions) shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  Schedule 3, paragraph 23—offences relating to the admission or employment of persons under 18. A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20,000.
  Schedule 3, paragraph 24(6)—refusal to permit a constable or authorised local authority officer to exercise powers provided under paragraph 24. For every such refusal a person shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

  In 1989, there was one prosecution under schedule 3 paragraph 20(a) of the Act. However it should be noted that statistics of court proceedings are based on returns made by the police to the Home Office and although these include offences where there has been no police involvement, such as those prosecutions instigated by Government Departments, local authorities, as in this case, and private organisations and individuals, the reporting of these types of offences is known to be incomplete.

  Information collected from 1990 onwards does not identify individual offences committed under this specific Act from other summary offences.

  Money Laundering
  Mrs. Barbara Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many officers in each police service are devoted to investigating reports from banks of possible money laundering. [33119]

  (2) how many reports the National Criminal Intelligence Service received from banks about possible money laundering in each of the last three years; [33120]
  690
  (3) what has been the average length of time taken over the last year (a) for NCIS to respond to reports of banks' suspicions of money laundering and pass the information on to individual police forces and (b) for individual police forces to investigate such reports; [33121]

  (4) how many staff at NCIS are currently employed in responding to banks' suspicions of money laundering; [33122]

  (5) what resources NCIS has invested in investigating money laundering in each of the last three years. [33123]

  Mr. Maclean
  Investigation of possible cases of money laundering is a matter primarily for the police and HM Customs and Excise. The role of the financial intelligence and money laundering section of the National Criminal Intelligence Service is to research and develop disclosures made to it and to enhance their intelligence value before dissemination to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The cost of the section is estimated as:

  1993–94: £450,000

  1994–95: £460,000

  1995–96: £530,000 (estimated)

  As at 1 July 1995, there were 13 staff employed in the section.

  The number of disclosures received by NCIS from banks and other financial institutions in each of the last three years is as follows:

  1992: 11,542

  1993: 12,736

  1994: 15,007

  It is estimated that the average time taken by the NCIS to process financial disclosures during 1994 was 12 weeks. This has now been reduced to 20 working days.

  Information with regard to the average time taken by police forces to process such reports is not collected.

  I understand that there are about 360 trained financial investigation officers in police forces in England and Wales. Other officers will be involved in financial investigations at different times.

  Transport of Prisoners (Securicor)
  Mrs. Barbara Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the total time by which court proceedings have been delayed because of late delivery of prisoners by Securicor to courts in London; [32536]

  (2) what has been the cost to public funds of delays to court proceedings caused by late delivery of prisoners by Securicor to courts in London; [32538]

  (3) what sanctions he has in respect of Securicor's failure to deliver prisoners to the Court of Appeal on time; and what action he plans to take; [32540]

  (4) how many prisoners Securicor has escorted to court since the service was contracted out; and how many of these have been delivered to court late, or within so little time to spare that court proceedings have been delayed. [32542]
  691
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 13 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the delivery of prisoners to courts in London by Securicor Custodial Services Ltd.
  Between the start of the contract on 27 June 1994 and 31 May 1995 Securicor escorted 52,422 prisoners to court. Of this total 1,520 prisoners (2.9%) were delivered late for reasons within Securicor's control. Prisoners may also be delivered late to court for reasons that are outside Securicor's control. Under the terms of the contract, a late delivery occurs if a prisoner arrives at a court less than 30 minutes before the court starts sitting.
  Securicor is meeting the performance target set out in the contract for delivering prisoners to court. If they fail to do so, default notices may be issued and financial remedies applied if performance does not improve. Ultimately, as with all contracts, the contract may be terminated. Since 20 June the latest time prisoners arrived at the Court of Appeal was 9.07 am. The contractual requirement is that they arrive by 9.30 am.
  It is not possible to say by how much court proceedings have been delayed as a result of prisoners arriving late at court or how much any such delays may have cost. Not all cases at court involving prisoners begin at the same time and not all courts hear custody cases first.
  You may be interested to know that in a recent survey, 86% of customers (the courts, the police and the prisons in London) were either satisfied or very satisfied with Securicor's punctuality and flexibility. In addition, 97% of court staff felt that Securicor were providing an equal (28%) or better (69%) service than they received before.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action he has taken to monitor the workings of the new undertaking employers are required to sign when bringing their overseas domestic workers into the United Kingdom; [33991]

  (2) what action he has taken to monitor the workings of the new undertaking employers are required to sign when bringing their overseas domestic workers into Scotland. [33992]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Employers are required to sign an undertaking to maintain and accommodate their domestic workers satisfactorily, including the provision of a separate bedroom, when applications for entry clearance are made. In the case of domestic workers who come for longer than a visit, when applications for further leave to remain are made, inquiries are made that the conditions of the scheme, including adequate maintenance and accommodation, continue to be met.

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, columns 349–50 if he will give details of each of the incidents involving a reactivated firearm. [34238]

  Mr. Maclean
  I am now aware of 20 incidents since the beginning of 1993. I understand that two were murders, seven others resulted in a non-fatal injury and four involved shots being fired, apparently without causing injury, in the course of crime. In the remaining 692
  seven incidents, there was no injury or evidence that they were associated with any other crime. Twelve of the incidents are reported as having taken place in the Greater Manchester police force area, two each in Mersyside, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands and one each in Lancashire and the Metropolitan police district.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many homicides involving(a) shotguns and (b) other firearms have taken place in each police force area in each of the last five years; and how many of the victims in each case were women; [34157]

  (2) how many thefts of (a) shotguns and (b) other firearms took place in each of the last five years, (i) from domestic premises and (ii) from other premises in each police force area. [34158]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not immediately available and I will write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when he will lay before Parliament the sixth annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee. [34716]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today placed a copy of the annual report of the Firearms Consultative Committee in the Library.

  Mrs. Rehana Fiaz
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the United Kingdom post in Islamabad asked the Home Office to arrange for the sponsor of Mrs. Rehana Fiaz (Ref.GV 100/27227) to be interviewed; where and when the interview is to take place; and if he will make a statement. [34300]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The request from the British high commission in Islamabad for an interview of Mrs. Rehana Fiaz's sponsor was received by the Home Office on 15 December 1994. Arrangements have been made to interview the sponsor on 8 August at the immigration office at Leeds/Bradford airport.

  Pre-trial Procedures (High Court)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals the Government have to improve pre-trial procedures in the Crown Court. [34715]

  Mr. Howard
  The Government share the view of the Royal Commission on criminal justice that further measures are needed to improve the effectiveness of pre-trial hearings in the Crown Court, to enable issues to be clarified and resolved in advance of the trial.

  To achieve this, we propose providing for a power for judges to make binding rulings before the start of the trial, and for an extension of the existing system of preparatory hearings, currently held in serious fraud cases, to other potentially long or complex cases. These proposals are contained in a consultation paper on improving the effectiveness of pre-trial hearings in the Crown Court—which we are publishing today.

  Stolen Vehicles
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department are undertaking to limit the number of vehicles stolen. [33577]

  Mr. Maclean
  Vehicle crime decreased by almost 2 per cent. in 1993 and by 10 per cent. in 1994. This downward trend is encouraging and it would appear that the measures taken by the Department are having an effect.

  The Department is addressing vehicle crime in a number of ways, and the following are just a few examples of the work being done by the Home Office.

  The prevention of car crime was a central feature of our 1992 car crime prevention year campaign which showed what could be done if car owners, the police, motor manufacturers, the insurance industry, motoring organisations and car park operators made a concerted effort to tackle the problem together.

  The Home Office public relations branch produces a range of crime prevention advice leaflets covering crimes committed against different types of vehicles.

  Home Office Ministers have asked manufacturers to introduce effective immobilisation systems, deadlocking, and visible vehicle identification numbers; and the Home Office police scientific and development branch has provided free technical advice to manufacturers on how to do this.

  The Home Office has worked closely with the Department of Transport to ensure that the British standards on vehicle security we wanted were incorporated into the compulsory EC directive 74/61.

  The Department supports the work of SOLD SECURE, an Association of Chief Police Officers-backed organisation which tests the effectiveness of vehicle security devices for older cars and publicises details of approved products; and also the Vehicle Security Installation Board, which publishes lists of approved installers of security products.

  The Home Office also supports schemes designed to prevent young people turning to crime, and a great deal is being done in this area through motor projects and other diversionary schemes.

  The Home Office has already taken action to deal with offenders. The Aggravated Vehicle-Taking Act 1992 demonstrates our determination to deal with the menace posed by those who take cars and cause damage, injury or death.

  Work to reduce vehicle crime is informed by regular Home Office research; and is taken forward by the vehicle crime prevention group whose members are drawn from the police, motor manufacturers, dealers, the insurance industry, motoring organisations and Government Departments.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicles were stolen in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years. [33576]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to offences of theft of a motor vehicle recorded by the police in England and Wales. This information is published in table 2.19 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1993" (Cm 2680) and in table 6 of Home Office statistical 694
  bulletin 5/95; copies of both these publications are in the Library. Information on Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the Secretary of State for each Department.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers have committed suicide in prisons or detention centres in each of the last three calendar years and in the current year to date; [33347]

  (2) how many asylum seekers are recorded as having committed suicide when not in detention, but after rejection of their asylum applications, in each of the last three calendar years and in the current year to date. [33348]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No person who had sought asylum has committed suicide in a prison or detention centre in the last three calendar years or in the current year to date. Information is not available about people who have committed suicide after an application for asylum has been refused and who are not detained.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what method was used to monitor the results of the "No Self-Completion Questionnaire" exercise undertaken by the asylum division of his Department in recent months; what were the results of the exercise as regards time taken to process decisions and the quality of those decisions compared to cases dealt with under normal procedures; how many of the cases decided have been finally determined after appeals brought to the Immigration Appeals Authority; and if he will deposit a record on the exercise in the Library. [33346]

  Mr. Baker
  I am placing in the Library a brief report on this exercise; which includes details of the monitoring arrangements used. It produced a direct saving in the screening process for applications of between four and six weeks. All six appeals against refusal heard during the period of the exercise were dismissed: a further analysis will be carried out when more appeals have been heard.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33461]

  Mr. Howard
  Expenditure incurred on employing consultants was £2,160,000, excluding value added tax, in respect of the privatisation of National Transcommunications Ltd. and £784,000, excluding value added tax, in respect of the privatisation of DTELS—formerly the Home Office Directorate of Telecommunications.

  Police Driver Training
  Ms Jowell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount spent on driver training by each police force area in England and Wales for each year since 1990. [33487]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information collected centrally is related to the number of days spent on all aspects of driver and
  695
  traffic training, which includes training in matters such as traffic law, road safety, speed enforcement and accident investigation as well as driving courses. Details are set out in the table. Information about training costs is also given but is incomplete.

  Total training days—driver and traffic training

  Force

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Avon and Somerset

  6,710

  6,736

  6,829

  Bedfordshire

  2,562

  2,414

  2,555

  Cambridgeshire

  587

  1,074

  2,053

  Cheshire

  3,547

  1,843

  1,429

  City of London

  952

  697

  706

  Cleveland

  2,259

  743

  618

  Cumbria

  1,496

  1,383

  1,416

  Derbyshire

  4,511

  2,287

  2,795

  Devon and Cornwall

  3,652

  4,254

  3,648

  Dorset

  1,524

  1,804

  1,603

  Durham

  2,135

  2,643

  2,136

  Dyfed Powys

  1,614

  1,397

  1,746

  Essex

  6,535

  7,813

  7,840

  Gloucestershire

  1,762

  1,465

  1,282

  Greater Manchester

  12,431

  10,345

  9,062

  Gwent

  1,513

  1,291

  n/a

  Hampshire

  3,944

  3,407

  n/a

  Hertfordshire

  3,698

  2,160

  3,260

  Humberside

  2,490

  3,158

  —

  Kent

  4,620

  2,643

  3,008

  Lancashire

  2,675

  3,321

  3,003

  Leicestershire

  2,270

  3,011

  2,521

  Lincolnshire

  1,617

  1,675

  1,562

  Merseyside

  5,504

  6,608

  3,601

  Norfolk

  2,652

  2,406

  1,887

  Northamptonshire

  2,466

  2,389

  2,130

  Northumbria

  5,178

  4,410

  4,535

  North Wales

  1,351

  1,325

  1,101

  North Yorkshire

  2,345

  2,944

  2,754

  Nottinghamshire

  4,030

  3,151

  2,477

  South Wales

  2,490

  4,341

  4,982

  South Yorkshire

  3,756

  3,570

  4,396

  Staffordshire

  4,677

  4,982

  3,936

  Suffolk

  1,715

  2,115

  1,916

  Surrey

  2,889

  3,674

  —

  Sussex

  4,465

  6,843

  —

  Thames Valley

  7,948

  7,427

  5,585

  Warwickshire

  1,153

  1,678

  969

  West Mercia

  2,236

  3,375

  4,014

  West Midlands

  13,016

  9,980

  10,777

  West Yorkshire

  4,532

  4,304

  4,920

  Wiltshire

  2,771

  3,332

  2,638

  Metropolitan

  28,149

  31,783

  33,886

  Training costs—driver and traffic training

  £

  Force

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Avon and Somerset

  1,494,009

  1,321,638

  1,453,522

  Bedfordshire

  —

  590,523

  677,496

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  361.942

  524,857

  Cheshire

  509,266

  376,253

  330,990

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  Cleveland

  467,000

  273,000

  —

  Cumbria

  305,436

  135,649

  259,091

  Derbyshire

  929,463

  —

  577,794

  Devon and Cornwall

  655,897

  855,765

  877,513

  Dorset

  —

  419,892

  —

  Durham

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed Powys

  263,400

  231,600

  —

  Essex

  1,964,589

  1,300,000

  2,007,391

  Gloucestershire

  350,784

  293,538

  276,670

  Greater Manchester

  —

  1,251,773

  1,207,188

  696

  Training costs—driver and traffic training

  £

  Force

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Gwent

  287,498

  209,866

  —

  Hampshire

  —

  858,621

  1,114,196

  Hertfordshire

  —

  —

  —

  Humberside

  520,000

  258,000

  —

  Kent

  1,048,039

  875,336

  1,185,687

  Lancashire

  —

  914,666

  —

  Leicestershire

  253,713

  —

  405,623

  Lincolnshire

  —

  474,400

  —

  Merseyside

  1,594,039

  1,827,821

  1,413,639

  Norfolk

  571,500

  519,700

  453,800

  Northamptonshire

  —

  441,661

  431,128

  Northumbria

  —

  —

  968,752

  North Wales

  —

  —

  121,569

  North Yorkshire

  433,570

  533,890

  550,200

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  710,292

  —

  South Wales

  644,808

  840,145

  961.465

  South Yorkshire

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  441,759

  1,137,897

  535,668

  Suffolk

  553,462

  448

  456,012

  Surrey

  864,700

  969,000

  1,002,000

  Sussex

  503,000

  805,912

  —

  Thames Valley

  —

  1,761,828

  1,380,992

  Warwickshire

  166,314

  788,718

  249,693

  West Mercia

  596,616

  725,905

  897,038

  West Midlands

  3,020,332

  3,226,004

  2,989,280

  West Yorkshire

  1,674,900

  1,493,900

  1,561,300

  Wiltshire

  47,620

  303,448

  392,890

  Metropolitan

  —

  4,546,817

  —

  Figures for 1993–94 and 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Trucks (Policing)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff are employed with the police(a) full time and (b) as part of their other duties to train traffic policemen in truck enforcement work. [33588]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available. Training for traffic officers concerned with the enforcement of legislation on goods vehicle safety is generally provided by police officers acting as instructors. We are not aware that any officers are employed solely for the purpose of providing this particular training.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police forces have traffic officers or special units dedicated to enforcing truck safety; and what are the numbers of police staff who are dedicated in this way(a) in total and (b) in each of the past 10 years. [33583]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is not available. Police officers assigned to traffic work are involved in many aspects of traffic law enforcement not solely the enforcement of goods vehicle safety legislation.

  Deaths in Custody
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define a "properly interested person" in cases involving deaths in custody. [33341]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  No. Under the present law, the determination of a "properly interested person" under the Coroners Rules 1984 for the purposes of any inquest is a matter for the coroner. The circumstances in which
  697
  persons may be interested in a particular case vary so considerably that I do not think that further definition is practicable.

  Immigration Service
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to compare the performance of the Immigration Service at the different ports of entry to the United Kingdom. [33840]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The National Audit Office report. "Entry into the United Kingdom"—HC204—made a number of recommendations about the development of an indicator system to compare the performance of the Immigration Service at individual ports of entry. All the recommendations are being carefully considered and as a first step the Immigration Service has made significant revisions to its management information system to facilitate better use and easier comparisons of performance indicators. Further work is continuing.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to improve passenger clearance times at ports of entry. [33839]

  Mr. Baker
  The Immigration Service has published service standards for passenger queuing times at all ports and airports, and monitoring exercises have shown that these standards have generally been achieved. Consistent with the need to apply effectively the immigration rules as set down by Parliament, the service seeks to introduce measures aimed at further improving this aspect of its work—often in co-operation with port operators and carrying companies. Recent initiatives include:the introduction of new shift arrangements at certain ports to help match staff deployment more closely to predicted weight of arriving traffic, particularly during the early morning;
  the development of fast track facilities at Heathrow terminals 3 and 4;
  increased on-board coach clearance at Dover; and
  special arrangements for tour groups at Heathrow terminal 4.

  Foundation for Business Responsibilities
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many staff were allocated to the charity commissioners' second inquiry into the Foundation for Business Responsibilities; how long they spent making their inquiries; and what was the total number of man hours put into the investigation; [32057]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 18 May, Official Report, column 369, how much money the charity commissioners found had been improperly paid to Marketforce Communications by the Foundation for Business Responsibilities; who was the individual responsible for these payments; and how much money this individual repaid to the charity; [32067]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 18 May, Official Report, column 369, on what grounds the charity commissioners decided that some payments to Marketforce Communications by the Foundation for Business Responsibilities had been improper; [32066]
  698
  (4) which donors to the Foundation for Business Responsibilities were interviewed or corresponded with during the charity commissioners' second inquiry into the charity; and if he will place copies of this correspondence in the Library; [32056]

  (5) how many witnesses were interviewed by the charity commission during its second investigation into the Foundation for Business Responsibilities; and if he will list them. [32058]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Details of persons written to or interviewed by the Charity Commission during an investigation are a matter for the Charity Commission. The commission's correspondence files are confidential, particularly those relating to investigations cases where disclosure may discourage third parties from providing information to the commission. Correspondence will not usually be disclosed without the authority of an order of the court or the consent of the correspondent.

  The commission's second inquiry was conducted by one member of staff who, over a period of four and a half months, spent a total of 22¼ hours on it. The investigator was supported at times by senior staff. The duration of this support was not recorded.

  During the course of the commission's investigation, the trustees of the Foundation for Business Responsibilities themselves acknowledged that some of the payments made by the foundation to Marketforce Communications were not justified having regard to the services provided by marketforce to the foundation. The commission was not party to any consideration of the factors leading to the trustees' decision.

  During the course of the commission's first inquiry, £98,987.96 was identified as being improperly paid to Marketforce Communications. The former director of the foundation, Michael Ivens, authorised the payments. He repaid the money to the charity.

  Prison Governors (Bonus Scheme)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement outlining how the bonds scheme for prison governors works. [32251]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. George Howarth, dated 13 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how the bonus scheme for prison governors works.
  The Special Bonus Scheme applies to all staff in the Prison Service and Home Office, including governor grades. Special bonuses are used as an exceptional measure to give prompt and tangible recognition for outstanding performance in particularly demanding tasks or situations which may arise during periods of exceptional pressure. In the financial year 1994/95 fourteen such awards were given to prison governors.
  More usually, governor grades earn performance related pay based on movement up an agreed scale on the basis of the annual performance assessment by their line manager.

  Prisoners (Home Leave Refusals)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of home leaves of prison inmates that have been refused due to the fact that victims object to such home leave; and if he will make a statement. [31373]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 13 July 1993:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of home leaves of prison inmates that have been refused due to the fact that the victims object to such home leave.Last November the Home Secretary announced new arrangements to replace the existing home leave and temporary release schemes for prisoners. The new system of release on temporary licence came into effect on 25 April following changes made to the Prison Rules. A new system of data collection is being established to monitor the operation of the new system but information about victim concerns will not be recorded centrally because, in most cases any decision to refuse an application would be based on a variety of factors and not solely because of victim representations. Under the new arrangements, governors are required, within the risk assessment process for considering applications for release on temporary licence, to take full account of any concern expressed by victims. However, victims do not generally have any power to veto the release of prisoners on temporary licence, except where the victim is in the home and their wishes must be respected.The Victims Helpline which opened last December had received 186 calls by 29 June, of which 73 were enquiries and 113 were representations. These were passed to the appropriate prison for consideration. Information about the nature of the individual representations and whether they led to a refusal of release on temporary licence is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many disability living allowance appeals were received by his Department concerning(a) a review requested within three months of the original decision and (b) a review requested at any time; and in each case, how many appeals were successful, in each of the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; [33031]

  (2) how many claims for disability living allowance were received by his Department in each of the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; [33027]

  (3) how many requests for a review within three months of a refusal to award disability living allowance were received by his Department in each of the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; how many of these requests were refused; and how many of the reviews resulted in the original decision being revised; [33029]
  700
  (4) how many requests for a review made at any time concerning refusal of an award of disability living allowance were received by his Department in each of the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95; how many of these requests were refused; and how many of the reviews resulted in the original decision being revised; [33030]

  (5) how many awards of disability living allowance were made in each of the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33028]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested for all the questions. Available information is in the tables.

  Disability living allowance claims and awards

  Thousands

  Number

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Claims received

  744

  435

  504

  Awards made

  432

  223

  233

  Note:

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Claims received in one year may not be decided in the same year.

  Source:

  Analytical Service Division: 100 per cent. data.

  Disability living allowance review of claims

  Thousands

  Number

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Review within three months

  Received

  79

  133

  154

  Decided

  40

  158

  146

  Successful

  17

  64

  61

  Review requested at any time

  Received

  97

  271

  330

  Decided

  46

  293

  317

  Successful

  20

  135

  154

  Notes

  1. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Claims decided in one year may not be reviewed in the same year.

  3. Request for review may be about the rate or length of award as well as whether or not an award was made.

  4. A decision may be revised because the claimant has provided additional evidence on review or because the claimant'scondition has deteriorated.

  5. A review at any time includes reviews requested within three months of the original decision.

  Source:

  Analytical Service Division: 100 per cent. data.

  Disability living allowance appeals

  Thousands

  Numbers

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Received

  7

  30

  29

  Successful

  0

  10

  16

  Notes:

  1. Reviews decided in one year may not be heard on appeal in the same year.

  2. An appeal may be about the rate or length of award as well as whether or not an award was made.

  3. A decision may be revised on appeal because the claimant has provided additional evidence or because the claimant's condition has deteriorated.

  Sickness, Disability and Disablement Benefits
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest monthly count of claimants drawing any one of the sickness, disability or disablement benefits. [33141]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is in the table:

  Benefit

  Numbers in receipt

  Latest data

  Attendance Allowance1

  996,000

  March1994

  Disability Living Allowance2

  1,541.000

  May1995

  Disability Working Allowance3

  5,202

  January 1995

  Industrial Injuries Benefit4

  209,000

  April 1993

  Invalidity Benefit5,12

  1,580,000

  April 1993

  Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis, and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme6

  331

  June 1995

  Reduced Earnings Allowance/Retirement Allowance7

  155,000

  April 1993

  Sickness Benefit8 12

  147,000

  April 1993

  Severe Disablement Allowance9

  316,000

  April 1993

  War Disablement Benefit10

  260,297

  March 1995

  Workmens Compensation Supplementation Scheme11

  870

  June 1995

  Figures rounded to the nearest thousand other than those based on a 100 per cent. count of cases.

  1. Based on 100 per cent. count of cases, adjusted by an annual sampling exercise.

  2. Based on five per cent. sample.

  3. Based on 100 per cent. count.

  4. Rated up from ten per cent. sample with an allowance for late returns. The figure quoted related to the number of assessment in payment and not recipients. A person may be in receipt of more than one pension.

  5. Based on one per cent. sample.

  6. Based on 100 per cent. count of cases.

  7. Rated up from a ten per cent. sample with an allowance for late returns. The figure quoted relates to the number of allowances in payment and not recipients. A person may be in receipt of more than one allowance.

  8. Based on a one per cent. sample.

  9. Based on one per cent. sample.

  10. Based on 100 per cent. count of cases.

  11. Based on 100 per cent. count of cases.

  12. Replaced by Incapacity benefit from 13 April 1995.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) loans and (b) grants had been made in each region by the social fund in the last year for which figures are available. [32829]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Ian Magee to Mr. Jim Cunningham dated 12 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of Social Fund loans and grants made in each region in the last year for which figures are available.
  With the creation of the Benefits Agency in April 1991, offices were grouped into Districts. These were then grouped into Area Directorates within three Territorial Directorates.
  702
  I have therefore provides, at Annex A, the information requested by Area Directorate for the financial year 1994–95.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Annex A: Number of community care grants and loans awarded in the Benefits Agency area directorates during the financial year 1994–95

  Territory and area directorate

  Grant awards

  Loan awards

  Scotland and Northern

  Tyne Tees

  18,734

  101,582

  South Yorkshire and Humberside

  17,542

  93,609

  North and West Yorkshire

  11,783

  82,189

  Glasgow and Paisley

  16,238

  101,581

  North, Central and West Scotland

  17,974

  76,117

  East Scotland

  10,047

  66,912

  Territory total

  92,318

  521,990

  Southern

  Anglia

  12,802

  66,188

  Chilterns

  11,014

  70,841

  South London and West Sussex

  9,678

  66,770

  West Country

  16,792

  93,515

  Essex and East London

  13,192

  73,637

  South East

  11,551

  81,904

  Wessex

  10,543

  73,138

  Territory total

  85,572

  525,993

  Wales and Central

  East Midlands

  13,078

  74,587

  Midlands South West

  12,563

  61,408

  West Mercia

  15,814

  77,079

  Wales

  20,860

  88,708

  Merseyside

  17,456

  100,879

  Greater Manchester

  14,693

  91,676

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  12,263

  76,961

  Territory total

  106,727

  571,298

  National total

  284,617

  1,619,281

  Information Technology Services Agency Data Centres
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of each of the bids received for the four ITSA data centres. [33164]

  Mr. Burt
  It is not normal practice for commercially sensitive information to be made available in this manner.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the EDS bids for lots E and F were the lowest; and if he will make a statement. [33167]

  Mr. Burt
  All suppliers' bid for lots E and F were evaluated in accordance with an approved process covering financial and non-financial aspects. The EDS bids for the lots were the lowest bids received.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made as to whether the purchase by EDS of all four DSS computer centres threatens security of supply and on-going competition; and if he will make a statement. [33168]

  Mr. Burt
  The decision to award all data centre services work to EDS was made after a rigorous technical, financial and business evaluation in full accord with EC services directive 92/50/EEC. The contractual agreement allows the Department of Social Security to market test any segment of the awarded business if, in its judgment,
  703
  competitive prices are not being maintained. In those circumstances, the Department may award business to another supplier.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the contracts his Department has with the computer company EDS. [33176]

  Mr. Burt
  The following contracts are currently held with EDS: area computer centre facilities management—704
  a contract to manage the area computer centre at Norcross, Blackpool; Child Support Agency, technical services agreement—development of Child Support Agency computer system; Child Support Agency live support—maintenance of child support agency computer system; framework agreement for computer and related services—consultancy support; Focus' 95—outsourcing contract for data centre services elements of ITSA's service delivery. This includes management of the area computer centre at Norcross, Blackpool.

TRANSPORT

  Long-distance Haulage Industry
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the value to Britain's invisible exports of the long-distance haulage industry. [32570]

  Mr. Norris
  In 1994, it is estimated that UK road hauliers contributed £520 million to UK invisible exports.

  A3 Trunk Road Works
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he now expects the A3 trunk road works in the region of Guildford to be completed; what penalty clauses are in operation for time overruns; and what compensation will be paid to those businesses which have suffered a prolonged downturn in custom as a result of the roadworks and consequent delays; [33643]

  (2) what studies he has made of the traffic delays caused during 1995 by the A3 roadwork operations in the Guildford region; what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the conduct of the contactors with the local authorities and with the signposting and provision of information to motorists; and if he will make a statement. [33642]

  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the highways agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Howell, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about roadwork on the A3 at Guildford.
  No studies as such, have been made of the traffic delays caused during 1995 by these roadwork. Traffic conditions are, of course, being watched closely by operational staff supervising the contract.
  Our agents, Surrey County Council, are monitoring carefully, the performance and conduct of the contractor as part of their contract supervision role. It would not be appropriate to comment further on this prior to the completion and final settlement of the contract.
  We are satisfied with the adequacy of the signposting which extends from the M3 at Winchester to the M25 junction at Wisley. Information to the public has been given a high priority. A full press briefing was held before the start of works and frequent television and local radio interviews have been held as works have progressed.
  Provided no unavoidable delays occur, the works are expected to be completed by the end of July. The contract is of the lane rental type which provides for the contractor to be charged £20,000 for every day he overruns the contract completion date, as adjusted for any delays caused by factors outside his control. The contract also provides for the payment to the contractor of a bonus for early completion.
  There is no provision at law for compensation for loss of business because of changes in traffic arising from roadworks.

  Rail Services (Support Payments)
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each train operation unit or company, the support payments made to the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising to British Rail, under section 52 of the Railways Act 1993. [34207]

  Mr. Watts
  The Director of Passenger Rail Franchising is currently negotiating with the British Railways Board 706
  the level of support for passenger rail services, under section 52 of the Railways Act 1993, appropriate of reach train operating unit or company in the current financial year. I will write to the hon. Member when the level of support has been agreed and will place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Four-wheel Drive Off-road Vehicles
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the main conclusions of his Department's research collating figures involving four-wheel drive off-road vehicles with particular reference to(a) the period of survey and (b) the total number of accidents in which such vehicles were involved, indicating the proportion of total accidents constituted by this figure. [34040]

  Mr. Norris
  Personal injury road accident data obtained by the police and reported to the Department using the STATS19 accident report form show that in 1994, four-wheel off-road vehicles were known to be involved in approximately 3,400 accidents, a figure which constitutes 1.5 per cent. of the total number of accidents.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the four-wheel drive off-road vehicles involved in accidents collated in his Department's research were fitted with bull-bars; how many pedestrian-only accidents involving(a) children and (b) adults were recorded, indicating the vehicle's speed at the time of the accident; how many involved pedestrian deaths in respect of (a) and (b); and if he will indicate the numbers of (i) cars and (ii) light commercial vehicles involved. [34041]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is not available. The Transport Research Laboratory is currently analysing the accidents identified by the police during 1994 which involved a vehicle fitted with a bull bar. Its report is expected to answer questions as far as possible.

  British Rail (Catering Products)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which companies have been shortlisted to supply British Rail with catering products; and if he will make a statement on what the contract is worth and what it entails. [34084]

  Mr. Watts
  The supply of catering products to British Rail and the details of any relevant contractual arrangements are commercial matters for the British Railways Board.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it remains his policy that the channel tunnel rail link will be built only within the route and limits of deviation specified in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill and in the documents listed in that Bill. [34134]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes. Construction of the route on the lands defined in the hybrid Bill is a minimum requirement of the competition.

  Unsafe Vehicles
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) coaches and (b) heavy goods vehicles have been found to be unsafe in each of the last five years; and how many prosecutions have taken place as a consequence. [34142]

  Mr. Norris
  Information relating to numbers of prosecutions is contained in Home Office and Scottish Office statistics. The statistics show the number of offences and not the number of vehicles found unsafe. Consequently, the information does not distinguish between road vehicle types.

  The relevant figures are shown in the table below:

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Year

  Offences1

  Offences prosecuted in Magistrates court

  Offences2

  Offences Prosecuted

  1989

  389,043

  97,351

  48,179

  10,797

  1990

  383,715

  89,419

  47,477

  9,897

  1991

  382,078

  91,890

  46,765

  8,839

  1992

  381,232

  93,504

  47,775

  7,980

  1993

  383,382

  87,354

  51,387

  6,557

  1 These figures relate to circumstances where a vehicle or vehicle part has been found to be in a dangerous or defective condition including brakes, steering gear, tyres. They also include offences of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition and other related offences. The action taken includes prosecutions (shown separately), vehicle defect rectification notices issued, written warnings and fixed penalty notices issued.

  2 The offences covered are offences under the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989.

  Bus and Coach Safety
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to expand the work of the Vehicle Inspectorate to achieve higher standards of bus and coach following the Operation Tourist crackdown; and if he will make a statement. [34083]

  Mr. Norris
  We are committed to increasing compliance with the safety standards for buses and coaches through an effective enforcement regime. The joint Vehicle Inspectorate and police Operation Tourist crackdown—which involved staff targeting tourist coaches suspected of having safety defects on holiday routes in the south and west on 8 July—demonstrates that commitment.

  Regular roadside enforcement checks and checks of vehicles at operators' premises are an essential tool for increasing compliance with safety standards. Special
  708
  roadside enforcement exercises such as Operation Tourist provide an opportunity to target one specific vehicle type. Moreover, an additional £100,000 has recently been made available to the Vehicle Inspectorate for enforcement work in relation to buses and coaches this financial year.

  Transport Supplementary Grant
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which highway authorities in England had three or more new schemes approved for transport supplementary grant in his approvals for(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96. [34133]

  Mr. Norris
  No authority had three or more new schemes approved for transport supplementary grant in either of these years.

  Railways (Noise Insulation Regulations)
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the draft Noise Insulation Regulations for New Railway Lines; and if he will make a statement. [34569]

  Mr. Watts
  The Draft Noise Insulation Regulations for New Railway Lines and associated technical memorandum have been laid before Parliament today. The regulations are intended to provide equity of treatment as between those living alongside new railway lines and those living alongside new roads, who are protected by existing noise insulation regulations.

  Although I fully expect developers of new railway lines to take all practical measures to reduce railway noise at source, there will inevitably be instances where this may not be possible or cost-effective.

  The new regulations will create a duty, in the case of new lines and additional tracks constructed alongside existing lines, to provide insulation, or a grant for the costs of carrying out insulation works, when noise exceeds certain levels. They also give a discretionary power to offer insulation in the case of certain alterations to existing railway lines.

  With a number of new railway projects either planned or under construction, it is only fair and proper that people who live alongside these lines should have a similar degree of statutory noise protection that their neighbours living near new roads have benefited from over the last 20 years.

  In the case of existing railway lines, which now carry new channel tunnel rail traffic, noise mitigation schemes have been agreed between BR/Railfreight Distribution and Kent and Surrey county councils and the London borough of Bromley. Under these schemes, acoustic barriers are being erected at affected locations alongside existing lines to and from the channel tunnel. They are being jointly funded by the organisations involved, with Government assistance.
  709
  I would like to see BR/Railfreight Distribution actively entering into similar agreements with other local authorities whose areas might be similarly affected in future.

  North Downs Line (International Freight)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to the use of the North Downs line as a route for international freight trains avoiding London. [34435]

  Mr. Watts
  In August 1994, Railtrack reported to me that the North Downs line was not a commercially viable alternative route. I asked officials to report to me whether there was likely to be any environmental benefits which could justify the development of the North Downs line at public expense. They have concluded that there are not. I have today placed a copy of their report in the Library of the House.

  Coastguard Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the Coastguard Agency has implemented efficiency savings; to what extent; and what further changes he intends to make before April 1996. [34028]

  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 13 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.
  PO 2343/94/95 We were successful in meeting our 3% running costs efficiency target by means of:
  —rationalising the accommodation and common services provision in HQ;
  —reductions in administrative staff, following a staff inspection, leading to a more effective HQ support organisation;
  —reducing property maintenance cost;
  —reducing IT maintenance costs;
  —reducing administrative costs.
  Further efficiency measures for 1995–96 are detailed in our Business Plan and are currently under consideration.

  Vehicle Inspectorate
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the annual basic pay for traffic examiners, senior traffic examiners and vehicle examiners in each year since 1984; [33586]

  (2) what were the numbers of immediate and delayed prohibitions imposed by the Vehicle Inspectorate on trucks for each year since 1984; [33582]

  (3) how many hours were lost in Vehicle Inspectorate enforcement for each year since 1984 because police resources could not be provided; [33584]

  (4) how many staff are employed within the Vehicle Inspectorate (a) full time and (b) as part of their other duties to train (i) traffic examiners and (ii) vehicle examiners; [33587]
  710
  (5) how many senior traffic examiners were employed for each year since 1984; [33585]

  (6) what targets the Vehicle Inspectorate has had regarding enforcement for each year since 1984; [33589]

  (7) how much was spent on vehicle examiners and traffic examiners, not including testing station staff, for each year since 1984. [33581]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Vehicle Inspectorate agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ron Oliver to Ms Joan Walley, dated 13 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions on our enforcement activities.
  The number of immediate and delayed prohibitions on HGVs since 1984 is shown in the attached Annex A. Early information about the number of unproductive hours (attendance hours) resulting from unexpected withdrawal of police resources was provided in my reply to PQ 482/94/95 on 18 January. Discussions with police are continuing over delivery of support throughout the country and how this should continue to be monitored.
  Details of the Vehicle Inspectorate's targets are published each year in its Business Plan and are available from the House of Commons library. These have been issued since 1989.
  The additional £350,000 funding which has been made available to VI, together with other decisions on additional work, means that we are currently recruiting more traffic and vehicle examiners. My reply to you of 26 June (ref PQ 1939/94/95) gave general details of the number of traffic and vehicle examiners being recruited across the Vehicle Inspectorate to increase complement, cover anticipated retirements and substantially fill current temporary posts.
  There are 4 full and 8 part time trainers involved with internal training from VI staff. A proportion but not all of their work would be devoted to traffic and vehicle examiner training.
  Annex B provides details of pay ranges for traffic examiners, senior traffic examiners and vehicle examiners for the past 3 years. There is no basic rate of pay; progression through the pay spine is related to performance markings in the annual staff reports. We do not hold details of pay ranges prior to 1991.
  Annex C provides details of the number of senior traffic examiners for the last 4 years. The Vehicle Inspectorate did not take on traffic enforcement activities until 1991.

  Annex A: Immediate and delayed prohibitions issued to heavy goods vehicles for roadworthiness defects

  All prohibitions

  Year

  Immediate

  Delayed

  1984–85

  3,619

  6,956

  1985–86

  5,545

  8,477

  1986–87

  4,260

  5,331

  1987–88

  7,693

  11,727

  1988–89

  7,774

  10,446

  1989–90

  7,816

  9,433

  1990–91

  9,229

  10,615

  1991–92

  9,827

  10,788

  1992–93

  11,041

  11,040

  1993–94

  10,834

  11,426

  1994–95

  11,516

  11,788

  711

  Annex B: National pay 1991–1993

  Year

  TE

  STE

  PTO

  1993

  Min—£11,208

  Min—£14,126

  Min—£11,766

  Std1—£14,307

  Std1—£16,835

  Std1—£16,168

  1992

  Min—£11,097

  Min—£14,022

  Min—£11,592

  Std1—14,165

  Std1—£16,668

  Std1—£15,929

  1991

  Min—£10,444

  Min—£13,332

  Min—£11,146

  Std1—£13,605

  Std1—£16,009

  Std1—£15,316

  1 These figures are the "Standard" pay which staff in these grades will reach before the upper levels of performance-related pay apply.

  Annex C: Total number of STEs from 1992–95

  Date

  Total number of STEs

  31 May 1995

  24

  25 May 1994

  25

  30 April 1993

  30

  31 May 1992

  35

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33449]

  Mr. Norris
  Gross voted expenditure since 1980 by the Department on the employment of consultants on privatisation programmes involving the Department, and other costs associated with these privatisations, has been some £122 million.

  Aviation (Safety Recommendations)
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 31 March,Official Report, columns 830–31, if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions between the Civil Aviation Authority and the joint aviation authorities at the meeting which was due to be held in April on the issue of the lack of an existing system whereby the joint aviation authorities can respond as a body to safety recommendations raised by national investigating authorities. [31642]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 3 July 1995]: It was agreed that the existing International Civil Aviation Organisation system for receiving and responding to safety recommendations remains appropriate and effective. Under ICAO, responsibility for continue airworthiness rests with the state of design. This remains the case where certification is against a Joint Aviation Authorities harmonised code adopted by that state. Should the recommendation affect a JAA code, the state of design would normally refer the issue to the JAA; the JAA would close their action by confirming any resultant change made to the code.

  Midland Metro
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 6 March 1995, column 57, what assessment he has made of how much more local funding is necessary before the Government release the funding they have promised for the midland
  712
  metro line; how many jobs will be created by the new line; what other such rail lines are planned for the west midlands; and what percentage of funding for the midland metro line will come from the local area, and how much will come from the Government.

  Mr. Norris
  After considering proposals for funding from local authorities in the west midlands, I am pleased to announce that we are now satisfied with the level of local funding being provided for this project. I can therefore confirm that the Government will provide £80 million of funding, as requested by the local authorities. Together with the local contribution and the funding expected to be provided by the European regional development fund, this provides sufficient funding for the scheme to go ahead.

  Midland metro line one is excellent news for travellers in the west midlands; it will be good for the environment and provide motorists with an alternative form of transport in a congested corridor.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullins) of 23 May,Official Report, column 534, if he will define the nature of behavioural conditions that can be applied to civil servants. [34205]

  Mr. Horam
  The business appointment rules for Crown servants make provision for applications by civil servants to take up new employment after they leave the service to be approved subject to behavioural conditions, which may include an absolute or qualified ban on involvement of the applicant in dealing between the prospective employer and the Government, or a ban on involvement by the applicant in dealings between the prospective employer and a named competitor or competitors of that employer. If a behavioural condition is considered necessary, it will be tailored to meet the particular circumstances of the case.

  Prime Minister's Questions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the First Secretary of State if he will be answering questions on behalf of the Prime Minister when the latter is absent from the House. [34292]

  The Deputy Prime Minster
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by the Prime Minister.

  Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the First Secretary of State (1) what involvement he will have in Departments of state; and if he will specify the Departments; [34293]

  (2) if he will list his responsibilities with particular reference to those he undertakes as Deputy Prime Minister. [34288]
  713
  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 11 July.Official Report, column 496–97.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the First Secretary of State if he will list all the duties to be undertaken by the Deputy Prime Minister; and if he will make a statement. [34031]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 11 July 1995,Official Report columns 496–97.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the First Secretary of State how he intends to account to the House for his ministerial responsibilities. [34038]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 11 July,Official Report, column 496.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the First Secretary of State what is the number of staff who will be directly responsible to him; and if he will list their duties. [34289]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 11 July 1995 Official Report, column 496.

  Ministerial Accommodation
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the First Secretary of State what ministerial accommodation he has now; and if he will also state the total amount of accommodation used by the staff directly accountable to him. [34287]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), given today.

  Information Leaks
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many leak inquiries in Government Departments there have been since 1990; what is the estimated cost of these inquiries; and how many individuals have been reprimanded or prosecuted as a result of these inquiries. [34253]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is not the practice of the Government to give information on such matters.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 28 June,Official Report, column 713, what considerations led to his refusal to supply the requested information in relation to Government leak inquiries; and if he will make a statement. [34352]

  Mr. Freeman
  It has not been the practice of the Government to disclose the details of leak inquiries.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Pupils (Expenditure)
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the unit cost per pupil in each local education authority in 1993–94 for(a) nursery/primary and (b) secondary pupils. [34328]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table sets out for each LEA in England the net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA-maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools.

  Cost per pupil—Net institutional expenditure

  Nursery/ Primary 1993–94 £

  Secondary 1993–94 £

  Corporation of London

  3,587

  0

  Camden

  2,047

  2,716

  Greenwich

  2,009

  2,583

  Hackney

  1,958

  2,617

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,534

  3,329

  Islington

  2,719

  3,005

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,394

  3,266

  Lambeth

  2,666

  3,296

  Lewisham

  2,058

  2,614

  Southwark

  1,806

  2,421

  Tower Hamlets

  2,656

  3,157

  Wandsworth

  2,139

  2,795

  City of Westminster

  2,592

  2,739

  Barking

  1,790

  2,355

  Barnet

  2,006

  2,952

  Bexley

  1,573

  2,341

  Brent

  1,633

  1,835

  Bromley

  1,525

  2,280

  Croydon

  1,793

  2,309

  Ealing

  1,915

  2,575

  Enfield

  1,768

  2,531

  Haringey

  2,236

  3,041

  Harrow

  1,913

  2,439

  Havering

  1,636

  2,290

  Hillingdon

  1,804

  2,670

  Hounslow

  1,784

  2,282

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,728

  2,284

  Merton

  1,853

  2,463

  Newham

  1,708

  2,563

  Redbridge

  1,640

  2,526

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,794

  2,280

  Sutton

  1,639

  1,978

  Waltham Forest

  1,821

  2,526

  Birmingham

  1,572

  2,330

  Coventry

  1,684

  2,469

  Dudley

  1,490

  2,098

  Sandwell

  1,681

  2,349

  Solihull

  1,574

  2,217

  Walsall

  1,672

  2,281

  Wolverhampton

  1,357

  2,300

  Knowsley

  1,485

  2,243

  Liverpool

  1,586

  2,613

  St. Helens

  1,605

  2,315

  Sefton

  1,448

  2,204

  Wirral

  1,552

  2,299

  Bolton

  1,581

  2,119

  Bury

  1,432

  1,979

  Manchester

  1,547

  2,328

  Oldham

  1,645

  2,278

  Rochdale

  1,307

  1,974

  Salford

  1,505

  2,215

  Stockport

  1,466

  2,310

  715

  Cost per pupil—Net institutional expenditure

  Nursery/Primary 1993–94 £

  Secondary 1993–94 £

  Tameside

  1,442

  2,095

  Trafford

  1,428

  2,156

  Wigan

  1,437

  2,141

  Barnsley

  1,539

  2,101

  Doncaster

  1,425

  2,022

  Rotherham

  1,723

  2,271

  Sheffield

  1,573

  2,119

  Bradford

  1,654

  1,969

  Calderdale

  1,607

  2,162

  Kirklees

  1,579

  2,207

  Leeds

  1,647

  2,164

  Wakefield

  1,577

  2,150

  Gateshead

  1,664

  2,252

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,697

  2,187

  North Tyneside

  1,469

  1,995

  South Tyneside

  1,463

  1,948

  Sunderland

  1,509

  2,114

  Isles of Scilly

  2,401

  4,415

  Avon

  1,571

  2,288

  Bedfordshire

  1,639

  2,103

  Berkshire

  1,592

  2,214

  Buckinghamshire

  1,735

  2,286

  Cambridgeshire

  1,534

  1,956

  Cheshire

  1,483

  2,106

  Cleveland

  1,461

  2,129

  Cornwall

  1,535

  2,160

  Cumbria

  1,667

  2,216

  Derbyshire

  1,600

  2,214

  Devon

  1,503

  2,157

  Dorset

  1,485

  2,065

  Durham

  1,664

  2,114

  East Sussex

  1,643

  2,270

  Essex

  1,724

  2,286

  Gloucestershire

  1,523

  2,084

  Hampshire

  1,583

  2,180

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,617

  2,038

  Hertfordshire

  1,664

  2,245

  Humberside

  1,621

  2,257

  Isle of Wight

  1,598

  2,027

  Kent

  1,397

  2,079

  Lancashire

  1,669

  2,347

  Leicestershire

  1,629

  2,263

  Lincolnshire

  1,496

  2,322

  Norfolk

  1,585

  2,309

  North Yorkshire

  1,555

  2,187

  Northamptonshire

  1,522

  2,125

  Northumberland

  1,686

  2,083

  Nottinghamshire

  1,653

  2,381

  Oxfordshire

  1,765

  2,191

  Shropshire

  1,577

  2,354

  Somerset

  1,583

  2,138

  Staffordshire

  1,534

  2,078

  Suffolk

  1,673

  2,190

  Surrey

  1,701

  2,215

  Warwickshire

  1,555

  2,420

  West Sussex

  1,579

  2,467

  Wiltshire

  1,521

  2,379

  Total

  1,630

  2,245

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister in the work of her Department. [34035]
  716
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger), on 11 July,Official Report, columns 496–97.

  Departmental Ministers and Their Responsibilities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, if she will list the members of her Front-Bench team and their responsibilities. [34039]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Ministerial responsibilities within the Department for Education and Employment are as follows:Secretary of State Gillian Shephard has overall responsibility for the Department and its policies. In particular, she will have responsibility for the public expenditure survey and pay in the education sector.
  Minister of State Eric Forth is responsible for the jobseeker's allowance; employment policy and benefit issues; labour market statistics; higher education: including content and quality, structure and funding, building programmes, and Higher Education Funding Council matters; the private finance initiative in higher education; student support, overseas students, and other student issues; European Union and international issues and the careers service/education.
  Minister of State Lord Henley is responsible for the school curriculum and assessment; examinations and qualifications including GCSE, GCE A-Level, NVQs GNVQs and the review of 16 to 19 qualifications; performance tables; the Employment Service; education-industry links; special education in schools; people with disabilities; special needs training; and school transport. He is designated departmental Minister responsible for the citizen's charter; next steps; general legal questions and departmental purchasing.
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Robin Squire is responsible for pre-school education; grant-maintained schools borrowing legislation; school effectiveness and action on failing schools; the common funding formula and the national funding formula; the private finance initiative in schools; local management of schools and school governor matters; teacher matters including training and supply, teachers' misconduct, the Teacher Training Agency, appraisal, pensions and the Teachers' Pensions Agency. He is also responsible for grants for education support and training; truancy, discipline and attendance; IT in schools and new technologies; departmental management issues; environmental and energy issues and research.
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State James Paice has responsibility for post-16 issues including post-16 school organisation; further education, including content and quality, structure and funding, building programmes, and Further Education Funding Council matters; the Youth Service; adult learning/training; the private finance initiative in FE; training strategy and infrastructure and training and enterprise councils. He also has responsibility for regional government offices; regional and urban policy; inner cities and the single regeneration budget and section 11 matters.
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Cheryl Gillian has responsibility for the development and implementation of the policy of choice and diversity in schools; GM school casework; five to 16 school reorganisations and admissions policies; city technology colleges; technology colleges and other specialist schools; independent schools; the assisted places schemes; school meals and schools capital issues. She also has responsibility for women's issues, older workers and equal opportunities.
  717
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which of the former Department of Employment's responsibilities her Department has now taken on; and which Minister is in charge of each area of responsibility. [34044]

  Mrs. Shephard
  Ministerial responsibilities within the Department for Education and Employment are as follows. Those areas of work which were previously the responsibility of the former Department of Employment are shown in bold type.Secretary of State Gillian Shephard has overall responsibility for the Department and its policies. In particular she will have responsibility for the public expenditure survey and pay in the education sector.
  Minister of State Eric Forth is responsible for the Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA); employment policy and benefit issues; labour market statistics; higher education, including content and quality, structure and funding, building programmes, and Higher Education Funding Council matters; the private finance initiative in higher education; student support, overseas students, and other student issues; European Union and international issues and the Careers service/education.
  Minister of State Lord Henley is responsible for the school curriculum and assessment; examinations and qualifications including GCSE, GCE A-Level, NVQs, GNVQs and the review of 16 to 19 qualifications; performance tables; the Employment Service; education-industry links; special education in schools; people with disabilities; special needs training; and school transport. He is designated departmental Minister responsible for the citizens charter; next steps; general legal questions and departmental purchasing.
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Robin Squire is responsible for pre-school education; grant-maintained schools borrowing legislation; school effectiveness and action on failing schools; the common funding formula and the national funding formula; the private finance initiative in schools; local management of schools and school governor matters; teacher matters including training and supply, teachers' misconduct, the Teacher Training Agency, appraisal, pensions and the Teachers' Pensions Agency. He is also responsible for grants for education support and training; truancy, discipline and attendance; IT in schools and new technologies; departmental management issues; environmental and energy issues and research.
  Pariliamentary Under-Secretary of State James Paice Paice has responsibility for post-16 issues including post-16 school organisation; further education, including content and quality, structure and funding, building programmes, and Further Education Funding Council matters; the Youth Service; adult learning/training; the private finance initiative in FE; training strategy and infrastructure and training and enterprise councils. He also has responsibility for regional Government offices; regional and urban policy; inner cities and the single regeneration budget and section 11 matters.
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Cheryl Gillan has responsibility for the development and implementation of the policy of choice and diversity in schools; GM school casework; five to 16 school reorganisations and admissions policies; city technology colleges; technology colleges and other specialist schools; independent schools; the assisted places scheme; school meals and schools capital issues. She also has responsibility for women's issues, older workers and equal opportunities.

  I am taking steps to ensure the effective integration of functions within the new Department as quickly as possible. I have today written to education and training organisations inviting comments on an initial statement of aims and objectives for the new Department. This will provide a framework for bringing together all the policies
  718
  and programmes designed to educate and train young people and adults and help unemployed people into work.

  I have also invited urgent comments on proposals for the grouping of work within the Department, so that a top management structure can be put in place within the next few weeks.

  I have placed a copy of my letter to education and training bodies, with the statement of aims and objectives and the proposed top management structure, in the Library of the House.

  Special Needs (Legal Action)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what authority the Treasury Counsel in the case of Emma Van de Velde v. Special Needs Tribunal—case number C01670/95—are seeking to establish that children should no longer be allowed to be parties to legal actions brought on their behalf against the decisions of local education authorities. [34247]

  Mr. Forth
  Appeals against decisions of the special educational needs tribunal are governed by the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992. That Act requires that the only persons who can appeal against a decision of the tribunal are the parties before the tribunal. The Education Act 1993, and the Special Educational Needs Tribunal Regulations 1994, make it clear that the parties before the tribunal are the parent and the local education authority.

  Hackney Downs School
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about Hackney Downs school. [34838]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Hackney Downs school was inspected and found to be failing to provide an acceptable standard of education in August 1994. Hackney education authority then announced its intention to publish notices to cease to maintain the school from the end of July 1995. However, the authority voted at a full council meeting on 28 June 1995, against the professional advice of its officers, to withdraw these notices.

  The resulting uncertainty has further weakened the school's position. The last Ofsted monitoring report noted that, although there had been some progress, GCSE results remained well below local and national levels, the standards achieved in lessons were inconsistent, pupil attendance was poor and a significant number of pupils displayed an unsatisfactory attitude to work. Meanwhile, pupil numbers have fallen to below 250.

  In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend is concerned that the LEA and governors may not be able to implement their action plans effectively. She has, therefore, today sent a letter to the director of education of Hackney education authority and the chairman of governors of Hackney Downs school stating that she is minded to create an education association and to transfer control of the school to that education association with effect from 1 September 1995.

  My right hon. Friend has invited comments on this proposal by Monday 24 July and will announce their decision shortly after that.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the cost to each local authority in the United Kingdom of speech therapy services to children in schools; [33505]

  (2) which local authorities in the United Kingdom make a contribution towards the cost of speech therapy services to school children; [33507]

  (3) how many speech therapy posts providing services to school children are being supported by each local authority in England and Wales. [33508]

  Mr. Paice
  This information is not collected centrally.

  The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs provides guidance to schools and local authorities in England and Wales. It explains that the prime responsibility for the provision of speech therapy services to children rests with the NHS, and states that schools, LEAs and the NHS should co-operate closely in meeting the needs of children with communication problems.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what surveys have been undertaken by her Department, associated bodies or sponsored organisations into the incidence of difficulties with speech in the case of children in each county in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Paice
  Neither this Department nor any associated body has undertaken or funded such a survey. The Department, in collaboration with the Department of Health, is, however, funding the National Foundation for Educational Research to look at examples of good practice in the delivery of speech therapy to children.

  Technology Grants
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the schools that have been awarded technology grants since the scheme was introduced together with the amount awarded. [32470]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The technology colleges scheme was launched in September 1993, with the first schools designated to start operating as technology colleges from September 1994. The 85 schools which have been designated as technology colleges are in the following list. Each school receives a one-off capital grant of £100,000, plus additional recurrent annual funding of £100 per pupil to help implement its development plan. Capital and recurrent support awarded to these schools in 1994–95 and 1995–96 totals some £20 million. The schools are also benefiting from private and charitable sector sponsorship totalling over £8 million.

  Designated Technology Colleges

  Aldersley High School, Wolverhampton

  All Hallows Catholic School, Hampshire

  All Hallows RC High School, Lancashire

  All Saints Catholic School, Barking & Dagenham

  720

  Applemore Technology School, Hampshire

  Archbishop Temple School, Lancashire

  Bacup and Rawtenstall Grammar School, Lancashire

  Baines School, Lancashire

  Banbury School, Oxfordshire

  Belper School, Derbyshire

  Bexley-Erith Technical High School for Boys, Bexley

  Bishop Stopford VA School, Northamptonshire

  Budmouth School, Dorset

  Cardinal Wiseman RC High School, Ealing

  Central Technology College, Gloucestershire

  The Chalfonts Community College, Buckinghamshire

  Chalvedon School, Essex

  Chatham Grammar School for Girls, Kent

  Cirencester Deer Park School, Gloucestershire

  Collingwood College, Surrey

  The Cornwallis School, Kent

  Cowes High School, Isle of Wight

  Deacon's School, Cambridgeshire

  Deanery High School, Wigan

  Denefield School, Berkshire

  Ercall Wood School, Shropshire

  Fallibroome High School, Cheshire

  George Spencer School, Nottinghamshire

  Glyn School, Surrey

  Greenwood Dale School, Nottinghamshire

  Hanson School, Bradford

  Hartshill GM School, Warwickshire

  Heathside School, Surrey

  Herschel Grammar School, Berkshire

  Hugh Christies School, Kent

  John Kelly Boys' Community School, Brent

  John Kelly Girls' Community School, Brent

  Kemnal Technology College, Bromley

  King Solomon High School, Redbridge

  The Kings School, Lincolnshire

  Knowles Hill School, Devon

  Lancaster Girls' Grammar School, Lancashire

  Lancaster Royal Grammar School, Lancashire

  The Latymer School, Enfield

  Lincoln School of Science and Technology, Lincolnshire

  Lodge Park School, Northamptonshire

  Lynn Grove High School, Norfolk

  The Merrill Community School, Derbyshire

  Mill Hill County High School, Barnet

  Moseley Park GM School, Wolverhampton

  New Wellington School, Trafford

  Norham Community High School, North Tyneside

  North Cumbria Technology College, Cumbria

  Northampton School for Boys, Northamptonshire Notre Dame School, Sheffield

  Ossett School, Wakefield

  The Philip Morant School, Essex

  Prospect School, Berkshire

  Prudhoe County High School, Northumberland

  Rastrick High School, Calderdale

  Ravens Wood School for Boys, Bromley

  Reading School, Berkshire

  Reddish Vale School, Stockport

  Saffron Walden County High School, Essex

  St. Aidan's C of E High School, Lancashire

  St. Alban's Catholic High School, Suffolk

  St. Angela's Ursuline Convent School, Newham

  Saint Bonaventure's School, Newham

  St. George's Technology School, Lincolnshire

  St. James's C of E School, Bolton

  St. John's RC Comprehensive School, Durham

  St. Peter's Collegiate School, Wolverhampton

  St. Thomas More School, Gateshead

  Sale Moor School, Trafford

  Sawston Village College, Cambridgeshire

  Sawtry Community College, Cambridgeshire

  Senacre Technology School, Kent

  721

  Small Heath School, Birmingham

  Soham Village College, Cambridgeshire

  Tring School, Hertfordshire

  Trinity C of E High School, Manchester

  Tudor Grange School, Solihull

  Uppingham Community College, Leicestershire

  Walbottle High School, Newcastle

  Wyvern College, Wiltshire

  Internet
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assistance her Department has made available to(a) local assistance authorities, (b) individual schools within the local education authority system and (c) grant-maintained schools to enable them to obtain the necessary computer hardware and software to have access to the Internet. [32860]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department provides support for information technology in schools through grants for education support and training and in the case of grant-maintained schools through special purpose grant (development). These initiatives have enabled the provision of substantial numbers of computers which could be connected to the Internet. It is, however, for individual schools to decide whether to invest in such connections. A number of pilot projects are exploring the educational value of the Internet and the National Council for Educational Technology has published guidance on the Internet for schools.

  Employment Issues (TUC Meetings)
  Mr. Macshane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she plans to meet representatives of the TUC to discuss employment issues. [33521]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not have any current plans to meet representatives of the TUC to discuss employment issues. However, in her new role as Secretary of State for Education and Employment, she is likely to meet representatives from many organisations, representing both employers and employees and discuss a wide range of labour market issues with them.

  International Labour Organisation (Departmental Responsibility)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if her Department will have responsibility for ILO matters. [33520]

  Mr. Forth
  Yes. Responsibility for the functions previously delivered within the Employment Department in this area will pass to the new Department for Education and Employment.

  Mr. Padraig Flynn
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next expects to meet Mr. Padraig Flynn, European Social Affairs Commissioner. [33518]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks forward to renewing her acquaintance with Mr. Flynn at the next meeting of the Social Affairs Council in October, if not sooner.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33611]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for State of Employment on 19 May 1994, Official Report, column 243. There has been no further expenditure on employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes.

ENVIRONMENT

  Building Access (Disabled People)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans his Department has made in respect of surveying consumer satisfaction regarding the impact of part M accessibility; and if he will make a statement. [33769]

  Mr. Clappison
  My officials are in discussion with representatives of the Access Committee for England on the possibility of it undertaking a study in the current financial year into how part M of the building regulations is working in practice in providing access to buildings for disabled people.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department will publish further guidance regarding planning policy in respect of disabled access.

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Some guidance on the provision of access for people with disabilities was contained in "planning policy guidance No. 1: General Policy and Principles". Further guidance is included in DOE circular 11/95, Welsh Office Circular 35/95: "The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions", to be published on 20 July.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the cost of the Health and Safety Executive's contract research report No. 74/1995 on the neurological effects of sheep dips. [33773]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The cost of the research project on the neuropsychological and neurological effects of sheep dips was £212,222.51p.

  Sewerage Infrastructure
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the maintenance costs of the water sewerage infrastructure transfers to the statutory undertaker at no cost to the resident where estates transfer out of Government administration. [33970]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is open to any householder to seek to have private sewers adopted by the sewerage undertaker for the area. However, the maintenance of
  723
  drains between the house and public sewer and of water supply pipes between the house and the stopcock remains the householder's responsibility.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his reasons for deciding not to introduce a national licensing scheme for houses in multiple occupation. [34062]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have reviewed the arguments for and against introducing licensing for houses in multiple occupation. My Department announced last week new proposals to deal with HMOs. These will build on local authorities' existing powers. Full-scale licensing would be more bureaucratic and less flexible for local authorities.

  Urban Developments Corporations (Grants)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much grant in aid has been made available to each urban development corporation since 1981(a) at current prices and (b) at 1987 prices. [34140]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The amount of grant in aid made available to each urban development corporation between April 1981 and March 1995,(a) at current prices and (b) at 1987 prices, is set out in the table.

  £ millions

  Urban Development Corporations

  At current prices

  At 1987 prices

  London Docklands

  2,175.4

  1,478.2

  Merseyside

  465.9

  316.6

  Teesside

  308.9

  209.9

  Black Country

  334.7

  227.4

  Trafford Park

  204.0

  138.6

  Tyne and Wear

  299.2

  203.3

  Bristol

  87.8

  59.7

  Sheffield

  97.6

  66.3

  Central Manchester

  86.8

  59.0

  Leeds

  64.6

  43.9

  Birmingham Heartlands

  24.3

  16.5

  Plymouth

  16.6

  11.3

  Actual grant in aid paid to urban development corporations has been adjusted in line with her Majesty's Treasury's GDP deflator indices. Current prices are 1995–96 prices.

  Recycled Aggregate
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 26 June,Official Report, column 535, what guidance he has given to public sector clients to promote the use of recycled materials in the construction industry. [34329]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government look to local authorities to examine how they can contribute to greater efficiency of use in construction contracts for which they are responsible. The guidance in minerals planning guidance note 6 asks planning authorities to identify alternative potential sources of suitable fill for trunk road schemes and asks highways authorities to make greater use of waste and recycled materials in their road construction projects. Department of Transport specifications already permit the use of certain waste 724
  materials in road construction and my Department has recently let a research contract to look at the scope for increasing such use. The reports on two further research projects into recycling of aggregates have just been published and provide some guidance to the construction industry on recycling possibilities. The Department proposes to establish an aggregates advisory service on a trial basis to draw on the results of the research and experience and to give advice to the construction industry and others on the recycling opportunities in order to reduce the demand for primary aggregates.

  Health and Safety Directives
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy with respect to qualified majority voting on EU health and safety directives; and if he will make a statement. [34184]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Qualified majority voting has applied to health and safety matters brought forward under article 118a since the Single European Act, which was signed in 1986, came into effect on 1 July 1987.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date or dates United Kingdom Ministers or officials sought to persuade the European Commission to agree a derogation for Sikh turban wearers from the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992. [34182]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  During the negotiations leading up to the adoption of the directive on the use of Personal Protective Equipment at Work on 30 November 1989, a number of representations were made seeking agreement to a derogation for Sikh turban wearers.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what dates United Kingdom representatives attempted to secure a European Council minutes statement concerning a derogation for Sikh turban wearers from the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations; what external legal advice has been obtained in respect of the legal force of the unilateral minutes statement entered by the United Kingdom; if he will place a copy of the relevant documents in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [34185]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An attempt was made to secure a minutes statement from the Council and the Commission on 15 November 1989 but this was not successful. A unilateral minutes statement was entered by the United Kingdom at the Labour and Social Affairs Council on 30 November 1989; details are recorded in the Official Journal. Our legal advice however, is that a unilateral minute statement, as opposed to one agreed by the Council or the Commission, would provide no defence to a challenge to any exemption for Sikhs.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date or dates United Kingdom representatives sought to amend the personal protective equipment at work directive in the European Parliament; and if he will list how each EU country, including the UK, voted in each relevant vote. [34183]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  UK representatives sought to amend the directive on the use of personal protective equipment at work when it was considered by the
  725
  European Parliament Committee on Social Affairs, Employment and the Working Environment in August 1989. A further attempt was made when it was considered by the European Parliament on 13 September 1989. Details of European Parliament proceedings are recorded in the Official Journal, which is available in the Library.

  "State of the Construction Industry" Report
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he plans to publish another "State of the Construction Industry" report. [35116]

  Mr. Gummer
  The latest "State of the Construction Industry" report, produced jointly by my Department and representatives of the construction industry, has just been completed. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Planning and Guidance (Peat)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish new planning guidance on peat in England and if he will make a statement. [35117]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We have published new planning guidance for peat in England today, in a new addition to the series of minerals planning guidance notes. This has taken account of the public consultation on the draft MPG in autumn 1994.

  The guidance will ensure the conservation of important peat habitats and archaeological sites, which should be protected in development plans. Some of these habitats are areas over which the peat extraction industry has voluntarily given up valid permissions and conveyed the land to English Nature.

  It spells out that any future peat extraction from new sites should be restricted to areas which have already been damaged by recent human activities and are of limited or no nature conservation value.

  The guidance on the horticultural usage of peat and of alternatives sets a realistic balance based on the best current assessments. In accordance with the principles of sustainable development, the Government believe it is realistic to set a target for 40 per cent. of the total horticultural market requirements to be supplied by non-peat materials within the next 10 years. We intend to monitor—initially, over the next three years—what further progress is made in increasing the usage of alternatives such as through the greater use of recycled and waste materials.

  The framework for updating old permissions for peat extraction, with particular emphasis on rehabilitation, has the support of the industry. The framework will have statutory force when the Environment Bill becomes law later this year, with the industry putting forward to mineral planning authorities updated schemes of conditions for their sites.

  Copies of the new guidance note are placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Waste Incinerator (Shoeburyness)
  Ms Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the permit issued by Her Majesty's inspectorate of 726
  pollution in respect of DERA's explosive waste incinerator at Shoeburyness; [33981]

  (2) in which exempted category in the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 data on emissions from the explosive waste incinerator plant at Shoeburyness fall; and if he will make a statement; [33982]

  (3) what plans does he have to monitor the effect of emissions from the Avocet explosive waste incinerator system at Shoeburyness on the areas of special scientific interest in the Colne estuary, the Blackwater estuary, Dengie, the River Crouch marshes and Foulness; [33984]

  (4) what plans he has to permit the burning of munitions waste on open ground or a beach in the vicinity of the mid-Essex coast. [33985]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: I have today placed a copy of the authorisation and a variation notice, issued by HMIP, in the House of Commons Library.

  The plant is required to meet the emission standards imposed on chemical waste incinerators. It will also have to comply with the EC directive on the burning of hazardous waste when this directive applies. Data on the emissions from the incinerator are not exempted from the provisions of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 and will be placed on the public registers.

  Prior to the granting of this authorisation, HMIP consulted English Nature, which was satisfied that the plant will not have an unacceptable effect on sites of special scientific interest in the local area.

  HMIP authorisation requires the operator to carry out an environmental monitoring programme. Soil and grass samples taken from several locations around the incinerator are to be analysed for dioxins and heavy metals.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in what consultations his Department was involved in respect to the siting of the Avocet explosive waste incinerator system at Shoeburyness; and if he will make a statement. [33983]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The Secretary of State was not consulted on the location of the Avocet waste incinerator system at the Ministry of Defence testing and evaluation facility at Shoeburyness as there was no requirement under planning legislation to do so. I understand, however, that the Ministry consulted the local planning authority, Rochford district council, on the siting of the system, and obtained the necessary authorisation for its operation from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. A second incinerator on the site has also been the subject of consultation with Rochford district council and the application for authorisation from HMIP is expected shortly.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what grounds Shoeburyness was chosen for the siting of the Avocet explosive waste incineration system. [33986]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

SCOTLAND

  Government Grant (Sewerage Services)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much central Government paid to Scottish local authorities for the costs of sewerage services in 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96, and if he will break these figures down by authority. [33311]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: No Government grant is paid towards the costs of non-domestic sewerage which are fully funded by the non-domestic sewerage rate.

  Domestic sewerage is one of the range of local authority services which are supported by aggregate external finance, with the balance being met by the council tax. However, AEF is in general not hypothecated to particular services.

  In addition, grant aid towards sewerage services was provided for the three-year period 1991–94 by means of the sewerage improvement grant scheme. The total amount of grant paid through this scheme to the authorities over the three-year period was £130 million and the allocation, by authority for the last year of the grant 1993–94 are given in the table.

  Sewerage improvement grant 1993–94

  £000

  Borders

  1,284

  Central

  3,552

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,125

  Fife

  5,983

  Grampian

  5,043

  Highland

  6,000

  Lothian

  5,628

  Strathclyde

  15,156

  Tayside

  6,376

  Orkney

  2,155

  Shetland

  1,072

  Western Isles

  626

  Scotland

  55,000

  Forestry Commission (Woodland Sales)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all Forestry Commission woodland sold in Scotland in 1994 by(a) property name, (b) county,(c) acreage, (d) sale price and (e) purchaser. [33756]

  Mr. Kynoch
  A list giving details of the areas of forest land sold by the Forestry Commission in 1994 is held in the Library of the House. The list shows the name of the purchaser and price paid where the purchaser has agreed that such information can be made public.

  Wartime Administration
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities for(a) home defence, (b) civil defence, (c) the wartime administration of the police or armed forces and (d) the wartime administration of Departments of central Government have been provided at Kincardine, and what were the costs of establishing or maintaining such facilities. [33316]
  728
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: There are no facilities at Kincardine on Forth established to serve any of the purposes specified in this question.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what facilities for(a) home defence, (b) civil defence and (c) the wartime administration of the police or armed forces have been provided within the Connel Ferry; and what were the costs of establishing or maintaining such facilities since 1980. [33317]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The Scottish Office has never been responsible for any such facilities at Connel Ferry. Premises at Connel Ferry which formed part of the Home Office's United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation, were sold following the disbandment of that organisation in 1991. No separate figures are available in respect of the costs of establishing and maintaining that facility from 1980 until it was sold.

  Cardiologists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the number of specialist cardiologists in post in the NHS in Scotland; and if he will list the numbers for each of the previous five years. [33328]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: There are 25 consultants—23.3 whole-time equivalents—in cardiology in Scotland at 30 September 1994. The figures for the previous five years were:

  Year

  WTE

  1989

  15.7

  1990

  17.9

  1991

  18.9

  1992

  19.9

  1993

  22.5

  The figures do not take account of general physicians who have a special interest in cardiology.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33885]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The number of contracts won by computer consultancy firms for work in my Department and its agencies in the last five financial years is as follows:

  Company

  Contracts

  CCTA Consultancy Services

  3

  CGC

  4

  Class Ltd.

  1

  Anthony Cook Associates

  1

  Coopers and Lybrand

  12

  Delphi Software Ltd.

  1

  Dun and Bradstreet

  1

  Edina Software Ltd.

  2

  Ernst and Young

  2

  729

  Company

  Contracts

  FI Group plc

  2

  Glenarch

  1

  Hoskyns

  6

  IBC

  1

  IT Counsel Ltd.

  2

  KPMG Management Consultants

  3

  Logica UK Ltd.

  3

  McKeown

  1

  Mouncey

  2

  Newell and Budge

  1

  Office Futures

  3

  Oracle Corporation

  6

  PA Consulting Group

  1

  Peter Hyde Consultancy

  1

  SAS Institute

  1

  SCET

  9

  SEMA Group Consulting

  3

  SPEC Systems Ltd.

  1

  Syntegra plc

  3

  Turing Institute

  1

  Usher

  1

  Valley Technology

  1

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much(a) health authorities and (b) trusts have spent on consultancy services in each year since 1992, by region. [34160]

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

  Unlawful Evictions
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the years since 1984 for Scotland as whole and by individual sheriffdom,(a) the number of reports made to the procurator fiscal in respect of private sector landlords carrying out unlawful evictions, (b) the number of prosecutions of private landlords for carrying out unlawful eviction and (c) the number of conviction. [31132]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost of the assisted places scheme in each year since the scheme was introduced. [33077]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is as follows.

  £ thousands

  School session

  Total cost

  1981–82

  799

  1982–83

  1,718

  1983–84

  2,454

  1984–85

  3,299

  1985–86

  4,217

  1986–87

  4,861

  1987–88

  5,310

  1988–89

  5,759

  1989–90

  6,681

  1990–91

  7,642

  1991–92

  8,706

  730

  £ thousands

  School session

  Total cost

  1992–93

  19,758

  1993–94

  110,127

  1994–95

  210,486

  1 Provisional figures pending receipt of audited from a few individual schools.

  2 Estimated.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount paid to independent schools under the assisted places scheme to cover(a) revenue expenditure and (b) capital expenditure in each year since the scheme was introduced. [33078]

  Mr. Robertson
  The amounts paid to participating schools are the total cost of fees and other incidental expenses remitted to parents under the assisted places scheme. No direct funding to cover schools' revenue or capital expenditure is provided under the scheme.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils are currently on an assisted places scheme; and what percentage that represents of the overall school population in(a) primary and (b) secondary education. [33079]

  Mr. Robertson
  In the 1994–95 school session, provisional figures indicate that 3,041 pupils received assistance under the assisted places scheme. Under the provisions of the scheme, grant is available only for those pupils undertaking wholly or mainly secondary education and this includes a small number of pupils in primary or transitory classes in some schools. The total represents 0.9 per cent. of the overall school population in secondary education, excluding special schools. The same figure represents 0.7 per cent. of the overall school population in primary education, excluding special schools.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in the latest year for which figures are available were on an assisted places scheme whose households were in the bottom tenth of disposable income levels. [33080]

  Mr. Robertson
  Information on disposable incomes is not collected for the purposes of the assisted places scheme. Entitlement to fee remission under the scheme is based on gross family income.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the amount of grant(a) per head and (b) per pupil in local authority schools, for the assisted places scheme in the latest year for which figures are available. [33083]

  Mr. Robertson
  The average cost of an assisted place in school session 1994–95 is provisionally estimated at £3,448 per assisted pupil. That would equate to a grant of £13.92 per pupil in local authority schools.1
  1 Primary and secondary schools, but excluding special schools.
  731
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of places in the assisted places scheme in each year since the scheme was introduced. [33084]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information is as follows:

  School session

  Number of assisted pupils

  1981–82

  790

  1982–83

  1,450

  1983–84

  1,900

  1984–85

  2,265

  1985–86

  2,620

  1986–87

  2,626

  1987–88

  2,680

  1988–89

  2,695

  1989–90

  2,841

  1990–91

  2,861

  1991–92

  2,911

  1992–93

  13,038

  1993–94

  13,058

  Assisted places scheme Remission paid to schools

  School

  1981–82 £

  1982–83 £

  1983–84 £

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  Aberlour School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Albyn School

  4,056

  6,546

  10,060

  14,703

  14,481

  Ardvreck School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Beaconhurst School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bellhaven Hill School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Belmont House School

  4,021

  4,475

  2,930

  7,164

  16,394

  Blairmore School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Butterstone School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cargilfield School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clifton Hall School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigclowan School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Craigholme School

  8,001

  17,187

  23,140

  23,982

  27,663

  Crawfordton House School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Croftinloan School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dollar Academy

  17,581

  26,811

  35,032

  49,500

  73,363

  Drumley House School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Edinburgh Academy

  14,556

  34,367

  36,956

  56,385

  82,777

  Fernhill School

  5,235

  14,731

  25,902

  37,739

  51,703

  Fettes College

  19,255

  39,740

  50,401

  55,085

  75,426

  Fort Augustus Abbey School

  14,177

  26,701

  49,720

  75,730

  94,679

  George Heriot's School

  51,441

  108,647

  172,549

  237,383

  315,382

  George Watson's College

  (included with Stewart's Melville and the Mary Erskine School—Edinburgh Merchant Co.)

  Glasgow Academy

  12,974

  24,668

  46,380

  58,644

  69,250

  Glenalmond College

  10,222

  33,046

  60,467

  92,503

  104,790

  Gordonstoun School

  12,630

  20,213

  32,279

  53,433

  66,019

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  High School of Dundee

  52,690

  110,612

  142,685

  185,286

  235,525

  High School of Glasgow

  16,782

  32,411

  38,621

  67,565

  80,585

  Hutchesons' Grammar School

  50,880

  86,933

  117,366

  145,719

  166,283

  Keil School

  17,734

  28,005

  63,646

  89,564

  101,903

  Kelvinside Academy

  25,540

  39,209

  40,819

  66,860

  87,338

  Kilgraston School

  3,950

  11,415

  34,555

  45,588

  73,296

  Kilquhanity School

  —

  7,637

  13,161

  19,928

  29,537

  Lathallan School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Laurel Bank School

  21,649

  48,347

  71,483

  74,662

  94,672

  Lomond School

  10,184

  18,600

  25,632

  50,660

  63,696

  Loretto School

  8,367

  22,594

  38,676

  54,650

  58,547

  Merchiston Castle School

  16,630

  41,492

  63,293

  88,882

  131,780

  Morrison's Academy

  31,744

  74,684

  120,955

  159,754

  209,433

  New Park School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Oxenfoord Castle School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Park Lodge School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  The Park School

  23,226

  48,159

  65,359

  75,199

  84,865

  Rannoch School

  6,891

  16,710

  29,402

  38,132

  49,794

  Robert Gordon's College

  5,753

  17,831

  35,160

  52,979

  65,429

  732

  School session

  Number of assisted pupils

  1994–95

  13,041

  1 Provisional figures pending receipt of final audited claims.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much subsidy went to each school under the assisted places scheme in each year for which figures are available. [33085]

  Mr. Robertson
  The assisted places scheme does not provide any subsidy to participating schools. Payments by the Scottish Office to schools consist of an allocation of fee remission grant and other incidental expenses. The schools may allocate individual grants up to the total to parents whose children have qualified for assistance under the scheme. Information on the total amounts of fee remission and incidental expenses paid to participating schools is available for school sessions 1981–82 to 1994–95 inclusive.
  733

  Assisted places scheme Remission paid to schools

  School

  1981–82 £

  1982–83 £

  1983–84 £

  1984–85 £

  1985–86 £

  Rudolf Steiner School, Edinburgh

  5,068

  24,583

  40,980

  61,338

  80,013

  St. Aloysius College

  35,978

  87,715

  128,323

  149,494

  176,376

  St. Columba's School

  21,829

  43,705

  46,961

  53,797

  68,110

  St. Denis and Cranley School

  6,644

  9,822

  14,838

  21,663

  32,495

  St. George's School

  —

  —

  9,951

  16,935

  23,898

  St. Hilary's School

  4,858

  (Merged with St. Margaret's School, Edinburgh)

  St. Leonard's School

  3,198

  10,636

  23,120

  39,575

  40,532

  St. Margaret's Convent School

  5,133

  10,282

  12,584

  17,815

  9,670

  St. Margaret's School, Aberdeen

  2,277

  4,788

  8,037

  14,704

  18,526

  St. Margaret's School, Edinburgh

  9,715

  23,777

  50,868

  64,389

  88,436

  St. Mary's School, Melrose

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stewart's Melville College and the Mary Erskine School

  205,911

  449,158

  528,924

  663,598

  853,818

  Strathallan School

  —

  13,371

  30,188

  60,751

  93,130

  Wellington School

  —

  2,742

  19,784

  37,419

  55,446

  Westbourne School

  32,243

  76,135

  93,199

  119,304

  152,174

  Total

  799,023

  1,718,485

  2,454,386

  3,298,461

  4,217,234

  1 Provisional figures pending receipt of final audited claims from schools.

  Assisted places scheme Remission paid to schools

  School

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Aberlour School

  —

  —

  —

  17,501

  27,331

  Albyn School

  23,200

  26,852

  31,116

  41,376

  51,747

  Ardvreck School

  —

  —

  —

  2,777

  5,785

  Beaconhurst School

  —

  —

  —

  3,756

  11,676

  Belhaven Hill School

  —

  —

  —

  11,989

  8,484

  Belmount House School

  22,037

  30,926

  36,917

  46,918

  49,083

  Blairmore School

  —

  —

  —

  5,948

  15,058

  Butterstone School

  —

  —

  —

  6,348

  12,624

  Cargilfield School

  —

  —

  —

  10,425

  17,547

  Clifton Hall School

  —

  —

  —

  11,312

  18,637

  Craigclowan School

  —

  —

  —

  10,839

  16,225

  Craigholme School

  34,044

  42,158

  51,317

  67,548

  85,924

  Crawfordton House School

  —

  —

  —

  13,420

  19,219

  Croftinloan School

  —

  —

  —

  13,350

  15,278

  Dollar Academy

  84,220

  99,923

  115,546

  130,540

  145,185

  Drumley House School

  —

  —

  —

  12,828

  15,116

  Edinburgh Academy

  92,105

  94,858

  113,014

  134,944

  166,508

  Fernhill School

  61,516

  64,669

  63,937

  46,687

  55,159

  Fettes College

  83,265

  93,060

  101,191

  134,472

  151,610

  Fort Augustus Abbey School

  111,336

  110,700

  107,450

  105,345

  134,983

  George Heriot's School

  353,230

  397,293

  427,484

  486,666

  531,754

  George Watson's College

  —

  —

  —

  506,852

  575,268

  Glasgow Academy

  70,723

  79,471

  74,168

  89,605

  107,175

  Glenalmond College

  111,574

  124,965

  143,697

  145,745

  166,502

  Gordonstoun School

  73,417

  82,204

  91,513

  108,155

  124,412

  Hamilton College

  —

  —

  —

  12,591

  15,725

  High School of Dundee

  270,669

  309,400

  330,043

  387,281

  454,337

  High School of Glasgow

  95,600

  100,843

  87,364

  71,268

  82,074

  Hutchesons' Grammar School

  183,088

  205,125

  223,351

  255,370

  301,004

  Keil School

  105,449

  117,456

  129,698

  152,685

  174,156

  Kelvinside Academy

  99,939

  112,809

  121,290

  137,390

  161,317

  Kilgarston School

  90,430

  98,374

  114,354

  120,210

  142,624

  Kilquhanity School

  30,091

  34,354

  39,002

  41,146

  41,398

  Lathallan School

  —

  —

  —

  16,874

  17,563

  Laurel Bank School

  113,962

  128,202

  151,674

  160,687

  161,490

  Lomond School

  80,848

  88,898

  97,986

  105,236

  101,807

  Loretto School

  74,226

  81,711

  94,012

  118,549

  139,628

  Merchiston Castle School

  149,477

  167,206

  180,744

  218,085

  249,586

  Morrison's Academy

  238,430

  267,296

  295,408

  339,309

  347,790

  New Park School

  —

  —

  —

  7,888

  10,017

  Oxenfoord Castle School

  —

  —

  —

  11,987

  25,838

  Park Lodge School

  —

  —

  —

  1,089

  —

  The Park School

  94,875

  116,530

  147,616

  152,808

  192,881

  Rannoch School

  63,169

  68,081

  77,343

  101,463

  119,766

  734

  735

  Assisted places scheme Remission paid to schools

  School

  1986–87 £

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  Robert Gordon's College

  75,857

  79,362

  94,486

  116,513

  128,557

  Rudolf Steiner School, Edinburgh

  91,274

  98,283

  110,877

  127,413

  136,397

  St. Aloysius College

  212,434

  231,765

  259,995

  295,900

  330,424

  St. Colomba's School

  91,642

  97,841

  80,870

  95,467

  83,327

  St. Denis and Cranley School

  40,677

  41,471

  56,241

  76,908

  91,509

  St. George's School

  27,446

  31,512

  37,227

  40,371

  52,130

  St. Hilary's School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Leonard's School

  49,451

  53,692

  63,324

  75,795

  113,765

  St. Margaret's Convent School

  (School closed 30 June 1986)

  St. Margaret's School, Aberdeen

  17,883

  23,404

  24,235

  33,545

  41,987

  St. Margaret's School, Edinburgh

  102,787

  107,711

  121,628

  154,491

  182,386

  St. Mary's School, Melrose

  —

  —

  —

  6,030

  9,936

  Stewart's Melville College and the Mary Erskine School

  1,006,057

  1,054,024

  1,089,782

  647,807

  686,814

  Strathallan School

  113,944

  122,736

  136,720

  187,165

  215,432

  Wellington School

  66,763

  72,949

  84,849

  108,121

  129,636

  Westbourne Shool

  154,015

  151,647

  151,073

  137,705

  172,304

  Total

  4,861,150

  5,309,761

  5,758,542

  6,681,213

  7,641,895

  Assisted places scheme Remission paid to schools

  School

  1991–92 £

  1992–931 £

  1993–19941 £

  1994–951 £

  Aberlour School

  27,865

  34,273

  35,870

  33,255

  Albyn School

  55,279

  48,960

  52,862

  69,591

  Ardvreck School

  9,180

  12,017

  21,819

  22,317

  Beaconhurst School

  18,589

  30,475

  41,530

  28,461

  Belhaven Hill School

  9,798

  7,921

  4,862

  9,789

  Belmont House School

  60,329

  67,488

  75,103

  78,623

  Blairmore School

  11,202

  5,931

  (School closed)

  Butterstone School

  18,283

  8,297

  17,236

  23,817

  Cargilfield School

  19,128

  19,557

  18,002

  12,897

  Clifton Hall School

  22,755

  28,546

  27,320

  28,502

  Craigclowan School

  20,000

  22,000

  25,256

  24,366

  Craigholme School

  93,539

  108,118

  129,501

  134,235

  Crawfordton House School

  22,456

  25,225

  23,269

  22,913

  Croftinloan School

  16,359

  20,500

  20,525

  20,768

  Dollar Academy

  150,017

  182,827

  200,818

  217,875

  Drumley House School

  10,049

  10,790

  9,259

  6,244

  Edinburgh Academy

  191,777

  209,884

  224,913

  232,894

  Fernhill School

  63,846

  79,726

  85,387

  78,155

  Fettes College

  174,548

  199,763

  206,073

  204,576

  Fort Augustus Abbey School

  170,400

  139,717

  (School closed)

  George Heriot's School

  596,848

  656,167

  675,791

  704,629

  George Watson's College

  639,740

  676,825

  675,093

  751,969

  Glasgow Academy

  301,839

  342,726

  343,728

  329,647

  Glenalmond College

  190,588

  215,022

  241,970

  257,323

  Gordonstoun School

  144,094

  160,982

  170,862

  182,064

  Hamilton College

  22,101

  27,653

  24,589

  26,938

  High School of Dundee

  462,132

  552,324

  576,339

  591,342

  High School of Glasgow

  102,007

  127,101

  136,969

  146,057

  Hutcheson's Grammar school

  356,361

  415,271

  457,459

  478,942

  Keil School

  198,819

  223,879

  227,968

  241,248

  Kelvinside Academy

  213,982

  266,852

  306,797

  319,404

  Kilgraston School

  164,519

  185,757

  191,918

  190,586

  Kilquhanity School

  46,218

  50,548

  55,115

  34,082

  Lathallan School

  19,869

  25,720

  27,769

  28,244

  Laurel Bank School

  173,937

  167,453

  207,312

  232,914

  Lomond School

  133,431

  158,944

  179,150

  186,227

  Loretto School

  159,046

  186,283

  194,058

  198,413

  Merchiston Castle School

  281,393

  315,586

  323,959

  320,000

  Morrison's Academy

  410,247

  432,107

  432,788

  417,900

  New Park school

  10,944

  14,000

  18,250

  15,839

  Oxenfoord Castle School

  38,622

  41,626

  (School closed)

  Park Lodge School

  2,598

  621

  —

  —

  The Park School

  217,964

  238,977

  244,944

  247,987

  Rannoch School

  139,248

  158,770

  173,910

  179,336

  736

  737

  Assisted places scheme Remission paid to schools

  School

  1991–92 £

  1992–931 £

  1993–19941 £

  1994–951 £

  Robert Gordon's College

  150,951

  169,147

  179,684

  204,100

  Rudolf Steiner School, Edinburgh

  159,714

  179,420

  182,345

  189,833

  St. Aloysius College

  380,134

  433,125

  443,787

  472,009

  St. Columba's School

  115,778

  121,144

  123,652

  117,231

  St. Denis and Cranley School

  99,836

  120,775

  124,529

  128,909

  St. George's School

  64,959

  85,210

  91,186

  124,054

  St. Hilary's School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Leonard's School

  131,000

  147,826

  168,453

  166,791

  St. Margaret's Convent School

  —

  —

  —

  —

  St. Margaret's School, Aberdeen

  42,501

  53,678

  58,813

  53,310

  St. Margaret's School, Edinburgh

  213,688

  241,220

  254,540

  271,812

  St. Mary's School, Melrose

  2,100

  7,602

  7,928

  15,992

  Stewart's Melville College & the Mary Erskine School

  766,689

  840,210

  895,062

  912,595

  Strathallan School

  243,000

  272,640

  294,506

  299,342

  Wellington School

  144,149

  183,265

  196,446

  199,388

  Westbourne School

  (Merged with Glasgow Academy)

  Total

  8,706,445

  9,758,471

  10,127,274

  10,485,735

  1 (Provisional figures pending receipt of final audited claims from schools).

  Teacher Shortages
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) current and (b) future shortages of qualified teachers he has identified and in which secondary school subjects; and if he will indicate the extent of the shortage. [33081]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Measured at national level there are no significant shortages of qualified teache's in Scotland in either the primary or secondary sectors. At local level, individual vacancies can sometimes be hard to fill for a range of reasons. Teacher education institutions are encouraged to work closely with education authorities to match supply to demand at local level. For the secondary sector, the Scottish Office Education Department recommends that up to three quarters of the annual intake to teacher training courses should be in specific subjects which have been agreed with education authorities as priorities in supply terms. Statistical bulletin Edn/B7/1995/2, a copy of which has been placed in the Library, sets out the most recent information on demand for and supply of teachers.

  Teaching Qualifications
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of students in each secondary school subject who achieved a teaching qualification at a Scottish teacher training establishment in(a) 1994, (b) 1989 and (c) 1984. [33082]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information is set out in the table.

  Students achieving a teaching qualification

  1984

  1989

  11994

  Total

  999

  455

  1,309

  English

  137

  32

  151

  History

  26

  11

  57

  Geography

  48

  12

  51

  Modern Studies

  7

  13

  51

  French

  48

  21

  103

  German

  16

  3

  34

  738

  Students achieving a teaching qualification

  1984

  1989

  11994

  Spanish

  4

  0

  11

  Gaelic

  3

  2

  3

  Other Modern Languages

  3

  0

  4

  Latin/Greek

  4

  0

  7

  Mathematics

  124

  60

  147

  Computing

  0

  19

  57

  Biology

  23

  24

  56

  Chemistry

  47

  31

  49

  Physics

  39

  32

  70

  Art

  44

  22

  74

  Business Studies

  29

  25

  67

  Home Economics

  64

  16

  32

  Physical Education

  122

  58

  84

  Music

  57

  22

  68

  Speech and Drama

  20

  9

  16

  Technical Education

  91

  17

  73

  Religious Education

  39

  26

  42

  Others

  4

  0

  2

  1 Provisional.

  School Boards
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) secondary, (b) primary and (c) special schools have boards; and what is the percentage of the total in each category. [33286]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number and percentage of eligible education authority schools with a school board at May 1994

  Sector

  Number of eligible schools with a school board

  Percentage of eligible schools with a school board

  Primary1

  1,724

  74.0

  Secondary

  376

  92.6

  Special

  66

  46.5

  1 Includes primary departments of secondary schools.

  739

  Pupil Expenditure
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the unit cost per pupil in each Scottish local education authority for 1993–94 for(a) nursery-primary and (b) secondary pupils. [34326]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information on annual budgeted expenditure for each primary and secondary school in Scotland, and per pupil for each such school, is contained in reports published annually since 1993 by the audit unit of Her Majesty's inspectors of schools. A copy of the most recent report, "Scottish Schools: Costs 1993/94 and 1994/95", has been placed in the Library.

  Thefts where the main firearm stolen was a shotgun

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Police Force

  Domestic

  Other

  Domestic

  Other

  Domestic

  Other

  Domestic

  Other

  Domestic

  Other

  Central

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  6

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  2

  3

  0

  Fife

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  Grampian

  4

  2

  4

  1

  6

  1

  4

  1

  4

  0

  Lothian and Borders

  4

  0

  15

  0

  5

  1

  10

  1

  9

  1

  Northern

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  19

  0

  12

  1

  21

  2

  14

  7

  14

  2

  Tayside

  4

  1

  2

  2

  5

  1

  10

  2

  4

  4

  Scotland

  34

  5

  34

  5

  41

  8

  46

  14

  36

  7

  Thefts where the main firearm stolen was a firearm other than a shotgun1

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Police Force

  Domestic

  Other

  Domestic

  Other

  Domestic

  Other

  Domestic

  Other

  Domestic

  Other

  Central

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  Fife

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Grampian

  0

  3

  3

  2

  4

  2

  2

  4

  5

  4

  Lothian and Borders

  7

  3

  15

  3

  11

  5

  10

  9

  4

  2

  Northern

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Strathclyde

  6

  2

  13

  3

  11

  9

  13

  9

  17

  13

  Tayside

  3

  1

  2

  0

  11

  5

  3

  3

  0

  4

  Scotland

  18

  9

  33

  9

  40

  22

  31

  28

  29

  25

  1 Excludes airweapons.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homicides involving(a) shotguns and (b) other firearms have taken place in each police force in each of the last five years; and how many of the victims in each case were women. [34137]

  Homicides where the main firearm used was shotgun

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Police Force

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Central

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Fife

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Lothian and Borders

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Northern

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  0

  1

  0

  Tayside

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  3

  3

  0

  0

  1

  2

  5

  0

  2

  0

  740

  Firearms
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many thefts of(a) shotguns and (b) other firearms took place in each police force in each of the last five years from (i) domestic premises and (ii) from other premises in each police force area. [34190]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The tables detail the number of thefts in which the main firearm stolen was a shotgun or other firearm. The information is disaggregated by location of theft—domestic premises or other premises—and is provided by police force area for each of the past five years. For the purposes of this response domestic premises have been defined to be dwellings and farms and the "other" premises category includes, for example, shops, offices, factories, places of public entertainment and other locations. Thefts from motor vehicles have been excluded.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The tables detail the number of homicides recorded in each police force area for the last five years where the main firearm used was shotgun or other firearm. Male and female victims are identified separately.
  741

  Homicides where the main firearm used was a firearm other than a shotgun

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Police Force

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Central

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Fife

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grampian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lothian and Borders

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northern

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Strathclyde

  0

  0

  2

  0

  4

  0

  1

  0

  5

  0

  Tayside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Scotland

  0

  0

  3

  0

  4

  0

  1

  0

  6

  0

  Allowances
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what data is held by(a) his Department and (b) the NHS executive on expenditure on trust board and health authority members' allowances. [34143]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Financial data for health boards and NHS trusts are submitted to the management executive in Scotland in the form of annual accounts, monthly monitoring returns and annual business reports. From these it is possible to identify total remuneration expenditure for non-executive and executive board members collectively. Remuneration of the chairman and highest paid member is identified separately. Details of remuneration for the other members are provided in bands of £5,000 starting at nil. Details of the board members' allowances, notably travel expenses, are not specifically itemised and will form part of more general accounting data.

  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what have been the costs of meeting clinical negligence claims in each region in each year since 1990. [34174]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland, the regional functions of the NHS are administered by health boards. Given the small number of cases in certain health boards, it is not appropriate on the grounds of confidentiality to publish the information in the form requested. The total amounts of damages awarded and total legal costs, for all health boards and NHS trusts in Scotland for the years 1990–91 to 1994–95 are given in the table.

  Total amount of damages awarded £

  Total amount of legal costs £

  Total £

  1990–91

  1,161,430

  165,650

  1,327,080

  1991–92

  1,021,984

  121,167

  1,143,151

  1992–93

  1,056,660

  158,967

  1,215,627

  1993–94

  582,420

  63,618

  646,038

  1994–95

  1860,412

  182,589

  1943,001

  1 Provisional.

  742

  Executive Agencies (Annual Report and Accounts)
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the annual report and accounts of the Registers of Scotland executive agency will be published. [34717]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Copies of the annual report and accounts have today been laid before both Houses.

  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the annual report and accounts of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency will be published. [34718]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Copies of the annual report and accounts of the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency have today been laid before both Houses.

  Monklands District Council
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whom he intends to appoint to conduct the inquiry into Monklands district council and if he will make a statement. [34719]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Under the powers conferred on him by section 211 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 my right hon. Friend has appointed Mr. William A. Nimmo Smith QC to conduct the inquiry. The formal terms of reference will be as follows:"To inquire into the question whether Monklands District Council have failed to comply with the duty imposed on them under section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 to make appointments to paid office or employment on merit and to report thereon."

  The recent publication of Professor Black's report attracted widespread indignation and concern about the allegations therein. In the circumstances it is hoped that everyone who has relevant information will co-operate fully with the inquiry.

  Water Authorities
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will announce appointments to the new Scottish water authorities and to the Water and Sewerage Customers Council. [34876]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I can announce today the appointment of 29 members to the new public water authorities; their names are set out below. These appointments, together with those of the chairmen and chief executives already announced, bring the membership of two authorities to 12, the maximum permitted by legislation, and one to 11.
  743
  Half the appointments will go to elected councillors. Of the 14 councillors announced today, nine are independents and five are Conservatives. Five senior Labour councillors were invited to serve: all declined, in some cases publicising their decision in the press. One vacancy remains unfilled.

  The rest of today's appointments bring to the authority a range of skills and experience of the water industry business or finance. The authorities are now well placed to deliver high-quality, efficient water and sewerage services and to attract additional new investment from private finance.

  The three new water authorities are public sector bodies which will forge a partnership with the providers of private sector funds to produce the greatest benefit in terms of quality of service and value for money for the people of Scotland. This is a novel and imaginative approach and I expect that all involved will play their part in ensuring its success.

  I can also announce today that Mr. Dick Douglas has accepted my invitation to become chairman of the new Water and Sewerage Customers Council. The rest of the membership will be appointed in the coming weeks. Mr. Douglas responded to the public advertisement for the position and as a former Member of this House is well known for his independence and vigour. I am confident that under his leadership the interests of customers will be ably championed.

  Those appointed to the North of Scotland water authority are:
  Denis Addly, Councillor Raymond Bisset, Councillor Joan Eastern, Councillor Nigel J. O. Graham, Andrew D. F. Lewis, Alasdair N. MacCallum, Councillor Olwyn J. Macdonald, Nicolas McAndrew, Councillor Donald I. Nicholson, David R. Paton.

  Those appointed to the East of Scotland water authority are:
  Disney Barlow, Robin Bell, Councillor Ian J. Berry, Councillor Ian Galloway, Councillor Tom Kerr, Councillor Pat McCafferty, Harry O'Hanlon, Sir Francis McWilliams, Roy Summers.

  Those appointed to the West of Scotland water authority are:
  Norman S. M. Berry, Councillor Mungo Bryson, Sir Robert Easton, John M. Goodwin, David M. Gray, Peter N. B. Kennedy, Councillor William Petrie, Councillor Robert R. Reid, Provost Leslie Rosin, Councillor Ian R. Young.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Physical Laboratory
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress he has made towards introducing private sector management into the National Physical Laboratory. [35049]

  Mr. Lang
  The intention to introduce private sector management to the National Physical Laboratory was announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on 14 April 1994. A detailed investigation to tender was made available in December to five bidding consortia selected from among those expressing interest. In May, the Department selected two 744
  consortia as shortlisted bidders and in late June, Serco became the preferred bidder for final negotiations. These are now complete and Serco, in collaboration with AEA Technology and Loughborough university as subcontractors for particular tasks, has been selected to become the contractor to manage the laboratory and deliver the Department's measurement programmes for the next five years. Serco, which will take over on 1 October, offered better value for money than either its nearest competitor or the benchmark of NPL continuing as an agency. All but a few of the laboratory's staff will transfer to Serco, which will purchase some of the assets of the laboratory. The DTI will lease other assets together with the buildings to Serco for the duration of the contract.

  The contract includes incentives on the contractor to develop the business of the laboratory and to improve efficiency. The existing management have made substantial progress in these areas during NPL's period as an agency of the Department, but I am sure that private sector management will bring additional commercial freedoms and skills to NPL's work. The contract also requires NPL to maintain its status as one of the world's greatest metrology laboratories and as a centre of excellence for all aspects of measurement. I am confident that under commercial management the laboratory will be even better able to fulfil this vital role. As part of the arrangements to ensure this, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering have agreed to advise me on the maintenance of the long-term capability and standing of the laboratory.

  London Commodity Exchange
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement about the takeover bid for the London Commodity Exchange made by the Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange of New York, and its implications for cocoa and coffee processing companies operating in the United Kingdom; [34317]

  (2) if his Department intends to review the decision to sell the United Kingdom's share of the buffer stock of cocoa beans following the New York Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange's take-over bid for the London Commodity Exchange; [34313]

  (3) what representations he has made to the Director General of Fair Trading in respect of the bid by the Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange of New York to take over the London Commodity Exchange. [34318]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  If this is a qualifying merger, the relevant competition authorities will need to consider the takeover. If it falls to the UK competition authorities, the Director General of Fair Trading will advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether to refer the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In giving his advice, the DGFT will take into account third party views and any other relevant factors.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with(a) the European Commission and (b) other Governments of EU member states about the take-over bid for the London Commodity Exchange. [34314]
  745
  Mr. Evans
  None. If such a takeover fell to the United Kingdom competition authorities, then any plans which a company might have to acquire the London Commodity Exchange would be a matter for discussions with the Director General of Fair Trading who has a duty under the Fair Trading Act 1973 to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on whether any qualifying mergers should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which of the former Department of Employment's responsibilities his Department has now taken on; and which Minister is in charge of each area of responsibility. [34043]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has taken over the former Employment Department group's responsibilities for industrial relations policy and legislation, pay issues, redundancy payments; and sponsorship of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service and the Industrial Tribunals. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) will be responsible for these matters, and will report to me.

  President of the Board of Trade (Salary)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the present annual salary of the President of the Board of Trade. [34004]

  Mr. Lang
  My ministerial salary as President of the Board of Trade is £42,834 per annum. In addition, I receive a reduced parliamentary salary of £24,985 per annum.

  Government Regional Office
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the benefits to industry of opening the Government's regional offices; and if he will make a statement. [33554]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The Government offices for the English regions and the expanding network of business links provide single points of contact for local businesses on a range of issues.

  Business Link
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 625, in what circumstances he would relax the accreditation procedure for continued use of the Business Link brand. [33547]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: In order to ensure that all businesses have access to high quality support, there will be no relaxation of the accreditation standards. However, if the reasons for failure are unlikely to affect the service received by clients, the Business Link Accreditation Board will have discretion to recommend a temporary extension of the licences to use the Business Link brand, provided that the business link has effective plans for remedying the shortfall. The implementation of those plans will be checked at the next regular surveillance visit.
  746
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 625, what options his Department has considered to ensure that small businesses have access to quality business advice if he accepts a recommendation from the Business Links Accreditation Board that their local business link should have its licence to use the Business Link branch withdrawn. [33548]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: Should an individual business link licence be withdrawn, agreement would be sought with a neighbouring accredited business link to provide the access to high quality support services.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the latest regional statistics available of the share of inward investment projects coming to Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the regions of England; and what share Wales has received from the latest data available of all inward investment projects coming from(a) Japan, (b) North America and (c) Europe. [34249]

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade announced on 4 July 1995,Official Report, columns, 145–46 that a record number of 434 inward investment projects were notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau in 1994–95. The regional breakdown of this total is as follows:

  Number

  Per cent.

  Wales

  50

  11.5

  Scotland

  81

  18.7

  Northern Ireland

  22

  5.1

  East

  12

  2.8

  East Midlands

  44

  10.1

  North East

  38

  8.7

  North West

  49

  11.3

  South East

  37

  8.5

  South West

  21

  4.3

  West Midlands

  62

  14.3

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  18

  4.1

  Wales's share of all projects coming from the specified countries was as follows:

  Per cent.

  Japan

  11.4 (5 of 44)

  North America

  11.8 (25 of 212)

  Europe

  13.6 (19 of 140)

  All the above figures are based on numbers of projects notified to the Invest in Britain Bureau at the time of the decision to invest. Companies are under no obligation to notify their investment decisions and the figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33457]
  747
  Mr. Lang
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State to his questions last year on 5 May 1994 and 16 June 1994,Official Report, column 604 and columns 428–29. The Comptroller and Auditor General has not published any additional reports on privatisations undertaken by the DTI since then.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the last year have been paid more than £1,000 per day. [33880]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The information is not collected and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much his Department and its agencies have spent on computer consultancy in each of the last five years; and what is the expected expenditure over the next five years. [33861]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: Figures prior to 1992–93 are not readily available and cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost. Due to the devolvement of budgets for computer consultancy, the following figures represent only the expenditure made through the central IT procurement section.

  Year

  Thousand

  1992–93

  6,212

  1993–94

  4,671

  1994–95

  4,137

  It is not possible to provide expected expenditure over the next five years other than at disproportionate cost due to budget devolvement. Information available on forecast expenditure by the central computer section on consultancy support for corporate projects over the next three years is as follows—estimates are not available for the final two years:

  Year

  £ thousand

  1995–96

  1,181

  1996–97

  861

  1997–98

  824

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which firms have won computer consultancy contracts from his Department and its agencies over the last five years; and what is the number of contracts per firm. [33892]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: This information is not held centrally and it cannot be provided other than at disproportionate cost. However, following an open tender procurement, the Department has set up framework agreements with the following companies enabling the Department's management units and agencies to call off computer consultancy support as required.

  Admiral Management Services Ltd.

  ASE Consulting

  CMG Computer Management Group (UK) Ltd

  748

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Cray Systems Ltd.

  CSS Trident Ltd.

  CSC Computer Sciences Ltd.

  EFD Total System Consultants Ltd.

  Kermon Ltd.

  KPMG Management Consulting

  Logica UK Ltd.

  PA Consulting Group

  Parity Systems Ltd.

  SEMA Group Systems Ltd.

  Secure Information Systems Ltd.

  Touche Ross and Co.

  Triad Special Systems Ltd.

  The agreements were finalised in August 1994 and cover a period of up to five years.

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years indicating the companies concerned. [33422]

  Mr. Lang
  Each senior official and special adviser is required to make a declaration of his or her financial interests including company shareholdings. This enables the Department to prevent potential conflicts of interest arising. In the case of other officials, conflicts of interest are dealt with by their line management. Records are not kept centrally.

  Aerospace (Outsourcing)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the value of outsourcing in the United Kingdom by Japanese companies working in the aerospace sector for each year since 1990. [33768]

  Mr. Eggar
  No such estimate has been made.

  Tunnel Boring Machines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many United Kingdom companies manufacture tunnel boring machines of the kind capable of boring the tunnels of the proposed channel tunnel rail link. [33819]

  Mr. Page
  We know of a number of United Kingdom manufacturing firms which make large tunnel boring machines. The precise type of tunnelling machines suitable for the channel tunnel rail link would depend upon the type of tunnelling methods chosen by they contractor after taking into account the ground conditions.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the effect of changes to the loan guarantee scheme announced since 1992. [32576]

  Mr. Page
  Since the changes that took place in April 1993 and July 1993, lending under the scheme has increased considerably.
  749
  In the financial year to 31 March 1994, 3,886 scheme loans were guaranteed at a value of £155 million compared to 2,342 loans at a value of £52 million in the previous year. In the year to 31 March 1995, 6,207 loans were guaranteed to a value of £246 million. This represents the highest level of lending since the scheme began in 1981.

  We are currently guaranteeing over 600 loans a month.

  British Coal (Recreational Estate)
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the planned transfer of British Coal's recreational estate to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation and to the National Playing Fields Association. [33118]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: It is the Government's objective that British Coal land currently in active use for sport and recreation is retained for those purposes.

  I hope to be in a position to make a further announcement shortly.

PRIME MINISTER

  West Midlands (Visit)
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to visit the west midlands and the Bromsgrove constituency in particular. [32466]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Prime Ministerial Duties
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of his time he devoted to his duties as Prime Minister between 23 June and 4 July. [34202]

  The Prime Minister
  I was Prime Minister throughout the entire period in question.

  Government Cars
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what make and type of Government car is allocated to the Prime Minister; and what is the cost of this vehicle to the Exchequer; including the annual cost of the chauffeur. [34014]

  The Prime Minister
  I have been allocated a Daimler Majestic as my official car. The annual running cost, which includes a number of security measures, is some £100,000. This also includes maintenance and the cost of a chauffeur.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the Governments of(a) Australia and (b) New Zealand about French nuclear tests in the Pacific; and what Commonwealth representations he proposes to make to the French Government. [34153]
  750
  The Prime Minister
  We are in regular contact with both Governments and are aware of their views. The United Kingdom does not act on behalf of the Commonwealth.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will protest to the French Government against(a) the proposed French nuclear tests in the Pacific and (b) the French Government's action against the Rainbow Warrior. [34150]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister on which occasions he has raised the issue of French nuclear testing within institutions of the European Union. [34152]

  The Prime Minister
  I have discussed nuclear testing with President Chirac on a number of occasions. I have not considered it necessary to do so within institutions of the EU.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list details of the occasions during the past 30 years when public interest immunity certificates have been signed indicating the Minister concerned, the Department and the subject matter to which the certificate was related. [34116]

  The Prime Minister
  The information as requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Prime Minister's Questions
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister who will be answering oral questions addressed to him when he cannot be present in the House. [34032]

  The Prime Minister
  The First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister will answer oral questions addressed to me when I cannot be present in the House.

  Prime Ministerial Offices
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the offices in 10 Downing street available to him for his official duties, together with the size of such offices, measured in square feet. [34015]

  The Prime Minister
  A study is available, which measures approximately 370 sq ft. The Cabinet room and other rooms in No. 10 Downing street are used for Government business. These amount in total to 4,343 sq ft.

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister, what role in the presentation and co-ordination of Government policy will be filled by the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary. [34012]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 11 July,Official Report, column 496.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what level has been set for the annual salary of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State. [34010]
  751
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 11 July,Official Report, column 496.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what will be the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary. [34011]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 11 July,Official Report, column 496.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister how many rooms in the Cabinet Office have been allocated to the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary and his staff. [34009]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  Four rooms in the Cabinet Office have been allocated to the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister and his staff.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate the annual cost of running the offices and department of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary, indicating(a) staff costs and (b) rentable value of accommodation occupied. [34008]

  The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

  The currently estimated annual cost of running the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service), including the office of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary, is £80 million of which £32 million relates to staff costs and £5 million is in respect of accommodation.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the fixtures and fittings ordered for the office of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State with particular reference to(a) carpets and (b) pictures. [33999]

  The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.

  No fixtures or fittings have been ordered for the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister's office. The carpet and pictures were in place and the furniture came from existing stocks.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the size, in square feet, of the new office of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary, located in the Cabinet Office. [34000]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  The size of the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister's office is 872 sq ft.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister what refurbishment work is(a) completed, (b) under way and (c) planned for the offices of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary and his staff; and what is his estimate of the costs of such work. [34007]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  None.
  752
  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister, how many(a) telephones, (b) fax machines, (c) photocopiers and (d) computers have been and will be allocated to the offices and department of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary; and what is the estimated value of the items obtained in each of the above categories. [34006]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  The following items have been allocated to the offices of the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister and his private office staff

  The following items have been allocated to the offices of the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister and his private office staff.

  Quantity

  Cost excluding VAT £

  Telephones

  10

  590

  Facsimile machines

  1

  1,425

  Photocopiers

  1

  4,017 (annual hire charge)

  Computers/printers

  7/3

  12,469

  Information for the Office of Public Service and its agencies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what will be the design features of stationery created for the office of the Deputy Prime Minister. [34001]

  (2) what orders for new stationery have been placed by the offices and Department of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary; and what the cost of such orders will be. [34002]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  The stationery for the office of the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister features the crest used by the Cabinet Office and "Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State". Orders for stationery have so far been placed to an estimated value of £75.

  Rose Garden Announcement
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 4 July, which of the means proposed to remunerate the public purse will be used in the particular case of the rose garden announcement of 22 June. [33291]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 July 1995]: My announcement on 22 June took place during the normal working hours of No. 10 Downing street. Any additional costs to the public purse were de minimis and, in accordance with long-standing practice, no charge will be levied.

HEALTH

  NHS Policy Board
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many members of(a) the NHS policy board and (b) the private finance panel have employment in the private sector; is she will list details of such employment; and what assessment she has made of the possibility of conflicts of interest. [30437]
  753
  Mr. Malone
  Membership of the national health service policy board is drawn from inside and outside the NHS and includes Ministers, senior officials, chairmen of the eight regional health authorities as well as other members who have no formal role in the NHS. No Ministers or senior officials have employment in the private sector. Like all advisory bodies in the NHS, which have no executive responsibility, the NHS policy board is non-statutory and provides advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Members of the board drawn from outside the NHS are under no obligation to declare their employment or interests. Members of the board who are regional health authority chairmen are appointed to those positions through a process requiring them to declare interests which are relevant and material to authorities of which they are a member. Registers of these interests are publicly available and a copy of the relevant entries will be placed in the Library. Membership of the private finance panel is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years, including the companies concerned. [33415]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department's staff rules require that shareholdings which staff or immediate members of their families hold, and which might be influenced or affected as a result of their official position, must be declared to their line manager. Records of such declarations are not available centrally.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which local authority education departments will fund speech therapy in schools in the case of non-statemented children requiring speech therapy support services. [33511]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Department of Education and Employment but we are co-funding a project which is being carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research to identify models of good collaborative practice. Its findings should be available towards the end of this year.

  Blood Bags
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given by the National Blood Authority, and by his Department, to doctors and hospitals which still have Tuta blood bags in their blood stocks; how many such bags have now been destroyed; what consultations the manufacturers of these bags had with the NBA before changing the design; what compensation is being sought from the manufacturers; and if he will make a statement. [33306]

  Mr. Sackville
  These matters for the National Blood Authority, which is urgently investigating the problems experienced with Tuta blood bags. I understand that on 4 July the National Blood Authority advised blood centres that all Tuta blood bags be withdrawn.
  754
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 6 July,Official Report, column 341, when he expects to announce the results of the investigation by the National Blood Authority into the problems with Tuta bags; and what estimate his Department has been given of the total cost of the exercise involved in replacing the blood stock lost through defective bags. [34305]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that the National Blood Authority's urgent investigation of these matters is continuing.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department by(a) number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available. [33440]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the total number of contracts let to consultancy firms by this Department over the past five years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. By total monetary value, since 1993, the first year that such figures exist, the five leading consultancy firms are as follows:

  PA Consulting and its subsidiaries

  CSS Trident plc

  Touch Ross and Co

  Siemens Nixdorf

  C International Ltd.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much have(a) health authorities and (b) trusts spent on consultancy services in each year since 1992, by region. [34166]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contract and for what total sum were let out by his Department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries, (b) Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries, (c) Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries, (d) Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries, (e) Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries, (f) Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries, (g) Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries, (h) Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries for privatisation, marketing testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33911]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information regarding the total number of contracts let by this Department and agencies for which it is responsible is not available centrally. The total sums paid to those firms listed in 1993–94 and 1994–95 are as follows:

  1993–94 £

  1994–95£

  Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries

  426,942

  387,875

  Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries

  240,513

  259,212

  Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries

  106,904

  35,919

  Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries

  nil

  nil

  Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries

  434,354

  191,955

  Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries

  118

  nil

  755

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries

  150

  nil

  Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries

  nil

  nil

  Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries

  200

  400

  NHS Services
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Royal College of Physicians and the Prince of Wales Advisory Group on Disability on the establishment of a national standard of national health service services with regular monitoring; and if he will make a statement. [33761]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Physiotherapists
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the changes in the demand for specialist physiotherapy to treat sufferers with work-related upper limb disorders; and what plans he has to increase the level of funding for this work; [33843]

  (2) what has been the annual expenditure on NHS physiotherapy in each of the last five years; and what were these figures as a percentage of the total level of NHS expenditure. [33844.]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of people affected by upper limb disorders, or repetitive strain injury as it is also known, is apparently increasing and we are encouraging physiotherapists working in this field to update their practice in line with current thinking and research into the condition.

  In the 10-year period from 1982–83 to 1992–93, revenue expenditure on physiotherapy services in England increased by 79 per cent. to £232.4 million, as part of the general increase in funding for the NHS. The figures on the annual expenditure of NHS physiotherapy by health authorities and NHS trusts and their percentage of the total operational hospital and community health care expenditure are shown in the table.

  Expenditure on physiotherapy by health authorities and NHS trusts in England and as a per cent, of total operational hospital and community health services expenditure

  Physiotherapy expenditure £000

  Physiotherapy expenditure as a per cent, of total HCHS expenditure

  1989–90

  138,896

  1.02

  1990–91

  147,806

  1.00

  1991–92

  204,714

  1.09

  1992–93

  232,393

  1.16

  1993–94

  252,935

  1.23

  Notes:

  1. HCHS abbreviates hospitals and community health services.

  2. The figures for 1991–92 onwards are not strictly comparable with those for earlier years due to changes in accounting practice associated with the introduction of the internal market, including the introduction of capital charges.

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of regional and district health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.
  756
  2. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  3. The annual accounts of regional and district health authorities and the special health authorities of the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  Medical Records (Access)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will amend the Access to Health Records Act 1990 to allow patients full access to their complete records other than in exceptional circumstances; if he will make it his policy that patients will be issued with an explanatory statement when full access is denied; and if he will make a statement. [33655]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Access to Health Records Act 1990 gives patients a right of access to their own health records compiled on or after 1 November 1991. If the record holder considers that access to earlier records is necessary for the later record to be understood, that also is permitted under the Act.

  Access may be denied to all or part of the record if disclosure of any information in it might cause serious harm to the physical or mental health of the patient or to protect the health of another person. Access may also be denied if the record contains information which would identify a third party, other than a health professional, unless that person has consented to the disclosure.

  Although the Act does not grant a general right of access to records made before 1 November 1991, questions of access to documents made before that date are matters for the judgment of the health professional primarily responsible for the patient's clinical care. However it is our policy that access be given whenever possible.

  The Act does not require the record holder to inform the applicant when part of the record is withheld. It is a matter for the record holder whether to do so but our guidance does not require it and we have no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Drugs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the price differential of drugs at the hospital/primary care interface; how this affects patients who are discharged from hospital; and if he will make a statement. [33672]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance on these issues was given to health authorities in EL(91)127 and EL(94)72, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct all health authorities to make in-vitro fertilisation or gamete intra-fallopian transfer treatment available to women with a clinical need. [33664]

  Mr. Sackville
  Decisions about the priority and resources to be given to infertility treatment services must be left to the individual health authorities, which are in the best position to determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Patients Charter
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will allow nurses and midwives greater discretion under the patients charter in the time scale for operating home visits where this is in the best interests of patients and carers; and if he will make a statement. [33666]

  Mr. Malone
  The patients charter national standard on home visits by community nurses, health visitors and midwives has been set to provide a challenging but achievable level of service delivery which the national health service must aim to meet in all but exceptional cases. To weaken the standard would not be in the interests of patients.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will allocate further funds to community health councils to enable them to raise their public profile; and if he will make a statement. [33760]

  Mr. Malone
  No. The working group on the future establishing arrangements for community health councils identified a need for further work in relation to equalising CHC resources after RHA functions transfer to the NHS executive in April 1996. This work will be based on our commitment to ensuring broad consistency in handling CHC affairs.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure greater involvement by community health councils in the processes of needs assessment, the monitoring of performance and quality and in "Local Voices" programmes; and if he will make a statement. [33674]

  Mr. Malone
  Guidance issued by the National Health Service Executive in 1992 entitled "Local Voices" emphasised the need for the national health service to become truly responsive to the needs, views and preferences of local people. Community health councils have and will continue to play a significant role in this process.

  This continued role is clearly acknowledged in the planning and priorities guidance for 1996–97. The guidance details the six most important national priorities for the NHS over the next three to five years, one of which is to give greater voice and influence to health service users.

  Intensive Care
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy that his Department's review of intensive care facilities will(a) review the number of intensive care and high dependency beds and regional centres with particular attention to paediatrics and neurosurgery to ensure the provision of necessary support services and (b) implement as a matter of urgency a bed bureau to facilitate the immediate location of appropriate available specialist care beds in an emergency; and if he will make a statement. [33676]

  Mr. Sackville
  No. I have set up a working group to develop clear definitions of intensive care and high dependency; and to devise guidelines for admission to and discharge from such units.

  Folic Acid (Public Awareness)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase awareness of the importance of folic acid taken before conception and then in early pregnancy in the prevention of neural tube defects; and if he will make a statement. [34570]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has commissioned the Health Education Authority to conduct a large scale publicity campaign to increase awareness of the opportunity to prevent babies having spina bifida and other similar birth defects by women increasing their consumption of folates and folic acid prior to conception and in early pregnancy. We have set aside £2.3 million in England over the next three years for this purpose. The campaign will start in the autumn, focusing first on increasing professional awareness of the issues, and then broaden out early next year to reach women and older school girls. In particular, it will initially target women who are planning to become pregnant.

  Health Service Commissioner (Annual Report)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Healthy when he expects to receive the 1994–95 annual report of the Health Service Commissioner. [34720]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Health Service Commissioner has made his annual report on the performance of his functions in England, Scotland and Wales. My right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State for Health, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales presented the report to the House on 12 July. It was published today (HC 544) and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the law of medical negligence on his Department; and if he will make a statement. [33816]

  Mr. Malone
  The law of medical negligence has no direct effect on my Department.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider giving compensation to those patients who suffer permanent injuries after radiotherapy for the treatment of breast cancer; and if he will make a statement. [33817]

  Mr. Sackville
  Compensation by the national health service is appropriate only where there is evidence of medical negligence.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make, a statement concerning the apparent concentration in particular areas and in particular years of injuries following radiotherapy for breast cancer. [33818]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health is funding the Royal College of Radiologists to carry out a clinical review in nine radiotherapy centres of women thought to be damaged by radiotherapy for breast cancer. This should yield useful information about common factors in treatment which might have led to the adverse effects. The need for further studies can then be assessed.

  Child Abuse Inquiry
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the terms of the National Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse; if he will list the members; what is his estimate of the total costs of the inquiry; on what date the inquiry will begin; and when he anticipates it will be completed. [34250]

  Mr. Bowis
  The National Commission of Inquiry into Child Abuse was set up by the National Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

  Accident and Emergency Services, West Midlands
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the provision of accident and emergency services in the west midlands; and what changes to present arrangements are planned. [34281]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for health authorities to decide upon the provision of accident and emergency services. The hon. and learned Member may wish to contact Bryan Baker, chairman of West Midlands regional health authority, for further details.

  City and Hackney Community NHS Trust
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the occupation and employer of the chair of City and Hackney Community NHS trust. [34179]

  Mr. Malone
  The chairman of City and Hackney Community NHS trust, Professor Elaine Murphy, is employed by the united medical and dental schools of Guy's and St. Thomas' hospitals. She is a professor within the division of psychiatry in the university of London.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Alan Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 February,Official Report, column 325, if he will give the figures on accident and emergency departments by region for 1994–95. [34206]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 June,Official Report, column 332.

  Listeriosis
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department first made a full assessment of the risks to child health of pregnant mothers consuming soft cheese and other products liable to listeria; and on what date his Department's first guidance note on listeriosis was produced. [34248]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health issued advice to the public about listeria in soft ripened cheese, cooked-chilled meals and ready-to-eat poultry on 10 February 1989 and about pâté on 12 July 1989 and 24 August 1989. This included specific guidance to pregnant women.

  It would not be appropriate to comment on the timing of the Department's assessment of the health risks associated with foodborne listeriosis which is being considered as part of a current court case.
  760
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Ministers and which Departments were involved in the timing of the Government's decision to warn publicly of the risks of miscarriages, stillbirths and serious illnesses in new born babies from listeriosis caused by consumption of some soft cheeses, cook-chill foods, chicken or pâté. [34310]

  Mr. Sackville
  Health and Agriculture Ministers were involved in the decision to issue a warning about listeriosis.

  Asthma
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include asthma in the "Health of the Nation" strategy; and if he will make a statement. [34282]

  Mr. Sackville
  An ad hoc expert group has recently reported to the Chief Medical Officer on possible interventions and targets for asthma, so that it might be reconsidered for "Health of the Nation" key area status. The report will be considered together with others on asthma which are expected soon from specialty committees in the Department of Health.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were made for the treatment of asthma, per family health service authority, for each of the last three years for which figures are available. [34283]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information will be placed in the Library.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what figures(a) his Department and (b) the NHS Executive hold on the transaction costs between trust and general practitioner fundholders. [34136]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average rent charged by NHS trusts to tenants in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [34251]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of staff, by type, working in(a) the acute sector and (b) the community sector in each of the last three years. [34135]

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

  Information on the national health service work force is given in "The NHS Workforce in England 1982–1992" and "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics 1994", copies of which are available in the Library.
  761
  Information on staff directly employed by local authority social services departments is given in the annual publication, "Local Authority Social Services Statistics: Staff of Local Authority Social Services Departments", copies of which are in the Library. The latest edition gives data as at 30 September 1994.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) of 13 June,Official Report, column 465, what reasons were given for rejecting an independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland. [33241]

  Mr. Moss
  The Environment Service of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland provides an integrated approach to the protection and conservation of the environment. The establishment of an independent agency dealing solely with environmental protection would prejudice that holistic approach. For this reason it was considered that a next steps agency, dealing with the full range of the current responsibilities of the Environment Service, would achieve many of the benefits of a separate protection agency and could be brought into being in a much shorter timescale.

  Bypasses (Dungiven and Strabane)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for a bypass at(a) Dungiven and (b) Strabane. [33044]

  Mr. Moss
  Proposals for the provision of a bypass of Dungiven and for the completion of stage 2 of Strabane bypass—stage 1 is already in place—are long term and are not included in the Department's current five-year major road works programme.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the sources of information held by him on Government-sponsored training schemes. [33593]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 10 July 1995.

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me, as chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency, to reply to your question.

  The main sources of information on Government sponsored training schemes are as follows:

  The Training and Employment Agency headquarters and local office network. There are 31 local offices located across Northern Ireland.

  Adult Guidance Centres of which there are 33 provide under contract to the Agency a career assessment and guidance service for adults.

  A Training Organisation network consisting of 161 organisations which includes the Agency's 11 Training
  762
  Centres. These organisations are contracted to deliver T&EA training programmes.

  A Directory of Training Opportunities (formally known as the Directory of Training Providers) gives a comprehensive guide to training opportunities and providers in Northern Ireland. The Directory is available form the Agency on request.

  The Agency also produces a Directory of Services which gives a brief description of each of the Agency's services including training schemes and is also available on request.

  In addition, potential clients can be referred to the Training and Employment Agency by Social Security Offices, Citizens Advice Bureaux, Community based Jobclubs which would be able to give limited information on the training programmes available.

  I hope that your find this helpful.

  Sunday Observance Act
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what meaning is attached by his Department to the terms(a) tradesman, (b) certificer, (c) workman, and (d) labourer as used in article 1 of the Act for the better observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, AD 1695; [33517]

  (2) what meaning is attached by his Department to the term, works of necessity and charity, as used in article 1 of the Act for the better observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, AD 1695; [33515]

  (3) what meaning is attached by his Department to the terms, (a) drover, (b) horse-courser, (c) waggoner, (d) carrier, (e) butcher and (f) higler as used in an Act for the better observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, AD 1695; [33514]

  (4) what meaning is attached by his Department to the terms, (i) publickly cry (ii) chew forth, (iii) expose to sale, (iv) merchandises and (v) chattels as used in article 1 of the Act for the better observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, AD 1695. [33516]

  Mr. Moss
  The Sunday Observance Act (Ireland) 1695 is an archaic piece of legislation which is inevitably couched in language that is out of date. It is not appropriate, therefore, to attach in the abstract, particular meanings to the terms used in the Act. Such determination would be relevant and meaningful only in the context of a particular issue or case.

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years, indicating the companies concerned. [33427]

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

  Training and Work Schemes
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what devolved powers he has to run training or work schemes that are different from those run elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [33595]

  Mr. Ancram
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its chief executive, Mr. J. S. Crozier. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  763
  Letter from J. S. Crozier to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 8 July 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Agency to reply to your question about the devolved powers he has to run training or work schemes that are different from those run elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

  Training and employment programmes and services are administered by the Training and Employment Agency which is a Next Steps Agency established by the Department of Economic Development in 1990. The Department is empowered to run training and employment schemes under the Employment and Training Act (NI) 1950 (as amended by the Employment and Training (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988) which includes authority to "make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for the purpose of employment suitable for their ages and capacities or of assisting persons to obtain suitable employees (including partners and other business associates)". Under the arrangements which pertain during Direct Rule this authority is discharged subject to the direction and control of the Secretary of State.

  Social Needs
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what ways the Department of Education uses its budget to fulfil the Government's policy of targeting social need in Northern Ireland. [33303]

  Mr. Ancram
  The formula used for distributing the annual block grant resources to the education and library boards takes account of the relative incidence of social deprivation in each board area and social need is also taken into account in determining major schools capital starts each year.

  In addition, substantial resources—£6 million to date in 1995–96—are targeted at the education service within the "Making Belfast Work" and Londonderry regeneration initiatives.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what way each of the education and library boards enact Government policy of targeting social needs in Northern Ireland. [33304]

  Mr. Ancram
  Local management of schools funding arrangements require each education and library board to target social needs through allocations in respect of special needs and social deprivation. In 1994–95, £28.8 million or 6 per cent. of the aggregated schools budget was targeted at the most needy schools in this way.

  In addition, over £20 million will be made available over the next three years towards a special initiative aimed at raising standards in those schools facing the greatest problems of social and educational disadvantage.

  Preparatory Schools
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much Government money is used to fund private fee paying preparatory departments of schools; and how much each school receives. [33305]

  Mr. Ancram
  The total amount of Government grant allocated to these schools in the 1995–96 financial year is £1,488,221.
  764
  The allocation to individual schools are as follows:

  £

  Voluntary Grammar Schools

  Armagh Royal School

  17,126

  Belfast Royal Academy

  129,304

  Ballymena Academy

  48,382

  Strathearn Grammar College

  77,497

  Ballymoney Dalriada

  45,385

  Victoria College

  63,796

  Bangor Grammar School

  60,370

  Sullivan Upper School

  81,350

  Bloomfield Collegiate

  38,106

  Larne Grammar School

  23,977

  Campbell College

  86,060

  Friends' School Lisburn

  82,635

  Hunterhouse College

  47,526

  The Wallace High School

  84,347

  Methodist college

  260,321

  Foyle and Londonderry College

  19,695

  Rainey Endowed

  25,690

  Royal Academical Institute

  101,474

  Dungannon Royal

  23,121

  Controlled Grammar Schools

  Glenlola Collegiate

  30,199

  Down High

  27,054

  Lurgan College

  15,867

  Regent House

  55,049

  Portadown College

  23,559

  Ballyclare High

  20,331

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33455]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is not available prior to 1989. However, from April 1989 to March 1995, the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland departments was £14.8 million.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries, (b) Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries, (c) Ernest and Young and its subsidiaries, (d) Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries, (e) Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries, (f) Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries, (g) Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries, (h) Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries and (i) Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33906]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Details are set out in the following table, for the various categories for which information is collected.
  765

  Number of contracts per firm (including subsidiaries) per category

  1993–94

  General management consultancy

  Information technology

  Privatisation (includes market testing)

  Next steps (includes prior option studies)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  39

  2

  4

  0

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  14

  0

  0

  1

  Ernest and Young Arthur Andersen

  20

  0

  0

  0

  Price Waterhouse

  22

  1

  3

  1

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stoy Hayward

  22

  0

  0

  0

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  117

  3

  7

  2

  Total amount of spend by 9 listed Consultancy groups £1,869,528.

  Number of contracts per firm (including subsidiaries) per category

  1994–95

  General Management Consultancy

  Information technology

  Privatisation (including market testing)

  Next steps (including prior option studies)

  Coopers and Lybrand

  42

  0

  1

  3

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  8

  1

  1

  0

  Ernest and Young

  15

  0

  0

  1

  Arthur Andersen

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Price Waterhouse

  25

  0

  0

  1

  Grant Thornton

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Stoy Hayward

  12

  0

  0

  2

  Robson Rhodes

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  102

  1

  2

  7

  Total amount of spend by nine listed Consultancy groups £1,282,700.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much have(a) health authorities and (b) trusts spent on consultancy services in each year since 1992, by region. [34162]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the exact form requested. Health and social services boards and trusts produce statements in support of their annual accounts which provide supplementary analysis of the expenditure on the accounts. The table sets out the cost of external contract staff and consultancy services.

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Northern Board

  196,618

  162,575

  Southern Board

  316,161

  362,501

  Eastern Board

  520,942

  252,161

  Western Board

  190,988

  158,781

  Trusts in Eastern Board Area

  n/a

  320,435

  Trusts in Southern Board Area

  n/a

  125,917

  Total

  1,224,709

  1,382,370

  The first Trusts were established in Northern Ireland on 1 April 1993. Five are in the Eastern board area and one is in the Southern Board area.

  Asbestos Cement Pipes
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to construct an asbestos cement pipe to Belfast from the Silent Valley reservoir, which other countries in the European Union have prohibited the use of asbestos cement pipes for the flow of drinking water; and if he will make a statement on the use of asbestos cement pipes for the flow of drinking water in Northern Ireland. [33902]
  766
  Mr. Moss
  Plans are now at an advanced stage for replacement of two sections of the Mourne Conduit totalling 3.8 km. The conduit conveys water from the Silent Valley reservoir to Belfast.

  Tenders under consideration include a number based on the use of asbestos cement pipes. No decision has been taken on the pipe material.

  Asbestos cement pipes have in the past been one of a range of pipe materials used in Northern Ireland in accordance with nationally approved standards. This is consistent with UK practice. The use of a pipe laying material by member states of the European Union is a matter for internal decision by the authorities in those states.

  Students
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many students from Northern Ireland attended universities in Great Britain during the most recent academic year. [33626]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1993–94, the most recent year for which figures are available, 12,225 students from Northern Ireland attended higher education courses at institutions in Great Britain.

  Foreign Undergraduates
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to what extent each of the two Northern Ireland universities seek to attract foreign undergraduates from each of the 14 member nations of the European Union; and to what extent they give priority attention to promotions in the Republic of Ireland. [33627]
  767
  Mr. Ancram
  Both Northern Ireland universities provide details of their courses on European-wide computerised databases. Copies of the universities' prospectuses are also available throughout the European Union through the offices of the British Council.

  The universities are also active participants in EU student mobility schemes which provide for EU students to undertake part of their course of study in Northern Ireland.

  Both universities undertake promotional visits to the Republic of Ireland in response to direct requests for them to be represented at major career conventions.

  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the costs of meeting clinical negligence claims in each region in each year since 1990. [34171]

  Mr. Moss
  The cost of meeting clinical negligence cases in Northern Ireland since 1990–91 is as follows:

  Cost£

  1990–911

  1,257,714

  1991–92

  2,055,628

  1992–93

  2,429,365

  1993–94

  6,106,839

  1994–95

  4,518,236

  1 The required information is only available for the last 6 months of 1990–91.

  NHS Allowances
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information is held by(a) his Department and (b) the NHS executive on expenditure on trust board and health authority members' allowances. [34145]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of Health and Social Services determine the rates of travelling and other allowances payable to board members.

  The annual accounts of health and social services trusts and health and social services boards are submitted to the management executive. The accounts do not separately identify expenditure on allowances paid to board members. They do, however, identify total board members remuneration and disclose since 1994–95:

  total remuneration of non-executive members

  basic salary of executive members

  performance related pay of executive members

  pension contributions of executive members

  compensation paid for loss of office

  pensions to former directors.

WALES

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many previously arranged official meetings have been(a) cancelled, (b) postponed or (c) re-arranged since the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) resigned as Secretary of State; and if he will make a statement on the impact of these alterations. [32911]
  768
  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 6 July 1995]:

  (a) Five cancelled

  (b) No meetings were postponed

  (c) One rearranged

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years, indicating the companies concerned. [33421]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33575]

  Mr. Hague
  Details of management and other consultants engaged by the Welsh Office are as follows:

  Number of occasions

  Total payments (£000)

  1990–91

  24

  229

  1991–92

  38

  1,109

  1992–93

  74

  1,416

  1993–94

  87

  1,454

  1994–95

  45

  805

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department(a) by number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available. [33432]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is available only for the three years from 1992–93 to 1994–95. Over this period, the five main firms of management and other consultants engaged by the Welsh Office, by both the number and value of contracts are:

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Howard Humphreys and Partners

  KPMG Peat Marwick

  Price Waterhouse

  Touche Ross

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33451]

  Mr. Hague
  Since 1980, the Welsh Office has not incurred any expenditure on consultants in connection with privatisation programmes.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Department and agencies for which it is responsible to(a) Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries, (b) Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries, (c) Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries, (d) Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries, (e) Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries, (f) Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries, (g) Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries, (h) Robson Rhodes

  769
  and its subsidiaries and (i) Pannel Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33905]

  Mr. Hague
  Over this period, the Welsh Office has awarded contracts to five of the firms mentioned for consultancy work. Information on the number of contracts awarded is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Coopers and Lybrand

  4

  1

  Peat Marwick

  3

  3

  Price Waterhouse

  3

  1

  Grant Thornton

  —

  1

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  1

  —

  Details of expenditure with individual firms cannot be disclosed for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

  Uncollected Community Charge
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of uncollected community charge; and what percentage of manufacturing output was accounted for by(a) the steel industry, (b) the aerospace industry and (c) the coal industry in each of the last 10 years. [33512]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The amount of uncollected community charge as at 31 March 1995 was £32.5 million. This provisional figure includes £6.6 million written off as bad debts between 1 April 1990 and 31 March 1995 and £25.9 million of cumulative arrears at 31 March 1995. Information on the output of the steel and aerospace industries as a percentage of total manufacturing output is shown in table 1. Information on the coal industry on a comparable basis is not available, but data on the output of coal in tonnes are shown in table 2.

  Table 1: Output of the steel and aerospace industries as a percentage of total manufacturing output', Wales 1983–1992

  Year

  Steel industry (SIC80 221)

  Aerospace industry (SIC80 364)

  1983

  Not available

  Not available

  1984

  2—

  2.3

  1985

  3—

  2.4

  1986

  2—

  2—

  1987

  18.6

  2—

  1988

  17.7

  2—

  1989

  17.6

  0.4

  1990

  13.0

  3.9

  1991

  12.4

  1.4

  1992

  11.4

  2.1

  1 Gross value added at factor cost.

  2—figures are not shown as a precaution against disclosure of confidential information.

  Source:

  Census of Production.

  Table 2: Production of deep-mined and open-cast coal, Wales 1983–1993

  Year

  Million tonnes

  1983

  9.47

  1984

  3.44

  1985

  8.08

  770

  Table 2: Production of deep-mined and open-cast coal, Wales 1983–1993

  Year

  Million tones

  1986

  9.30

  1987

  8.04

  1988

  7.23

  1989

  6.79

  1990

  6.40

  1991

  5.19

  1992

  4.87

  1993

  4.50

  Source:

  Department of Trade and Industry.

  RAF Sealand
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to visit RAF Sealand, Deeside, Clwyd. [33495]

  Mr. Hague
  I have no such plans at present.

  Saw-billed Ducks
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many licences to shoot saw-billed ducks have been issued by his Department in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [33334]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No licences were issued in 1992 and 1993; eight were issued in 1994.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many appeals have been lodged by caravan and camping park owners in Wales against the revaluation of their premises carried out by district valuation officers in Wales. [33713]

  (2) how many representations he has received on the issue of revaluation of caravan and camping parks in Wales following the revaluation of business premises; [33714]

  (3) if he will change the criteria adopted by valuation officers in Wales in determining rateable values of caravan and camping parks, so as to take more account of the profitability of businesses in the valuation process. [33715]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Some 95 appeals had been lodged by 7 July 1995. My right hon. Friend and I have received 68 representations.

  The criteria by which caravan sites are valued for business rates cover both England and Wales and are a matter for the Valuation Office agency. In the absence of appropriate rental evidence for properties such as caravan parks, the valuation method uses information which takes account of profitability. Discussions are taking place between the agency and representatives of the industry on revisions to the method used. I hope they will come to a mutually acceptable conclusion.

  Prescription Pricing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer on 15 June,Official Report, column 662, if he has set a deadline for the Prescription Pricing Authority, England to satisfy the Welsh Health

  771
  Common Services Authority that it has the legal basis to bid to supply prescription pricing services in Wales; and if he will place a copy in the Library of the relevant correspondence between the two authorities concerning confirmation or otherwise of this point. [33968]

  Mr. Hague
  No. These are matters for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the answer of 15 June,Official Report, column 661, on what date he approached the commission for permission to place the relevant correspondence on regional development fund assistance to the Welsh Development Agency; what response has been received; and when he expects the correspondence will be placed in the Library. [33969]

  Mr. Hague
  I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library with the approval of the Commission.

  Auditor's Remuneration
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, how much have(a) health authorities and (b) trusts spent on auditors' remuneration in each year since 1992, by region. [34163]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is as follows:

  £ thousand

  Health authorities

  NHS trusts

  1992–93

  1,289

  70

  1993–94

  1,448

  758

  Note:

  1.1993–94 data is provisional.

  2. Auditor's remuneration consists of audit fees and other auditor's remuneration.

  Source:

  Annual Accounts/Financial Returns of DHAs, SHAs, FHSAs and NHS Trusts.

  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the costs of meeting clinical negligence claims in each region in each year since 1990–91. [34167]

  Mr. Richards
  The total cost of meeting clinical negligence claims in each of the financial year since 1990–91 is as follows:

  £ million

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  3.044

  2.220

  3.064

  13.548

  1 provisional figures only.

  NHS Allowances
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information is held by(a) his Department and (b) the NHS executive on expenditure on trust board and health authority members' allowances. [34144]

  Mr. Richards
  The information for the health service in Wales for 1993–94 is as follows:772

  £ thousand

  Health authorities

  NHS Trusts

  Fees

  808

  599

  Other emoluments (including pension contributions)

  2,427

  3,408

  Total remuneration

  3,235

  4,007

  Note:

  1993–94 data is provisional.

  Source:

  Annual Accounts of DHAs, SHAs, FHSAs and NHS Trusts.

  Consultancies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much have(a)health authorities and (b) trusts spent on consultancy services in each since 1992, by region. [34161]

  Mr. Richards
  The information is as follows:

  £ thousands

  Health authorities

  NHS trusts

  1992–93

  2,427

  102

  1993–94

  3,436

  556

  Notes:

  1.1993–94 data is provisional.

  2.Information for family health services authorities and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales is not held centrally.

  Source:

  Annual Accounts/Financial Returns of DHAs, WHCSA and NHS Trusts.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what have been the costs of assisting general practitioner fundholders with information technology expenditure in each year since 1991–92. [34169]

  Mr. Richards
  Total payment in year for Wales for GP fundholders information technology since 1991–92 is as follows:

  Expenditure £000

  Number of GP Full

  Fundholders Preparatory

  1991–92

  588.2

  7

  19

  1992–93

  997.2

  26

  45

  1993–94

  1,282.7

  71

  31

  1994–95

  1,040.2

  101

  22

  Source:

  Family health services authorities' financial information system returns.

  School Pupils (Costs)
  Sir Harold Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the unit cost per pupil in each local education authority in Wales in 1993–94 for(a) nursery/primary and (b) secondary pupils. [34327]

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office's training and education intelligence unit regularly produces an education finance bulletin, which contains unit cost figures and a copy of the bulletin is placed in the Library of the House. Figures for 1993–94 are not yet available: as soon as they become available they will be incorporated in a new issue of the bulletin and I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he is making for valuation tribunals in Wales following the reorganisation of local government on 1 April 1996. [34837]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have carefully considered the responses to the recent consultation. We have concluded that, from 1 April 1996, there should be four tribunals covering north, west, south and east Wales. They will be served by the existing offices at Colwyn bay, Carmarthen, Cardiff and Newport. Appointments to the tribunals will be made by the new unitary authorities to take effect on 1 April 1996. Regulations will be made in the autumn giving effect to these changes and making some other amendments to the arrangements for the appointment of tribunal members and the administration of tribunals. I am writing to all Welsh Members setting out the changes more fully. I shall place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Inward Investment
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of inward investment. [32550]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Foreign-owned firms in the UK strengthen competition and innovation, boost productive capacity and provide jobs. In the past three years, inward investment to the UK has created or safeguarded a quarter of a million jobs.

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed single currency for the European Union. [32559]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  It is now clear, following the European Council at Cannes, that there will be no move to a European single currency in 1997. It is too early to judge whether a successful monetary union will be possible in 1999 or beyond.

  Tax Reductions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sum he expects will be available for tax reductions in the next two years. [32562]

  Mr. Jack
  The public sector borrowing requirement is on a steady downward path. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that he will cut taxes when the public finances can afford it and the economic conditions are right.

  Inflation Forecasts
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes have been made in his inflation forecasts in the last year. [32563]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer to the reply my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) earlier today.

  Trade Figures
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the economic impact of the latest balance of trade figures. [32564]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson).

  Fiscal Policies
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change his fiscal policies following the Treasury's half-yearly forecast on economic prospects. [32566]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans to change fiscal policy, which is to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term. The figures in the summer forecast demonstrate that we are on course to achieve this.

  Housing Policies
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of housing policies on the construction industry and economic performance. [32567]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government are delivering healthy, sustainable economic growth based on low inflation and sound public finances. Industry, including the construction industry, is expected to share fully in the benefits of rising prosperity.

  Interest Rate Policy
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will next meet the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss interest rate policy. [32569]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The next regularly monthly meeting will be held on 27 July.

  Biodiesel Duty
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from environmental organisations about the level of duty on biodiesel.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  None.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures his Department is taking to prevent and detect tax fraud. [32573]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue's strategy is to encourage voluntary compliance and to maintain an active presence across the tax system, underpinned by statutory powers, to detect and deter tax evasion and fraud. The Inland Revenue aims to help taxpayers to comply with their tax obligations by explaining what those obligations are in clear and simple terms.

  Local tax offices scrutinise taxpayers' accounts and returns, and investigate those where, for example, profits appear to be understated, to detect and put right evasion.

  775
  Specialist offices deal with larger and more complex cases, including those where prosecution may be appropriate. In addition to investigations involving taxpayers known to the Inland Revenue, resources are also allocated to the detection of those individuals who should be paying tax, but make no declarations of their income.

  The Department has consistently made efforts to improve the quality of its compliance work. There has been an emphasis in recent years on larger or more high-risk cases, while the Department has maintained a presence in all areas of the tax system, and it has established an investigation quality monitoring system, which has ensured that its work in the area is extremely cost-effective—the reported yield being enhanced by the future compliance of taxpayers successfully investigated and by the deterrent effect on those who might otherwise try to evade tax.

  Further details of the Inland Revenue's compliance work may be found in the chapter entitled "Compliance" in the Board of Inland Revenue's 136th annual report, which was laid before Parliament in October 1994. It gives a broad outline of the Department's compliance activities, including the detection of possible fraud. The report also contains tables that show the yield from compliance work.

  Investment
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage greater investment in British industry. [32574]

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he proposes to increase the level of investment in the United Kingdom economy. [32575]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts).

  Single European Currency
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission and publish studies of the advantages and disadvantages to the United Kingdom of a single European currency. [32565]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The panel of independent forecasters, or six wise men, published a study of the issues raised by European monetary union as part of its May 1995 report.

  Negative Equity
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he expects negative equity to increase in the next financial year. [32568]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I expect there to be a modest recovery in house prices, starting in the second half of 1996. Rising house prices normally reduce negative equity.

  Low Pay and Unemployment
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his assessment of the economic impact of low pay and unemployment. [32571]
  776
  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth).

  Duty on Beer
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what research has been undertaken on the revenue effect of lowering the excise duty on beer; and if he will place a copy in the Library; [33128]

  (2) what research has been undertaken on the effect on the beer trade of lowering the excise duty on beer; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [33129]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Research is continuously in progress to monitor the state of excise industries. The work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies on simulating indirect tax changes continues to be the basis for the Government's view of revenue and demand/effects of indirect tax changes. A copy of the relevant IFS working paper W90/11, "The Simulation of Indirect Tax Reforms: The IFS Simulation Program for Indirect Taxation (SPIT)", has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Bank Audits
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who audited(a) the Bank of England (b) Barings in the latest applicable year. [33918]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The answer to both questions is Coopers and Lybrand.

  Securities and Investments Board
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the annual report of the Securities and Investments Board to be published. [34721]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  A copy of the board's report, made in accordance with section 117 of the Financial Services Act 1986, was laid before Parliament today. The report covered the period from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995. Copies are now available in the Library.

  Entitlements
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the entitlements for 1995–96 resulting from the carry forward of underspends allowed under the end-year flexibility schemes for capital, running costs, health, Ministry of Defence operating costs and Jubilee line extension expenditure. [34722]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  A list of entitlements, totalling £331 million for capital expenditure, £500 million for running costs; £371 million for health expenditure, £83 million for Ministry of Defence operating costs expenditure and £49 million for expenditure on the Jubilee line extension is shown in the table.
  777
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, individual cash limits and running costs limits will be increased when entitlement is taken up.

  Entitlement for 1995–96 cash limits resulting from the carryover of capital underspends Cash limits on votes

  Class

  Vote

  Accounting department

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousand

  I

  3

  Ministry of Defence

  Systems procurement and research

  99,931

  II

  1

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Overseas representation

  2,114

  II

  3

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  BBC World Service

  3,015

  II

  4

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  The British Council

  2,000

  III

  3

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Operational expenditure

  2,000

  III

  4

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Departmental administration and agencies

  60

  IV

  1

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Programmes and administration

  3,313

  IV

  11

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  229

  V

  1

  Department of Employment

  Programmes and central services

  2,000

  V

  3

  Department of Employment

  Health and Safety Commission and Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  305

  VI

  1

  Department of Transport

  Highways Agency

  11,831

  VI

  4

  Department of Transport

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  2,000

  VI

  5

  Department of Transport

  Roads and local transport

  1,787

  VI

  8

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  162

  VII

  3

  Department of the Environment

  Environmental protection and water

  1,547

  VII

  5

  Department of the Environment

  Administration

  2,000

  VII

  6

  Office of Water Services

  Office of Water Services

  265

  VII

  7

  Ordnance Survey

  Ordnance Survey

  1,942

  IX

  2

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  1,727

  IX

  3

  Public Record Office

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  IX

  7

  The Crown Office, Scotland

  The Crown Office, Scotland and Lord Advocate's Department

  2,000

  X

  1

  Department for Education

  Schools, research and miscellaneous services

  1,796

  X

  3

  Department for Education

  Administration

  1,175

  XI

  1

  Department of National Heritage

  Programme expenditure and administration

  2,320

  XII

  4

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  635

  XIII

  4

  Department of Social Security

  Administration and miscellaneous services

  13,605

  XIV

  1

  Scottish Office of Agriculture and Fisheries Department

  Agriculture and fisheries, Scotland

  2,000

  XIV

  2

  Scottish Office Industry Department

  Training programmes, roads and transport services, industrial and regional support, Scotland

  16,961

  XIV

  5

  Scottish Office Environment Department

  Housing and environmental services, Scotland

  151

  XIV

  10

  Scottish Office Home and Health Department

  Law, order, miscellaneous health and social work services, Scotland

  772

  XIV

  15

  Scottish Office Education Department

  Education, arts and libraries, Scotland

  2,000

  XIV

  17

  Scottish Courts Administration

  Administration of Justice, Scotland

  2,000

  XIV

  18

  Scottish Office

  Scottish Office administration

  720

  XIV

  19

  Scottish Record Office

  Scottish Record Office

  214

  XIV

  20

  General Register Office for Scotland

  General Register Office for Scotland

  553

  XV

  2

  Welsh Office (1)

  Industrial support, Development Board for Rural Wales, housing subsidy, training and education, Wales

  7,527

  XV

  3

  Welsh Office

  Roads and transport, housing, other environmental services, arts and libraries, health and personal social services and Welsh Office administration, Wales

  5,979

  XVI

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  Administration, law, order, protective and miscellaneous services

  2,949

  XVII

  1

  HM Treasury

  HM Treasury

  2,000

  XVII

  5

  Inland Revenue

  Valuation Office (Executive Agency): administration

  514

  XVII

  8

  Department for National Savings

  Department for National Savings

  1,136

  XVII

  11

  The Office of HM Paymaster General

  The Office of HM Paymaster General

  1,423

  XVII

  12

  Central Statistical Office

  Central Statistical Office

  854

  XVIII

  1

  Cabinet Office

  Office of Public Service and Science

  645

  XVIII

  2

  Cabinet Office

  Office of Public Service and Science: science

  5,606

  XIX

  1

  Cabinet Office

  Cabinet Office: other services

  1,227

  XIX

  2

  Cabinet Office

  Security and intelligence services

  3,242

  Total voted

  220,233

  778
  The total increase in cash limits resulting from the take-up of end-year flexibility will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.
  779

  Cash limits on non-voted expenditure

  Cash Block

  Accounting department

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  1995–96

  Department of the Environment

  Grants and capital expenditure financed by the Housing Corporation in England.

  51

  DOE/HC

  Department of the Environment

  Net capital expenditure by the Commission for the New Towns and Letchworth Garden City Development Corporation for housing, roads, commercial and industrial investment and certain water services.

  683

  DOE/NT

  Department of the Environment

  Grants under the Single Regeneration Budget to local authorities and other bodies (including local authority credit approvals), external financing requirements under the Single Regeneration Budget of Urban Development Corporations in England, Housing Action Trusts and the Urban Regeneration Agency (also known as English Partnerships), and other grants promoting urban regeneration (including local authority credit approvals).

  22,313

  DOE/RCW

  Department of the Environment

  Basic credit approvals to local authorities in England for housing, transport (except passenger transport authorities), education, health, 'other services' and Home Office (fire services in shires only). Supplementary credit approvals, specified capital grants and certain other grants to local authorities in England for housing.

  993

  DOE/LACAP

  Department of Environment

  Supplementary credit approvals for other environmental services in England, Lee Valley Regional Park Authority and the Isles of Scilly (water and sewerage).

  2,310

  DOE/OES

  Home Office

  Supplementary credit approvals for probation, fire and police in England and Wales. Basic credit approvals for fire (Joint FCDAs only) in England.

  92

  HO/LACAP

  Department of Transport

  Supplementary credit approvals for transport in' England. Basic credit approvals for passenger transport authorities. Supplementary credit approvals to cover local authority expenditure which will be reimbursed by ERDF grant.

  10,149

  DOT/LACAP

  DOH/LACAP

  Department of Health

  Supplementary credit approvals for health in England.

  1,305

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Supplementary credit approvals for magistrates' courts (England and Wales).

  724

  LCD/LACAP

  MAFF/LACAP

  Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food

  Supplementary credit approvals for flood defence, coast protection and harbour improvements in England.

  721

  Northern Ireland Departments

  Services in Northern Ireland broadly analogous to services in Great Britain covered by cash limits but including family practitioner services.

  10,581

  NIDI

  Northern Ireland Departments

  Expenditure in Northern Ireland on national agriculture capital grant schemes, certain assistance for production, marketing and processing and the fishing industry.

  670

  NID4

  Scottish Office

  Net capital allocations and grants to local authorities in Scotland for roads and transport, water and sewerage, police, education, social work services, general services, urban programme and river purification.

  31,111

  SO/LA1

  Scottish Office

  Net capital allocations and grants to local authorities in Scotland for housing. Capital expenditure by New Towns in Scotland for housing and other environmental services.

  13,810

  SO/LA2

  Welsh Office

  Basic credit approvals for local authorities in Wales. Supplementary credit approvals for all services (except ERDF projects). Strategic Development Scheme grants (both capital and current) and some housing grants.

  13,269

  WO/LACAP

  Welsh Office

  Capital grants and net lending both to Housing for Wales and by housing for Wales to housing associations. Special Needs Management Allowance.

  2,300

  WO/HFW

  Total non voted cash limits

  111,082

  Total capital end year flexibility

  331,315

  Entitlement for 1995–96 cash limits and external finance limits resulting from the carryover of underspends on health expenditure

  Class

  Vote

  Accounting department

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  XII

  1

  Department of Health

  Hospital, community health, family health services (part), related services, England

  232,136

  XII

  2

  Department of Health

  Administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England

  26,296

  780

  781

  Entitlement for 1995–96 cash limits and external finance limits resulting from the carryover of underspends on health expenditure

  Class

  Vote

  Accounting department

  Description of expenditure

  £ thousands

  XIV

  10

  The Scottish Home and Health Department

  Law, order and miscellaneous health and social work services, Scotland

  1,609

  XIV

  12

  The Scottish Home and Health Department

  Hospital, community health, family health (part), and other health services and NHS

  35,819

  XV

  3

  Welsh Office

  Roads and transport, housing, other environmental services, arts and libraries, health and personal social services and Welsh Office administration, Wales

  1,259

  XV

  5

  Welsh Office

  Hospital, community health, family health services (part) and related services, Wales

  24,438

  NHS Trusts (Scotland)

  Scottish Office

  22,921

  NHS Trusts (Wales)

  Welsh Office

  4,224

  NID

  1

  Northern Ireland Office

  Services in Northern Ireland broadly analogous to services in Great Britain covered by cash limits but including family practitioner services

  10,719

  Medicines Control Agency

  12,000

  Total health end year flexibility

  371,331

  Entitlements for 1995–96 running costs limits resulting from the carryforward of running costs underspends

  Department

  £ thousand

  Overseas Development Administration

  3,598

  Intervention Board—Executive Agency

  2,791

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  6,778

  Trade and Industry

  12,700

  Office of Fair Trading

  745

  Office of Telecommunications

  303

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  1,738

  Department of Employment

  41.003

  Department of Transport

  20,256

  Department of the Environment

  24,854

  Property Holdings

  4,838

  Office of Water Services

  819

  Home Office

  26,315

  Charity Commission

  732

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  549

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  327

  Crown Prosecution Service

  6,026

  Public Record Office

  160

  Serious Fraud Office

  878

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  2,105

  Crown Office

  2,076

  Department for Education

  7,774

  Department of National Heritage

  3,206

  Department of Health

  20,550

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  1,281

  Department of Social Security

  102,349

  Scottish Office

  8,940

  Scottish Courts Administration

  2,584

  Scottish Record Office

  782

  General Register Office

  439

  Welsh Office

  491

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

  250

  Northern Ireland Office and Departments

  29,877

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  11,405

  Customs and Excise

  40,434

  Inland Revenue

  89,433

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  459

  Department for National Savings

  2,607

  Central Statistical Office

  76

  Office of Public Service and Science

  13,590

  Cabinet Office

  3,147

  Privy Council Office

  428

  Total running costs

  499,693

  782

  Entitlements for 1995–96 running costs limits resulting from the carryforward of running costs underspends

  Department

  £ thousand

  Entitlement for the Ministry of Defence resulting from the carryover of underspends on operating costs

  82,887

  Entitlement for the Jubilee Line extension

  49,300

  Notes:

  Following the machinery of Government changes announced by the Prime Minister on 5 July 1995, there will be some reallocation of EYF entitlements between departments. Details will be announced at the appropriate times.

  1. Part of this entitlement may be taken up on Class XV, Vote 1 Agriculture and fisheries, Wales.

  ECOFIN Meeting
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent Council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union. [34723]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the UK at the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 10 July.

  There was a public debate on the incoming Spanish presidency's work programme for ECOFIN. The Spanish programme concentrates on fighting unemployment and on preparation for economic and monetary union. I emphasised the need for the European economies to create the conditions for rising employment, for a through and wide-ranging discussion on preparation for European monetary union, for the Council to take full account of EC budgetary restraints and to recognise that value for money and fighting fraud and waste should be a top priority.

  The Council agreed a number of procedural plans to ensure that the work commissioned by the Essen and Cannes European Councils on employment, EMU and the fight against fraud would be completed in time for ministerial discussion at the 27 November ECOFIN.
  783
  The Council adopted the 1995–96 broad economic guidelines which had been endorsed by the Cannes European Council.

  The Council agreed, voting by a modified form of qualified majority voting, confidential recommendations to each of the member states with an excessive deficit, with a view to those member states bringing their excessive deficits to an end within a given period.

  The Council reached political agreement on a regulation to introduce harmonised consumer price indices. Formal adoption will take place at a future Council once the European Parliament's opinion has been received.

  The Council discussed a draft directive on cross border credit transfers. No conclusions were drawn and the dossier was remitted to the Committee of Permanent Representatives for further consideration.

  The Council discussed a proposal for a reduced rate of VAT on cut flowers. There was no agreement in the Council and the presidency will undertake bilateral contacts to seek a solution.

  The Council heard a progress report from the Vice-President of the European Commission, Sir Leon Britian, on the World Trade Organisation and financial services negotiations.

  Governor of the Bank of England (Meeting)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet the Governor of the Bank

  Region

  Body

  Recipient

  Location

  Amount £

  England

  Sports

  Three Rivers District Council

  Herts

  1,043,000.00

  England

  Arts

  Nottingham Media Centre Ltd.

  Nottingham

  1,320,000.00

  England

  Arts

  Eastleigh Borough Council

  Hants.

  1,380,000.00

  England

  Sports

  South Shropshire District Council

  Shropshire

  1,432,500.00

  England

  Arts

  Scarborough Theatre Development Trust

  Scarborough

  1,480,000.00

  England

  Arts

  Sadlers Wells Theatre

  London

  1,500,000.00

  England

  Sports

  Woodspring District Council

  Avon

  1,574,000.00

  England

  Arts

  South Holland District Council

  Lincolnshire

  1,698,000.00

  England

  Sports

  Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council

  Northumberland

  1,712,000.00

  England

  Sports

  Lancaster City Council

  Lanes

  1,900,000.00

  Wales

  Arts

  The Cardiff Old Library Trust

  Cardiff

  2,000,000.00

  England

  Sports

  Poole Borough Council

  Dorset

  2,150,000.00

  England

  Arts

  Borough Council of King's Lynne and West Norfolk

  Norfolk

  2,236,000.00

  England

  NHMF

  Highcliffe Castle

  Dorset

  2,650,000.00

  England

  Sports

  University of Bath

  Avon

  2,662,000.00

  England

  Sports

  Wolverhapton Borough Council

  West Midlands

  3,185,500.00

  England

  Sports

  Sail Training Association

  Cleveland

  3,500,000.00

  England

  Sports

  Newcastle City Council

  Tyne and Wear

  3,500,000.00

  England

  Arts

  Ikon Gallery

  Birmingham

  3,676,000.00

  England

  Arts

  City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra Society

  Birmingham

  3,729,305.00

  England

  Sports

  Royal Albert Dock Trust

  Inner London

  3,750,000.00

  England

  Sports

  Jubilee Sailing Trust

  Hants

  4,068,000.00

  England

  Arts

  Cambridge Arts Theatre Trust

  Cambridge

  6,640,000.00

  Scotland

  NHMF

  National Trust for Scotland-Mar Lodge Est.

  Cairngorms

  10,200,000.00

  England

  NHMF

  Sir Winston Churchill Archive Trust

  Cambridge

  13,250,000.00

  Total

  82,236,305.00

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to discuss the mathematical and prize coefficients with the organisers of the national lottery. [34045]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have no such plans.784
  of England to discuss prospects for the United Kingdom economy. [32560]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will next meet the Governor for his regular monthly monetary discussion on 27 July.

  Valuation Office Agency (Leeds)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his future plans for the Valuation Office (Inland Revenue) accounts unit, currently located in Leeds. [33546]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 11 July 1995]: The work which the Valuation Office agency's Leeds accounts unit currently undertakes is under review as part of proposals to introduce a new accounting system into the agency next year. There is no intention to close the unit, but the range of its activities is likely to be reduced. This will not affect standards of service to the public, with whom the unit has no direct dealings. Any surplus staff will be redeployed locally on to other agency work.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list every project which has received over £1 million from the proceeds of the national lottery; and if she will make a statement. [33677]

  Mr. Sproat
  Twenty five projects have benefited from lottery awards of over £1 million and are as follows:

  Television (Sporting Rights)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how the Government propose that the BBC and ITV can meet-the increasing costs of sporting rights without damaging programme-making. [34331]
  785
  Mr. Sproat
  It is for the BBC and ITV companies to decide how to balance expenditure on programme making against the acquisition of programmes or sports rights from the revenues available to them.

  BBC (Debt)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the National Heritage if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that the BBC should reduce its debt; and if she will make a statement. [34330]

  Mr. Sproat
  In the light of a report by independent consultants, Touche Ross, the Government announced on 4 November 1993,Official Report, columns 309–10, that changes in the television fee would continue to be set at the level of RPI changes for the next three years. It was considered that this would enable the BBC to channel efficiency savings into programmes and allow it steadily to reduce and largely to eliminate its annual borrowing by the end of 1996–97. This policy was reiterated in the July 1994 White Paper on the future of the BBC.

  Churches (Subsidence Damage)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the churches by name and location that are suffering damage from mining subsidence; what discussions she has had with the Church authorities; and if she will make a statement. [32998]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department does not keep a list of such cases and has had no recent discussions on the subject. Where a building is affected by mining subsidence, the owner can claim compensation from the mine operator. In the case of an Anglican church, such a claim would normally be lodged by the incumbent and the parochial church council. I understand that the Council for the Care of Churches and individual parochial church councils discuss problems with mining operators as and when the need arises.

  BBC (Transmission Services)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she will announce the Government's decision on ownership of BBC transmission services. [34067]

  Mr. Sproat
  In due course.

  Internet
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to make departmental publications available on the Internet; and if she will give the Internet address of such documents as are available. [34070]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department of National Heritage is considering the use of the Internet to distribute material. There are no plans at present to make any Departmental publications available on the Internet. Department of National Heritage press notices are available from the COI on http://www.coi.gov.uldcoi/depts/GHE/GHE.html

  FM Licences
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will lift the ban upon radio stations holding more than one FM licence in major urban areas. [33822]

  Mr. Sproat
  No. This measure provides an important safeguard for plurality in major urban areas.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fish-eating Birds (Research Contracts)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what contracts for research into the problem of predation by fish-eating birds have now been let. [32546]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Ministry and the Department of the Environment are in discussion with the following contractor consortia about the projects listed against their names:

  Contractor

  Project

  Directorate of Fisheries Research, ADAS, Glasgow University, British Trust for Ornithology and the Central Science Laboratory

  Assessment of the problem of fish-eating birds in inland fisheries in England and Wales

  John Moores Liverpool University and Hull International Fisheries Institute

  Case studies of the effect of fish-eating birds on inland fisheries in England and Wales

  Central Science Laboratory, Directorate of Fisheries Research, ADAS, British Trust for Ornithology and Glasgow University

  Assessment of the effectiveness of different management measures on controlling damage by fish-eating birds to inland fisheries in England and Wales

  British Trust for Ornithology, Directorate of Fisheries Research, ADAS, Central Science Laboratory and Glasgow University

  Population distribution and movement of fish-eating birds in Great Britain

  Wildlife and Wetlands Trust, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology and Institute of Freshwater Ecology

  Feeding behaviour of fish-eating birds in Great Britain

  No contracts have yet been let pending the outcome of these discussions.

  Animal Welfare
  Sir Terrence Higgins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his answer of 18 April,Official Report, column 104, what consideration led him to conclude that EC directive 91/628 does not apply to roll-on/roll-off ferries. [26149]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: Directive 91/628 contains various provisions which unambiguously apply to roll-on/roll-off ferries, and we have applied them.
  787
  However, with regard to the requirement for isolation pens to be provided when animals are transported by sea, the intentions of the directive in relation to roll-on/roll-off ferries are not clear. The Department concluded that isolation pens need not be provided on such ferries in the light of practical considerations and of the fact that the availability of such pens would only very rarely indeed be of benefit in animal welfare terms.

  I am now reviewing the practicalities of the position to see whether there is anything more we could or should do, with the other member states involved, to improve welfare provisions on the rare occasions when animals may be found to be sick or injured during roll-on/roll-off transport.

  Industrial Fishing (Denmark)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to reduce industrial fishing by Denmark in the North sea. [32547]

  Mr. Baldry
  The latest available statistics show that catches by Danish vessels of sandeels and Norway pout—which are the main species of the North sea industrial fishery—were some 35 per cent. down on the previous year. None the less, the impact of industrial fishing needs to be better understood. We have been pressing for more scientific work to be done and the UK supported the recommendation of the recent North Sea Conference that there should be more research into the effects of industrial fishing. Such research will assist the European Commission to bring forward appropriate proposals for the better management of this fishery.

  Bees
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what figures are available to this Department indicating what proportion of the species of single bees recorded in the United Kingdom in the 19th century are still extant in Britain; and what proposals he has to study the pollination consequences of species demise on vegetation and crops. [33296]

  Mr. Boswell
  I have no information about the number of species of feral bees, to which I understand the question refers, in the 19th century or now. The Government's responsibility under the Bees Act 1980 and the Bees Diseases Control Order 1982 is to ensure that beekeepers do not introduce or spread bee diseases. Although feral bees have a role to play, a healthy population of managed bees will ensure the pollination needs of insect pollinated agricultural and horticultural crops as well as for wild flowers and plants.

  Waste Spreading Schemes
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what grounds his Ministry has designated waste spreading schemes on agricultural land, including ecologically sensitive areas, as permitted agricultural development. [33612]

  Mr. Boswell
  The designation of waste spreading schemes, whether as permitted agricultural development or not, is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Questions on that matter should therefore be addressed to him.

  North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made as to whether United Kingdom interests are adequately represented on the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. [33333]

  Mr. Baldry
  The European Commission represents the European Union at meetings of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation (NASCO). The United Kingdom is fully represented on the European Union delegation, and I am satisfied that our interests are adequately represented at NASCO meetings.

  Common Agricultural Policy (Fraud)
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the European Union Agriculture Council last discussed the question of common agricultural policy related fraud. [33610]

  Mr. Baldry
  Fraud against the EU budget, which includes the CAP, is more appropriate to the European Council of Finance Ministers, which discusses Community anti-fraud initiatives regularly, the last occasion being 19 June. In the Agriculture Council, reducing the scope for fraud forms an important part of the Council's consideration of all new proposals or any amendments to existing CAP legislation.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what correspondence he has on the subject of the Veterinary Products Committee's response to the Health and Safety executive's research report (NO 74/1995) on the neurological effects of sheep dip; and if he will make a statement. [33772]

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. and learned Friend's predecessor received a letter from the chairman of the Veterinary Products Committee, submitting its advice following consideration of the report from the Institute of Occupational Health, commissioned by the Health and Safety executive. A copy of that letter, together with the committee's advice, is in the Library of the House. We have received no other correspondence on the VPC's response.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to aid the introduction of alternatives to organophosphate sheep dips. [33774]

  Mrs. Browning
  The development of alternatives to organophosphorus sheep dips is a commercial matter for the veterinary pharmaceutical industry. The Government have previously made it clear that the Veterinary Medicines Directorate will do all it can to complete assessments of such products expeditiously and that when they contain new active ingredients, it will also strive to speed the necessary approval of maximum residue limits through the EC Committee on Veterinary Medicinal Products. That remains the case. A number of alternatives non-organophosphorus products are now available.

  Veterinary Products Committee (Minutes)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the meetings and topics discussed at each of the Veterinary Products Committee meetings for the last six months; and if he will place a copy of the agendas and minutes in the Library. [33771]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Veterinary Products Committee has met on the following dates during the last six months: 19 January 1995, 16 February 1995, 16 March 1995,20 April 1995, 18 May 1995 and 15 June 1995.

  In accordance with the committee's normal practice, a news release was issued after the meeting, reporting on the topics discussed. Copies are available in the Library of the House. The agenda and minutes of the committee's meetings contain commercially confidential material and cannot be made available.

  Intervention Board
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed the three-year review of the Intervention Board executive agency, and if he will make a statement. [34471]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I have considered and approved a full evaluation of the Intervention Board executive agency, which has been operating as an executive agency since April 1990 in accordance with the Government's commitment to evaluate next steps agencies. The evaluation concluded that the agency successfully met its objectives in its first three years of operation and should continue for a further five years, at which time another evaluation will take place. I have today placed in the Library copies of the agency's evaluation and framework documents.

  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how the Intervention Board performed against its targets for 1994–5; and what key performance targets Agriculture Ministers have set the agency for 1995–96. [34472]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Intervention Board's performance against its key targets in 1994–95 was as follows:

  1994–95

  Target (per cent.)

  Performance (per cent.)

  Percentage of claims processed within deadlines

  98.5

  99.9

  Percentage of claims processed correctly

  98.5

  98.7

  Cumulative running cost of efficiency gains

  2.5

  3.6

  Improvement in index of productivity

  6.0

  -0.5

  Ratio of disallowance to EAGGF funds handled

  0.4

  0.96

  To maintain expenditure within vote provision cash and running cost limits

  —

  Met

  New value for money saving in procurement of goods and services

  5.0

  6.7

  790
  In agreement with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I have set the following targets for 1995–96:

  Target (per cent.)

  Percentage of claims processed with deadlines

  98.5

  Percentage of claims processed correctly

  98.5

  Cumulative running cost efficiency gains

  2.5

  Improvement in index of productivity

  6.0

  Ration of disallowance to EAGGF funds handled

  0.40

  To maintain expenditure within vote provision, cash and running cost limits

  New value for money savings procurement of goods and services

  6.0

  Yield: cost ratio of anti-fraud activites 3.0:1.0

  Live Animal Expots
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total figure of all live exports for immediate slaughter for each year from 1992 to date. [33977]

  Mrs. Browning
  The available information is given in the table, which excludes 1993 for which no figures were available.

  Animals inspected and certified as fit for transportation prior to export from Great Britain to other member states for immediate slaughter

  1992

  1994

  1995 (to May)

  Cattle

  115

  233

  nil

  Sheep

  326,777

  76,039

  4,126

  Pigs

  691

  8,762

  nil

  Goats

  150

  1

  nil

  Totals

  327,733

  85,035

  4,126

  Sources:

  1. Annual Report of the Chief Veterinary Officer (for 1992).

  2. ANIMO computer system figures for 1994 and 1995 (provisional and subject to change).

  London Commodity Exchange (Cocoa)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Department has to review the decision to sell the United Kingdom's share of the buffer stock of cocoa beans in the light of the New York Coffee, Sugar and Cocoa Exchange's takeover bid for the London Commodity Exchange. [34312]

  Mr. Baldry
  None. The question of any possible future changes in the London Commodity Exchange has no bearing on the decision to liquidate the cocoa buffer stock.

DEFENCE

  EDS (Departmental Contracts)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts that his Department has with the computer company EDS. [33173]
  791
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Ministry of Defence has a number of current contracts with EDS Defence Ltd. but details of the individual contracts are a matter of commercial confidentiality between the Department and the company.

  Astra Holdings (Ministerial Connections)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any individual occupying a ministerial position at the Ministry of Defence at any time since 1979 has had any connections or material influence on the running of Astra Holdings plc. [33919]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I know of no evidence that any hon. Member appointed to a ministerial position at the Ministry of Defence since 1979 has failed to comply with the requirements of Questions of Procedure for Ministers. I cannot answer for the activities of hon. Members before they became Ministers.

  Nuclear Weapons Testing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what alternatives exist to nuclear testing; and if he proposes to hold any tests of United Kingdom nuclear weapons. [34187]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) on 4 July,Official Report, column 135 and to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 10 July, Official Report, column 469.

  Ministry Property Sales
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 10 July,Official Report, column 469, on how many occasions his Department has monitored what has since happened to old Ministry of Defence properties; and if he will provide details. [34291]

  Mr. Soames
  All houses sold at a discount through the sales to service men scheme or under alternative right-to-buy arrangements include a provision for some of the discount to be repaid in the event that they are resold within a specified period. In addition, some form of clawback arrangement may be included if houses are sold in bulk or as part of a larger sale. Although no central record is kept of such sales, my noble Friend, the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, wrote to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 8 June listing those completed in the previous 12 months which included a clawback arrangement. A copy of his letter was placed in the Library of the House.

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholdings in the last five years, indicating the companies concerned. [33429]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Staff are required to report to line management any private investment in companies with which they have official dealings. No central records are maintained, but cases of doubt are referred to a central point for decision. The position on cases referred for 792
  decision in the last five years remains unchanged from the information provided in response to the hon. Member at the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee on 3 April 1995.

  RAF Kinloss
  Mr. MacDonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the presence of military personnel at Kinloss during the week of 19 to 23 June was connected with the disposal of the Brent Spar oil installation. [33775]

  Mr. Soames
  RAF Kinloss is a major military air station which, at any one time, has a substantial military presence, with personnel engaged on various activities. Responsibility for upholding the law during the Shell operation to dispose of the Brent Spar oil platform rested with the Grampian police. Military personnel would have become involved only if the police had requested this and, in the event, no such request was forthcoming. Contingency arrangements were, however, put in place in anticipation of a possible police request for service logistical assistance and a Royal Marine detachment and supporting elements were deployed to Kinloss against this contingency.

  Land Mines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the recent report by the United Nations Secretary General which calls for a total ban on the export of anti-personnel land mines. [34211]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We support international efforts to strengthen controls on the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel land mines, but believe that total ban at this stage would neither secure broad international agreement nor be properly implemented.

  Bosnia (Troops Insurance Cover)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what insurance cover is available for British troops serving in Bosnia; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of cover available for British troops. [34240]

  Mr. Soames
  British service personnel serving in Bosnia have available to them the PAXplus personal accident insurance scheme which provides cover 365 days a year 24 hours a day whether on or off duty. This scheme, started in 1989, and arranged through a commercial broker and insurance company, provides a range of benefits covering both death and disability as a result of an accident with the level of cover dependent on the number of units purchased by the service man or woman.

  The PAXplus scheme was set up specifically for service personnel and provides cover for military service of any kind up to and including general war. The conditions of the policy are therefore considered satisfactory while the amount of financial cover available is a matter for individuals to assess and the number of units that an individual chooses to purchase. Service personnel are of course free to take out appropriate insurance.
  793
  Each of the three services run small voluntary life schemes which make immediate payments in the event of a death. Also there are service personnel who will be members of schemes set up prior to PAXplus which will provide accident and death benefits.

  EF2000 Programme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the German Parliament's approval of funding for EF2000. [34212]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Bundestage approval of additional funds for the reorientated development phase of the Eurofighter 2000 programme was given on 28 June. This has cleared the way for the four partner nations to sign memorandum of understanding 4 which puts into formal effect the "reorientation" of the project as agreed by Defence Ministers in December 1992.

  Army Attack Helicopters
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the order for the Army attack helicopters; and if he will make a statement. [34213]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will specify the criteria used by his Department to decide the procurement of Army attack helicopters. [34239)

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The attack helicopter contenders have been carefully assessed against the criteria of operational effectiveness, through-life costs, risk and industrial implications.

  Royal Yacht Britannia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy concerning the future of the royal yacht Britannia. [34210]

  Mr. Soames
  As announced on 23 June 1994,Official Report, column 248, HMY Britannia is to be decommissioned in 1997. We are currently examining various options for her future use after she has been withdrawn from service. We hope to find a way of enabling her to continue to serve a useful purpose for the nation, even though she will no longer go to sea. Her Majesty the Queen's views will be sought before any decision is taken on this matter.

  Procurement Policy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what response he has made to representations by his French counterpart regarding a European preference, in buying weapons, from members of a European armament agency; and if he will make a statement. [34241]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received no formal representations from his French counterpart on this matter. The United Kingdom maintains a policy of seeking value for money in procurement and of open competition whenever possible.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the provisions of the memorandum of understanding signed in November 1991 by the British and Indonesian Governments and referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) of 27 October 1992,Official Report, columns 614–15. [34316]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 3 July,Official Report, column 90.

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

France: Restriction on UK Auctioneers
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to enable United Kingdom auctioneers to sell in France.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, in France all auctioneering must be undertaken by state-appointed commissaires priseurs. This is an unacceptable restriction on the ability of British auction houses to operate in France. The Government have made repeated representations on this to both the European Commission and the French authorities. The Commission has now begun proceedings under Article 169 of the Treaty of Rome against the French Government.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that robust and very satisfactory Answer. Given that for the past five years British auction houses have been pressing for their rights under the Treaty of Rome, what further delay can they expect before being able to operate in France as they do elsewhere on the Continent?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reaction to the proceedings that have been commenced. He will appreciate that under Article 169, the French Government were given a period of time in which to reply to the Commission. I understand that they must do so within the next few weeks. After that, it will be seen whether further proceedings must be taken including, ultimately, action before the courts. Clearly, the United Kingdom Government hope that the matter can be resolved and that the French market can be properly opened up to British auction houses without that step being taken.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the French system of commissaires priseurs works extremely well throughout France and the French are unlikely to agree to dismantle it? Is there any reason why our own auction houses should not be enabled to work alongside it?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I understand that a number of proposals have been made by the French Government. One of them would allow for a system of minority partnerships. However, such an approach would be deemed unacceptable by the British auction houses and, if necessary, the United Kingdom Government would continue to press the Commission to take action before the courts.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, what is the position of the French auctioneers selling in the United Kingdom?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, we have an open market.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, whatever else the Community is, it certainly starts as a free trade area? It is more than that but it must start at that position. Therefore, as the Minister says, the situation is quite unacceptable. Will he tell the House whether there are other examples of the invention of alleged qualifications as a prerequisite of entry to a market which the French or others are using as an attempt to get round the free trade provisions of the Treaty of Rome?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I cannot freely indicate where that might be a device which is being followed. However, as regards this particular area of auction, where British auction houses have sought to establish a presence in other member states, they have to date encountered no difficulties.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, this question was touched on in March by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. He told the House that the Commission would be taking legal action against the French Government. Under Article 169 they are allowed two months. Even my arithmetic tells me that it is now four months since this has happened. Will my noble and learned friend tell the House how far the Commission has progressed in proceedings against the French Government?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, not only is my noble friend knowledgeable in these matters but her arithmetic is also accurate. In respect of the proceedings under Article 169, a period of two months is generally allowed. However, extensions are not unknown. My understanding is that the Commission has given the French Government until September to provide it with a satisfactory reply. If that fails, we shall continue to press the Commission to take the matter further.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many British auctioneers speak French?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, non!

Heathrow Airport: Fifth Terminal
3.6 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether at the public inquiry on a fifth terminal at Heathrow they will oppose proposals for its construction.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): No, my Lords. The planning applications for the construction of a fifth terminal at Heathrow were called in for a public inquiry by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in March 1993. He is therefore in the quasi-judicial position of being an adjudicator on the applications.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that Answer. I realise that the Question is not worded quite as it should he. I meant to alter it but I forgot. However, putting that matter on one side, is the Minister aware that the proposal has been somewhat misunderstood? It is believed that because this is the fifth terminal its effect will he to increase the movements of aircraft by one-fifth? On the contrary, it is intended that the movements shall he up to double.
Does the noble Earl appreciate that living under a Heathrow flightpath can he unfortunate and that many people are suffering a lack of quiet enjoyment? If aircraft movements were to be doubled the situation would become unendurable. Having regard to that, will the Government take a sceptical view of the inquiry, which I know is taking place hut which will not reach a conclusion for a considerable time? Will the Minister nevertheless keep a very beady eye on it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, surprised me when he said that he had not worded the Question as it should have been. I thought that that was quite unusual. Naturally, I answered the Question as it was worded, which seemed to be perfectly simple.
Of course, the Government will keep an eye on all such matters but it would be wrong for my right honourable friend to take any view about this matter because, as I said in my Answer, he is an adjudicator.
The noble Lord referred to the number of movements being doubled. The purpose of the new terminal is to take advantage of the existing two runways. Whether more traffic is allowed and whether the aircraft which use the runways make less noise are totally separate matters from the inquiry.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is believed that there will he fewer, but larger planes? Is he further aware that the London Tourist Board considers the fifth terminal to be absolutely essential if London is to maintain its valuable tourist earnings, which are increasing at a rate slower than in any other European capital?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is one of the matters that will come out in the inquiry. My noble friend is right in saying that the likelihood is that aeroplanes will he larger and will make less noise.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, is my noble friend also aware that if we do not allow an increase in air traffic at Heathrow we shall lose that traffic to other European airports, because people need transfers? However, the new noise regulations should make the situation more acceptable to people who live around the airport.
Earl Ferrets: My Lords, my noble friend makes a useful addition to the matters which no doubt the inquiry will take into account.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Earl on his appointment. Is he aware that I believe that by the time the report lands on the ministerial desk he and his
1832
colleagues will have no cause for worrying about quasi-judicial responsibilities, or any political responsibilities whatever?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for the courteous observation with which he began his question. When I moved from the Department of Trade to the Department of the Environment I thought that I had lost the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. I am glad that I have not. It enables me to answer his perfectly absurd questions, which are of no relevance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he can run but he cannot hide?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, this is interesting. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would stick to his normal briefs, but I understand that he cannot run at all.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that counting chickens is a hazardous occupation?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we all do it from time to time with various degrees of success.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will he very glad to hear that the Government have not prejudged the issue of the public inquiry into the fifth terminal for London Airport. Can we be assured that, in reaching a final judgment on the issue, they will bear in mind the need for an airports policy which encompasses the whole of the United Kingdom and which builds on the strength of developing international airports in Birmingham, Manchester and Glasgow to ensure that the whole of the United Kingdom is served by the airports that we have available to us?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the airports policy of Her Majesty's Government is one thing; a planning application is another. When my right honourable friend determines the planning application, he will address his mind to the substance of that application.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is it not the case that, as a generality at Heathrow, the slot space availability is just about at saturation point? In this regard we are addressing the question of fewer executive, smaller jets and more of the large passenger carrying jets.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that we are necessarily addressing that. What is being addressed is whether there should be a fifth terminal at London Airport and all that goes with that. All those matters will he considered. The point which my noble friend makes may be one such matter, hut it certainly is not the only one.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it is not only air traffic movements that we have to consider? We must consider also ground traffic. Can the noble Earl give me an assurance—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: No.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, gets better at heckling with every day that goes by. He is improving with age.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Like good wine.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Earl give me an assurance that the objectors—and in particular, the individual objectors—will be properly financed in putting their case to the public inquiry, which I believe will be a very long and expensive one?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is for everyone to pay the costs of the inquiry. The costs of running the inquiry are likely to be £2 million or £3 million. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is concerned about roads, access and so on. I should point out that there are four or five major inquiries taking place under this whole umbrella: the Heathrow Express—the train from Paddington to Heathrow—which comes under the Transport and Works Act; the extension of the Piccadilly Line to Terminal 5, which is under the Transport and Works Act; and the Highway Agency, which is promoting the spur off the M.25 for Terminal 5. There is also the delightful prospect of moving the sewage farm from Perry Oaks to Iver. All those matters must be considered.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that Stansted is an excellent airport which is under-used and which does not have the traffic problems created at Heathrow? All those matters should be kept very firmly in mind as the inquiry proceeds along its tortuous way. The original proposal, which it is hoped will be changed, provided for the M.25 to become 14 lanes but those lanes would finish up on the M.4 which has four lanes. That would cause traffic paralysis in that part of the world. Let us hope that there will be no fifth terminal but perhaps a greater use of a very fine airport.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it seems to me that the points which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, makes should be addressed properly to the inquiry. I have no doubt that he is one of the 11,011 objectors but the others do not have the privilege of having a seat in your Lordships' House which gives the noble Lord the opportunity to publicise this matter, as he has done.

Granny Flats: Council Tax
3.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will seek to reverse the recent court decision that an additional liability to pay council tax can arise where accommodation is provided in private homes for elderly relatives.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, as I made clear in answering my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes on 26th June, we shall consider carefully this decision when the transcript becomes available. However, on present information there seems no need to amend the guidance which was issued to listing officers of the Valuation Office Agency.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that characteristically cautious reply. Is it the Government's intention not to allow the development of
1834
a rule that council tax is payable additionally where people public-spiritedly or generously accommodate their elderly relatives?
Lord Henley: My Lords, every case depends on its facts. One must look at the individual accommodation and decide whether it is a separate and self-contained unit and therefore liable for council tax. As to whether the overall burden on the individual family is increased, I dealt with that when I last answered this question. In many cases it is possible that by rating or assessing separately the two premises so that the main house has a reduced banding the liability for the other property will rest with the elderly relative living in it who might, if of few means, he entitled to benefit, and benefit at 100 per cent.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when we last discussed this matter on 26th June, I asked what would be the position in respect of capital gains tax given that the Inland Revenue defines granny flats as separate properties for the purposes of council tax? The noble Lord, Lord Henley, seemed to be rather confused about that at that time. Will he make it clearer for us? If the separate granny flat is not defined as part of the householder's principal residence, will it not be liable for capital gains tax? As well as paying council tax on the granny flat, the householder will have to pay capital gains tax—a Conservative double-whammy against the elderly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear last time, the assessment as regards council tax has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is a separate property for the purposes of capital gains tax. Therefore, as on the last occasion, the noble Lord's question has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, as vice-president of the Royal British Legion, the most honourable position I have ever had, I receive letters from many people who say that they are experiencing great difficulty finding over £1,000 a month which it costs to keep their elderly relatives, who fought in the 1914–18 war, in private nursing homes. I do not ask the Minister for an assurance but will he give me at least a hope that that situation will be examined so that we honour those men who were very severely wounded in the First World War? Their relatives cannot afford to keep them in those homes. I ask that something be done to acknowledge the contribution they made when they were young men fighting for their country.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with his usual passion on behalf of those whom he represents and those to whom we owe so much. The Question on the Order Paper does not relate strictly to that matter but I shall pass on the remarks of the noble Lord to my appropriate colleagues.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when I asked the Question on 26th June I told the noble Lord that there were newspaper reports which stated that to be self-contained, the unit or flat did not even need to have a toilet or other facilities. In reply the Minister said that he considered that those were rumours in the newspapers. Since that time has he had an opportunity

1835
to check whether that is correct and that a property cannot be ruled to be self-contained unless it is literally a property into which one may enter, close the door and live entirely separately?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I believe I made clear to my noble friend on that occasion, we considered the press articles to be somewhat alarming and misleading. I want to make it quite clear that under the guidance issued by the Valuation Office Agency, separate bandings will apply only where a unit has all the necessary facilities; that is, living space, washing and cooking facilities and WC.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister indicate that the Government are watching carefully the outcome of similar cases? Can he also confirm that the Government are aware of a very real danger that duplication of council tax is to be the reward that people get for housing elderly relatives?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again, I believe I made it clear on the earlier occasion that if we felt there was a genuine disincentive to people to look after their elderly relatives, obviously that would be something we would look at. For the various reasons that I explained, I honestly do not believe that there is such a disincentive. However, if it was felt that there was, that would be something we would consider.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, as there will he more and more children looking after their elderly relatives in the future, does my noble friend the Minister agree that it would be folly, as regards the British taxpayer, to put any disincentive in the way of those children to accommodate them'? If the rules are wrong, let us change them.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I said, I do not believe that the rules are wrong. My noble friend is right to point out that the demographic changes we are facing will become increasingly more difficult over the years. They will have a read-across not only as regards looking after elderly relatives hut also as regards pensions and the whole of the social security system.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many children take on the responsibility of their parents' bills—in other words, gas bills, electricity hills, and so on—and that if they were faced with a council tax bill they might not be aware that their parents would be entitled to benefits and that, therefore, the council tax could be disallowed? Can the Minister ensure that local authorities also send out facts about benefits with their demands?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I tried to make clear that, obviously, in appropriate cases, individuals would be entitled to benefit. I shall certainly ask colleagues in the Department of Social Security to look at the question to see whether it might be worth recommending local authorities to send out such advice to individuals.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether the same rules apply to separate accommodation which is used for a carer looking after elderly people in the main house?
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, not without advice. However, I suspect that the answer would be that it does. In other words, if it were separate accommodation, it would be assessed separately. Nevertheless, I prefer to take advice on the matter and write to my noble friend.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, in answer to a previous question the Minister mentioned the disincentives to people to look after the elderly. Does the noble Lord consider that the imposition of VAT on services for the elderly—for example, on community care—is yet another disincentive for those who are struggling to remain in their own homes? Will he take that on board?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that I am quite generous in the sort of questions that I allow. However, I believe that, again, the noble Lord's question goes far wider than that on the Order Paper.

London Street Crime
3.22 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What percentage of those convicted of mugging in London are young, black and unemployed, and what percentage of those so convicted are 16 or 17 years old without visible legal means of support.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, this information is not available at present. We are, however, extending ethnic monitoring to cover arrests in all police forces from April 1996. Once that is in place, it should be possible to extend it to convictions in the courts.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but perhaps she will also reply to the second part of my Question regarding 16 or 17 year-olds with no visible means of support. Is the Minister aware that Youth Aid believes that the number of such young people is in the region of 80,000? If the noble Baroness does not like that figure, perhaps she can supply a better one. Before the Minister says that it is irrelevant, would she not be wiser to know what the figure is?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall address the context of the Question. There is no single cause of crime. Many people who have problems with disadvantage do not commit crime. However, I can say that income support is available to 16 and 17-year-olds in a number of circumstances. It is available to those who cannot be available for work, for example, through possible disability; it is available to those waiting for a youth training place during the child benefit extension if they have to live independently; and it is available for severe hardship cases. Indeed 84 per cent. of applications under that measure were successful. Higher income support rates are paid to young people of 16 and 17 years of age who are forced to live away from home. They are rated just as 18 to 25 year-olds. Housing benefit is also available to help with the rent of those who meet the criteria. Again, 16 to 17 year-olds are assessed at the same rate.

1837
I have to say that there is no excuse for street crime. It is absurd to suggest that the replacement of genuine entitlement to income support with the more positive offer of youth training leads to criminal behaviour. Our aim is to help young people make the most of their potential instead of sinking into benefit dependency.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, as far as I am aware, there is no such offence known to the law as mugging. Can the Minister say which offences are covered by the inquiry to which she referred earlier?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I was referring to street crime where people are damaged in the streets; where purses and handbags are snatched; and where people are robbed in the street. It is general street crime to which Sir Paul Condon has addressed himself. Perhaps I may point out that the job of Sir Paul Condon is to fight crime. He is courageously and imaginatively trying to tackle that problem. Further, he is sensibly looking to the local community and the community leaders for support. How sad it would be if we were not able to give him that support.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, while there is absolutely no excuse for street crime, does the Minister agree that governments also have some responsibility to provide constructive alternatives to young people? Is the Minister aware that nearly half of all the young men and women between the ages of 16 and 18 who participate in training for work schemes are still unemployed six months after completing such schemes? Is the Minister also aware of just how incredibly difficult it is today—whatever the figures may say and after many changes of definition—for young people to get even very low paid jobs? Will the Minister look again to see whether the structure of the benefits which she described (for which Youth Aid and other respected organisations say it is very difficult to qualify under any of those headings) adequately meets the needs of those decent young people who do not want to be driven towards crime but who have no legal source of support?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have given many examples regarding 16 to 17 year-olds where I believe that the gap addressed by the Question is met. Hardship is met. Whether young people live away from home deliberately or because they are forced to do so, those needs are met. It would take me too long to go through the list of initiatives which were put in place by the Department of Employment (but which now come under the Department for Education and Employment) and, indeed, by the training and enterprise councils. Indeed, there is so much going on. I have to keep repeating: committing crime is wrong. Just because someone is out of work, it does not mean that that is a licence to commit crime.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that surveys indicate that the vast majority of those who mug do so not to obtain money for necessities, but to obtain money for luxuries—for example, trainers costing up to £100 a pair, hi-fi equipment, drugs (whether hard or soft), and so on? It is hardly ever a question of having to rob in order to eat.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a most important point. I have heard it said that it is sometimes just done for kicks; sometimes it is done for status in a community; and sometimes it is just done because it seems to be a good thing to do at the time. Therefore, we have to address the problem.
However, I should like to make a more serious point. The British Crime Survey figures tell us that the fear of that kind of crime is having a disproportionate effect on communities. Therefore, we should do anything that we can to support Sir Paul Condon. He is making a very real attempt to reduce crime on our streets and to reduce the fear of crime which is almost more damaging sometimes than the crime itself. As we all know, the crime figures are being reduced. We should give every support possible in that respect.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, while not condoning any form of crime, is there not a danger that the comments made by Sir Paul Condon may actually have led to an increase in the fear of crime among people in our inner cities? Despite the many measures to tackle youth unemployment to which the Minister referred, does the noble Baroness agree that for young people in this country aged 16, 18, 20, and so on, the prospects of getting a job have never been so bleak? Even if we do not condone it, surely young people facing a depressing future are more likely to commit crime? Is not the real problem the fact that, unless young people have opportunities to get jobs, crime will continue to increase?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I simply do not agree with the premise underlying the noble Lord's question. I have already referred to a number of initiatives which have been put in place by the Department for Education and Employment. Perhaps the noble Lord has been missing from this Chamber but we have noted that the unemployment figures have been falling week after week after week for something like two years. I believe that the future is rosy for our young people seeking work, both as regards training prospects and job prospects.
I must take seriously another point which the noble Lord made. Let us consider what the commissioner actually said rather than what the newspapers allege he said. In his letter to community leaders, Sir Paul wrote,
"It is a fact that very many of the perpetrators of muggings are very young black people who have been excluded from school and/or are unemployed. Evidence from the British crime survey supports that statement, so does the day-to-day experience of operational police officers".
What Sir Paul wants to do is to engage the community in partnership to do something about that. He has our support and I hope that he has the support of the whole House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there can he no doubt that Sir Paul certainly has the support of my noble friends in his efforts. There is no doubt that we condemn utterly street crime as we condemn all other crime. But surely we have to he concerned about the effects of what Sir Paul has said because the effect has been to create a general impression that 80 per cent. of young black men are muggers or capable of being muggers, whereas in any analysis of the statistics the

1839
figure cannot possibly be higher than 1 or 2 per cent. of the total. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, Sir Paul did not say that. The noble Lord is putting two entirely different statements of Sir Paul together; in other words, he is putting two and two together and making 95. Perhaps I should explain what happened. Back in February—this passed without comment from any member of the public—Sir Paul took part in a round robin discussion on crime in general on a programme broadcast by Carlton Television. He mentioned pockets within London where crime was high and where young black males constituted the majority of the perpetrators. That was the context of that statement and it was quite divorced from his letter to leaders in the community inviting them to discuss with him ways in which they can act in partnership to reduce crime in their communities. There is no correlation between those two events. As I said, in February that comment passed totally without notice. Sir Paul has not used the figure of 80 per cent. in the context of this question.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage of the Disability Discrimination Bill be marshalled and considered in the following order—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 26,

Clause 34,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 35 to 45,

Clauses 27 to 33,

Clauses 46 to 62,

Schedules 3, 5 to 7.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Bell's Bridge Order Confirmation Bill
3.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. I have two points to make. The bridge will undoubtedly bring great benefit to the area and it will enhance the value of the old national garden festival site on the south bank of the river. I am pleased that the bridge will be of a high standard when it is completed. Much has
1840
been made of the navigational lighting on the Clyde. I hope that the Minister will note that whoever obtains the contract to build the bridge should be made aware that the pedestrian lighting is a cause of great concern. The bridge has been generally welcomed but the lighting for pedestrians on the approach roads to the bridge is such that the bridge will be unusable for most people in the evenings, particularly in the winter evenings. This may mean that people in general, other than those who are perhaps deliberately travelling to the new developments, will not find the bridge as beneficial as it might be. The approach roads should be opened up and attention must be paid to good lighting and perhaps to the provision of television cameras.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the welcome he has given to this Bill and for his welcome of the enhancement that the bridge will bring to the site. I take note of the points he has made. I shall certainly check those points with Scottish Enterprise and pass on the anxieties that he has highlighted. I would expect that the planning authority will insist on the provision of adequate lighting for pedestrians where appropriate. However, as I said, I will pass on the noble Lord's anxieties. I thank the noble Lord for his interest in this subject.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Bill passed.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 5) Order 1995
3.35 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 6th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I seek your Lordships' approval for two emergency orders made on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to ban fishing for certain types of shellfish in waters off the coast of Scotland.
Moved, that the order laid before the House on 6th July be approved. [26th Report from the Joint Committed].— (The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning) (No. 6) Order 1995
The Earl of Lindsay: I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 6th July be approved [26th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Bill
3.36 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a third time.
Moved. That the Bill he now read a third time.— (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships will wish to note that once again the Third Reading of an important Bill follows after the bare minimum of three working days after the Report stage. It is particularly unfortunate in this case because a great deal of business was left over from Report. The Committee stage had only two days; the first day concluded at about midnight, the second day concluded at about eleven o'clock. The Report stage went on until after half-past eleven. A number of matters were left in those circumstances not fully discussed at Report stage. We have wished to correspond with the Minister—many of us have in fact done so—but of course he has had no time to answer the letters. That is inevitable when one has a complicated, not simple, Bill following after the minimum period.
What we are doing in this Bill is to correct the culpable errors that were made in the 1991 Act. In the proceedings on that Act your Lordships clearly identified the defects, but it was to no avail; every amendment was brushed aside. Although the defects were clearly identified nothing was done, with the result that administrative chaos followed with an unprecedented apology to the public from a public body for the administrative errors. The director of the agency resigned and one-third of the caseload was simply jettisoned. That was part of the story after 1991. In addition, there was a widespread sense of injustice and the postbags of MPs had never been so full.
It is not the fault of the business managers that we find ourselves in this position again and again. It is simply because we have an overload of legislation, some of it misconceived and ill thought out, as the 1991 Act has certainly proved to he, and much of it unnecessary and due to the ambition of Ministers or the excessive zeal of civil servants tinkering with administration.
I hope that we shall not be told this time that in addition to the three bare days there was a weekend, because when the Companion to Standing Orders indicates that a weekend is to be taken into account it does so explicitly, as with the interval between Second Reading and Committee.
What we have is the bare minimum, which is insufficient for a number of points to be cleared up by correspondence. It simply places an additional burden on the Third Reading.
Your Lordships will wish to protest again that your Lordships are in this way stultified in performing your proper parliamentary role, simply because the legislative programme is overloaded.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we are indebted yet again to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for bringing to our attention this short period between Report and Third Reading. While rising to support him
1842
in his remarks that we should wherever possible not use the minimum interval between stages and should allow more parliamentary time between consideration of legislation at different stages, it is worth pointing out something that I had not realised until recently. Unfortunately it is the practice in the other place to go from Report stage straight to Third Reading without any interval whatever. Therefore in this House we have at least some advantage.
It is also worth reminding ourselves that not only do Members of this House wish to contact Ministers between stages and to receive information from Ministers on the substance of the Bill, but we must also consider members of the public who may have a keen interest and sometimes detailed knowledge of the subject. They do not have the opportunity to sec the reports in Hansard, deliberate on them and then contact noble Lords to advise them about the situation as it then applies. One of the characteristics of this House is that our assiduity ensures that almost inevitably there are amendments at each stage of the proceedings of a Bill.
For those reasons we should be thankful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has raised this matter. I hope that Ministers and the usual channels will consider much more carefully before they suggest to the House that different stages of a Bill should be considered in the minimum intervals.
In conclusion, it is worth pointing out that this year we are rising eight days earlier than we did last year. As recently as a few weeks ago it was generally accepted that we would sit into the week after next. It was only fairly recently that it was decided that we would finish next Friday. It would have been possible for there to have been a longer interval to allow better consideration of this Bill in particular.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I share the regret of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that so much of this Bill has been conducted in what Sherlock Holmes might have called the hours of darkness when the powers of the executive are exalted.
However, in relation to this Bill we have an arrangement which has been agreed and which has taken account of a great many other matters. Therefore in respect of this Bill we are hound by it. For the future we might reflect that, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has pointed out, there are such things as Fridays. We might also consider the view, which I hope may commend itself to the Minister, that there are disadvantages in one department putting forward four major Bills in the same Session.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 6 (Departure directions):
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert:
("() in cases where the absent parent is applying for departure under Schedule 4B, paragraph (2), it is his opinion that hardship would be caused to the absent parent or any member of his family should be not do so: and").
The noble Baroness said My Lords, I am sorry that we are opening today's debate with such a modest amendment. I feel that it should be a stirring announcement of principle. However, at Third Reading that is perhaps less appropriate than it would be at earlier stages.
We are revisiting the amendment because we want to push the Minister further on what is understood by hardship. The amendment would require that there be evidence of hardship as a criterion for access to the departure system. At present, as the Bill stands, the absent parent can gain access to the system of appeals or departures merely because, for example, he has high travel to work costs even though he can perfectly well afford those high travel to work costs. The amendment would establish that he would have grounds for appeal if he had high travel to work costs and as a result suffered hardship.
We understood from the original White Paper that the test in terms of departures comprised the two criteria of individual grounds and the fact that hardship was caused to the absent parent. We felt that that was entirely reasonable. However, we are concerned that that test of hardship may have fallen by the wayside so far as concerns the absent father. It may therefore mean that he may be able to reduce his maintenance payments because certain of his costs are high even though, given his level of income, he could well afford them and hardship does not result.
We want to press the Minister on that point and to make sure that the Bill as it stands is even-handed in its notion of hardship in respect of both the parent with care and the absent father. I hope that the Minister can help us in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, the intention of the amendment, which we also debated at Committee stage, is to introduce hardship as a basic condition for access to the departure system; that is, a departure may be given in respect of an absent parent only if it is to relieve hardship.
The amendment does not, in fact, achieve that intention and could act in a very different way from that intended. For example, it would enable the Secretary of State to make a departure direction, which would not otherwise have been made under other provisions within the scheme, solely because of hardship. However, I understand from her explanation what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve with the amendment, and I hope that I can persuade her that it is not necessary.
First, as I explained in Committee, even if one accepted hardship as a basic condition, it would be inequitable to look at the issue in the context of the absent parent only. Relieving hardship for the absent parent may well cause hardship to the parent with care. It is clearly unfair to consider the position of either of the parents in isolation from the other.
Secondly, I believe that the concerns of the noble Baroness are largely covered by the provision in new Section 28F(1) (b), which requires the Secretary of State to consider in all cases whether it would be just and
1844
equitable to make a departure direction. That provision enables the Secretary of State to consider all the circumstances of all parties to an assessment, and in particular their financial circumstances. It is intended that the relative positions of the parties would be examined under that provision, and the question of possible hardship for either party will clearly underlie those considerations.
For example, an absent parent with a relatively high level of income may apply for a departure direction on the grounds that he has a special expense, say high travel to work costs. However, the way the formula works means that in the vast majority of cases he will already be substantially better off than the parent with care before any allowance is made for that special expense. In such cases the adjudicator will he able to look at the circumstances of both parties and consider whether it would be just and equitable to make a departure direction. He might decide in such a case that there would on balance be more hardship caused to the parent with care by a reduction in maintenance than to the absent parent by expecting him to meet his travel to work costs from his much larger disposable income.
The noble Baroness suggested that we wanted an even-handed system. I would argue that the way outlined in the Bill is a much fairer, even-handed way of dealing with the issue than the amendment before us. It enables the Secretary of State to look at the situation of the parent with care, the absent parent and any children affected, to balance their needs and then decide whether a departure direction would be just and equitable in the light of all of the circumstances. I hope that my arguments carry some weight with the noble Baroness and that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. His arguments always carry weight with us; sometimes they even persuade us. I should have said that it is a probing amendment. The Minister's reply helps clarify the situation as to what considerations should be in the minds of the tribunal based on the departure system. For that we are grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Transitional provisions]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 37. leave out from ("prescribed") to end of line 38.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is a technical amendment which is needed as a consequence of an earlier amendment accepted by the House at Report stage of the Bill.
Your Lordships will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, proposed an amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill to remove, in its entirety, subsection (4). The purpose of his amendment was to allow late applications for departures—that is, applications made outside the 28 day time limit, previously disallowed by the former subsection (4) of the new Section 28A—to be accepted. Any departure direction made as a result of a "late" application, where there was no good cause for the

1845
delay, would not take effect from a date earlier than the date of application. The House was content to agree to the amendment of the noble Lord.
Amendment No. 2 is needed to delete from the new Section 281, as introduced by Clause 9 of the Bill, reference to the now-removed subsection (4) of Clause 1. It is a purely technical amendment to accommodate the amendment proposed and accepted by your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for explaining the purpose of the amendment. Perhaps he could have been a little more forthcoming in explaining that the amendment which the House accepted was drafted by his department.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [The child maintenance bonus]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 13, at end insert:
("() the bonus to accrue at the weekly rate (subject to paragraph (c)) whether or not the child support agency has actually collected the money for each week, in all cases where the total maintenance payable by the absent parent would allow for this.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, to coin a phrase of the Minister, I wonder whether arguments on this amendment will carry weight with the Minister.
We return to the issue of the regular payment bonus. The amendment is promoted by us in the context of a Child Support Agency which, to all our regrets, has become notorious for its history of administrative incompetence and shambles. I am sure that we all wish well the relatively new chief executive. I am sure we all hope and believe that she will be able to turn the agency round in the very near future. However, as it stands, it is undeniable that the CSA has an abysmal track record. Something like half of all its assessments appear to have been faulty or irregular. At least as many have not been adequately collected.
That produces a set of problems for mothers who expect maintenance and who have not received it or receive it only irregularly. It produces problems for the absent parent, usually the father, who may have had an inaccurate and over-high assessment.
The amendment deals with another problem which may result from an agency which has not so far proved to be administratively competent. It refers to the back-to-work bonus. As part of the incentive to get parents with care back into the labour market—we shall not explore the virtues or vices of that at this moment—the Government propose to roll up £5 of the maintenance as a disregard and to present it as a lump sum worth £1,000 at the point at which that parent with care goes back to work. We have argued that the woman should receive that £5 each and every week, rather than as a lump sum. But we are not visiting that issue; we are referring to the lump sum: a roll up of £5 a week of maintenance disregard over four years or thereabouts so that when she goes back to work she receives that lump sum of £1,000, provided that the agency has been competent enough to collect the money. We have no such confidence that it will be competent to do that.
We fear that because the agency has failed to collect it, the parent with care may not receive the maintenance bonus to which she is entitled. The failure would be that of the agency—and, goodness knows, we have enough track record to suggest that that is a likely possibility for many parents with care.
Therefore the amendment proposes that where the agency is at fault for having failed to collect the maintenance that is due, the mother should not he penalised for the agency's incompetence by losing her right to the £5 disregard being rolled up as her bonus. In other words, if she is abiding by her part of the bargain (getting ready to go back to work) the agency should be held to its part of the bargain: to collect and deliver the maintenance, including the back-to-work bonus.
That is what the amendment provides. Her right to that bonus is enshrined in the Bill. However, without such an amendment it will not be a right but a grace and favour option according to as, when, if and however the CSA collects the money. Such an amendment would not be necessary if the CSA had been run competently from the first. We know all the problems associated with that, but we do not wish to see the parent with care losing her right to the bonus which is enshrined in the Bill because of further administrative inefficiency of the CSA.
I hope that the amendment is acceptable, or some version which makes clear that where it is the fault of the CSA that the bonus has not been collected, the woman should not suffer but should receive the lump sum nonetheless. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment to which I put my name. It is a modest amendment—modest to the point of bashfulness—but I believe that it is an entirely good amendment. Anyone who has had any dealings with maintenance is familiar with the problem that very often the maintenance does not arrive, is irregular, often incomplete and can stop for long periods. It is always difficult to get any hard information about what is going on.
The CSA was meant to improve the situation. Over the weekend I looked at the study by the Children's Society, Losing Support. It is based on case studies of 65 parents with care. It set out to find out how many of those 65 parents were better off as a result of the intervention of the CSA. The answer was none. Two had assessments which would have improved the position, but the ex-wives said that the assessments were too high and the payments were not coming in. The irregularities, incompetence and inaccuracies are, if anything, greater than they were under the old court system. The arrival of maintenance is extremely undependable.
Under the principles of the Citizen's Charter, if a public service undertakes to deliver a service and it fails to do so, some form of compensation is recognised to be due. If a train does not arrive, the passengers get a refund. In that situation, under exactly those principles, if maintenance does not arrive, the government agency has failed to deliver the service it undertook. So I think that some compensation is due. The amendment is fair

1847
and square within the principles of government policy as set out by the Prime Minister, and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps I may add one point to the excellent opening speech by my noble friend Lady Hollis. The Minister will remember that when we raised the point at Report stage he said at col. 125 of Hansard for 19th June:
"I hear the point made by the noble Baroness; namely, that if it is the agency's fault that the absent parent has not paid, where does that leave the parent with care? I wonder whether she would mind if I consider that question and reflect on it?"—[Official Report, 19/6/95; col. 125.]
I hope that after the Minister has reflected on it, he can help us with the point. As my noble friend said, if the amendment's wording is not exactly targeted in the way that the department would like, if the department accepts the argument about the inefficiencies of the agency resulting in non-collection, it is easiest to accept the amendment and alter it in the other place.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, in going through a sheaf of newspaper cuttings which I had accumulated in order to trace the behaviour of the Child Support Agency, I came across this headline which relates to the speeches which have just been made:
"Child Support Agency fails single parents, say five charities".
That seems to support what has just been said by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we discussed this amendment in Committee. Its effect is that a person with care will accrue a weekly bonus regardless of whether maintenance is actually paid. As I said in Committee, the amendment is defective as it stands because it takes no account of those cases where maintenance is paid direct to the parent with care. The bonus system can operate in those circumstances as well as the circumstances where it is paid through the Child Support Agency. The amendment moves to a totally notional system of crediting a bonus which takes no account of whether or not maintenance is paid. I shall come to the specific point on which I have indeed reflected. However, I believe that considered as it stands, the amendment would be an unsatisfactory approach.
The purpose of the child maintenance bonus is to improve work incentives and to give a person with care a direct benefit from the maintenance she receives. A person with care who receives income support or jobseeker's allowance, along with child maintenance, can accrue a credit based on the child maintenance taken into account in the income support or jobseeker's allowance assessment. The lump sum of up to £1,000 would be payable when the person with care leaves benefit to return to work. Like the bonus in the jobseeker's allowance, its purpose is to smooth the transition into work. Another advantage is that it does not reduce the incentive to return to work by narrowing the gap between out-of-work benefit and earnings.
1848
We think that absent parents will also see that the accumulation of a bonus will benefit their children as a result of the maintenance they have paid. The amendment would introduce a notional scheme and remove any incentive for the absent parent to pay maintenance as the person with care would accumulate a bonus, even if he did not pay any maintenance.
Like the noble Baroness, I do not wish to revisit the argument on the more general question of disallowing the £5 of maintenance. However, it is interesting that it was that very incentive which formed the core of the argument in favour of the maintenance disregard by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord. I was not able then to accept that proposition due to the costs and the fact that it would narrow the gap between benefit and work. However, I understood the point made about incentives: incentives to pay concerning the maintenance disregard must be equally relevant when it comes to that bonus.
The introduction of a notional child maintenance bonus scheme would result in a substantial increase in costs. We estimate that a notional scheme would increase the cost of a child maintenance bonus by more than 50 per cent. It is possible that a notional scheme, without any incentive for the absent parent to make maintenance payments, might have a negative effect on the level of compliance resulting in a reduction in the amount of maintenance received by the Child Support Agency.
I have said before and hope that I do not have to say it too many more times today: an absent parent should not expect the taxpayer to support his children. We feel that parents should honour their responsibilities to their children whenever they can afford to do so. The amendment would, I fear, be a step along the road to maintenance guaranteed by the Government, whether it is paid or not. We have consistently opposed that as it undermines the principle that parents should maintain their own children to the extent that they can afford to do so.
The child maintenance bonus is in effect a deferred disregard; that is, it is equivalent to a disregard of maintenance received but with payment being deterred and made in a lump sum on moving into work. The bonus disregards maintenance received. It cannot disregard maintenance which is not received, any more than an earnings disregard can disregard earnings which are not received.
During the discussion in Committee, I explained that our aim is to allocate a bonus accordingly for the period over which payments are made. There was a discussion about the situation where the absent parent paid no maintenance and the parent with care would not accumulate a bonus. We are still considering the detailed rules by which fluctuating amounts of maintenance due and paid are translated into accrual of the bonus. I think I gave an assurance that we intended to ensure that if the absent parent paid rather intermittently but he still paid, then the amount paid would be rolled back over the weeks when he did not pay but ought to have paid. The £5 disregard would then be credited to the parent with care during the necessary number of weeks. Of course, the two would have to balance and it is quite a complicated piece of arithmetic.

1849
No doubt it will also lead to complicated rules to deal with every case. It was to deal with a situation that was put to me where—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister seems to be saying that it has to balance. I presume he means that over a period of three or six months the total coming in should meet the total that was levied in order for the £5 back-to-work bonus to be rolled up. Is that what the Minister is saying? If not, the basic point is that if there is an irregularity or failure to collect due solely to the CSA, what is the CSA's responsibility for making good the shortfall in the bonus? Why should the mother suffer because the CSA does not do its job?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall come to the second point in a minute concerning non-payment from the CSA. If the absent parent does not pay, it is fundamentally his responsibility. It is the responsibility of the CSA to collect the payment, if it comes through the agency. Without wishing to bring the wrath of the noble Earl down on my neck, the villain of the piece is the absent parent who is not paying and he is the person to whom we should direct our attention.
Perhaps I did not explain the point as well as I might. If the absent parent decides to pay either through the CSA or direct to the parent with care in an intermittent way, he will not be obliged to pay the full amount before the parent receives the £5. As long as he pays £5 or more, the parent will be credited with that £5 bonus. Obviously, if he pays less than £5, as the Bill lays down, the parent with care will be credited with the £4 or £3 which he pays. But he will not have to pay the full amount. Let us say that the full amount is £50 a week, it would not work out at that. If it turned out to be £40, then the parent with care would obviously still receive the bonus. We are examining the details because there are complications which the noble Baroness probably perceives, as I do, about how one decides the period over which the money is to be spread, if the person does not provide sufficient money. We are turning our attention to that because we do not wish the parent with care to suffer. We are keen to see the bonus rolling up in order to help the parent with care back into work when and if she decides to take that step.
We are still considering the detailed rules by which fluctuating amounts of maintenance due and paid are translated into how we accrue the bonus. It may be possible to go some way towards meeting the concerns underlying the comments of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Carter. But we do not wish to breach the essential principle that the maintenance bonus is linked to the actual fulfilment of his responsibilities by the absent parent. I believe that none of us would wish the scheme to encourage non-compliance.
I turn to the question put to me today by the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It was also put at the Committee stage and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, kindly reminded me that I said that I would reflect on the point. It related to circumstances where maintenance had not been collected solely as a result of lack of action by the Child Support Agency. I considered this particular point
1850
carefully. I do not consider that a special provision is necessary. Arrangements are already in existence to provide ex gratia compensation where individuals have suffered actual financial loss as a result of official error. Work is in hand to introduce compensation arrangements specifically tailored to the work of the Child Support Agency; in the meantime, cases are considered on their merits under the terms of the existing departmental arrangements. This is the appropriate route for dealing with cases of financial loss through official error rather than adding specific provision to the Bill which goes significantly wider than the failure of the CSA to collect when money is routed through it.
Having reflected on the particular point, namely when problems arise as the fault of the CSA, I can give the noble Baroness an assurance that the procedures that we are currently exploring in order to put them in place will deal with the position where there will be financial loss.
Clearly, the accumulation of the bonus would represent, on the day that the parent with care decided to go into work, a financial loss to her. That is one of the issues that we shall have to address when examining arrangements that we wish to bring into being to deal with compensation. I have tried to be helpful while, I am afraid, having to resist the disconnection of the bonus from any money paid by the parent. I hope that I have shown that we are examining carefully and sympathetically the problem of an absent parent who is intermittent in his payments. The theory works perfectly if the man pays weekly, on time, as he should. The difficulty arises when that breaks down. We are looking at ways in which to deal with the parent who pays in larger sums from time to time and probably after much pressure is brought to bear on him. We are also examining the problem that will occur if lack of collection was the fault of the agency. As I say, we intend to put in place systems that will compensate for faults in the agency when it causes financial problems for the parties concerned, in this case the parent with care. With that explanation, I hope that noble Lords and the noble Baroness will feel that I am genuine in my desire to try to accommodate these particular difficulties. I believe that they are best left to regulations or rules—dare I say?—on compensation arrangements rather than primary legislation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that he was afraid of calling down my wrath on his head for saying that the absent parent was the villain because he was not paying. I assure him that he will draw no wrath down on his head if he extends his statement just a little further: the absent parent is the villain of the piece if he is not paying, can afford to pay and is correctly assessed. Can the Minister go that far?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, our whole approach is based on trying to devise a system to make sure that the absent parent is asked to pay what he can afford to pay, consistent with the formula that Parliament has agreed, and that he has been properly assessed. I think I can go some way in agreeing with the noble Earl—which seems to me to be rather a good way to start this Third Reading.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and with the leave of the House, the Minister seems to have defined the villain as at least half a villain. Can he go into just a little more detail? We are concerned about the agency's inefficiency resulting in non-collection. He said that the existing procedure is ex gratia. What is the procedure? Does the matter go to a commissioner? Is it done under a departmental arrangement? Is it informal? How does it work? I see that the Minister may need time to reflect, but I remind him that this is Third Reading. Can we be given some sort of timescale so that we know when the procedures being devised will be in place?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, there are arrangements throughout the Department of Social Security to deal with departmental errors. That includes errors in agencies. The special payments arrangements currently in place in the Department of Social Security were set up as long ago as 1977, following a recommendation of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Under the terms of the arrangements, which are ex gratia and discretionary, compensation may be considered where payment of benefit has been delayed unduly or where actual financial loss has occurred as a direct result of clear and unambiguous official error. There is no legal entitlement to special payments, and no right of appeal if a payment is refused.
As to the second part of the noble Lord's question, we hope that we can have negotiations with the ever-present Treasury that will be completed by the end of the summer and that proper arrangements will be in place, with a useful delegation to give the Child Support Agency's compensation unit the procedures to deal with these and other problems, by the autumn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this short debate has been rather informative, although I feel that the Minister failed to accept responsibility for the issue that lies at the core. We are not talking about villains; that vocabulary is not especially helpful. The matter is not that simple. We are talking about absent fathers, many of whom will he reluctant to pay and will he avoiding paying, interlocking with an agency that has a track record of incompetence and inability to collect. The two together will result in a situation in which, too often, the parent with care will fail to have enough maintenance to generate a disregard which would be paid to her as a back-to-work bonus.
If we could easily and cleanly identify the fault as being the father's or that of the CSA, then indeed the world might look as the Minister describes it, with official error being rectified or the fault being all the father's and nothing to do with the CSA. But that is not what it is like out there. What is happening is that the incompetence of the CSA is magnified by the reluctance of fathers to pay; and the reluctance of fathers to pay is magnified by their knowledge that the CSA is incompetent to collect. The person who loses out is the mother in the middle. If the matter were clean and simple, we should not have tabled the amendment in this form.
1852
The point is that any woman who is on income support has no choice but to use the CSA as the collection agent. She will not therefore know whether she is failing to receive her back-to-work bonus because the father is refusing to pay maintenance or because the CSA has failed to collect it. We know that it will be a mixture of the two, and that this will be a moving game over three or four years. But the mother will not know. She cannot go to a more efficient collection agency to make sure that the father pays; she has no choice. She is stuck with what the Government have required; namely, that the CSA will collect the maintenance. Then, when the CSA does not collect—whether because it is less than competent or because the husband is more successful than usual in avoiding payment—she suffers.
Why should she suffer? She is very poor indeed. She is on income support. She has not deserted her children, is looking after them, struggling to keep and maintain them and hoping to go back into work. But the one sop that the Government have given to that parent with care is that there will be a modest disregard rolled up in what is called a back-to-work bonus. Then, of course, she learns that she will receive that only if the CSA has managed to do what it is required to do; namely, collect the darned money. That is not fair. She cannot control whether she receives the money or not.
It is no use the Minister saying that if the money is paid, there is no incentive for the father to contribute his maintenance. That is irrelevant. It is the job of the CSA to collect the money. Of course the father may be reluctant to pay. That is the whole history of the CSA. The point of the CSA was to ensure collection. The Minister is not only letting fathers off the hook; he is letting the CSA off the hook as well when it fails, through other than very obvious clerical errors, to collect.
This amendment not only offers an incentive for the father to pay. It also offers an incentive for the CSA to collect. Without such an amendment, as the Minister accepts, there is no such incentive. It is pretty rough for the Minister to tell a mother with care who is bringing up her children in straitened circumstances, trying to be independent, hoping to return to work and counting on a back-to-work bonus as one of the few concessions that the Government have made, that whether or not she receives the money depends on whether or not the CSA has managed to collect it. If she says, "Can I have a more efficient collection agency?", she cannot. She has no choice. She has to get it from the CSA.
I wonder whether the Minister can be persuaded to help us a little further. This arrangement is so unfair. The mother with care is totally dependent on the competence of an agency that has a bad track record and is notorious for incompetence. As a result, she goes without. Why should she? What is fair about that? Can the Minister help me, please?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that I do not know whether I can help her. The compensation arrangements that I described are already there so far as concerns the whole department and, as I said, will be tailor made for the agency which will he in position in the autumn.

1853
Clearly, it would be an incentive for the agency to make sure that it collects and does not fall down on its job, thus finding that it has to make up for the financial loss by paying the bonus for those weeks for which it did not collect the bonus from the absent parent because of its own fault. So there is an incentive for the agency to make sure that it collects. That and a number of other aims are the targets which we set the agency. I totally agree with the noble Baroness that the collection is very important indeed. So far as the agency is concerned, I believe that there is a stick to make sure that it does its job properly with regard to collection.
The argument with regard to the absent parent is difficult. As I said, the noble Baroness argued the other way about the maintenance disregard to try to give the absent parent an incentive. I very much hope, as a result of our efforts last April and of the departures arranged in this Bill, that the excuses used by many absent parents not to face up to their responsibilities will be peeled away and that many more absent parents will accept their responsibilities. I should have thought that the very fact that the two main political parties in this country are at one on the principles ought to tell absent parents that, rather than flirt with people who they think might agree with them at the edges of the political scene, it would be better to take on board the fact that the main players in politics in this country believe quite firmly that the agency is here to stay and that absent parents should take on their responsibilities.
Those are all the assurances that I can give to the noble Baroness. I shall have to leave the matter there.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I realise that we are at Third Reading and this is not Committee stage. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to press the matter further. I take it that the parent with care will receive a print-out at the end of each year as to where her bonus has got to. I also take it that if, as a result, at the end of that first year it is clear that many parents with care are receiving an incomplete contribution towards their bonus because of the incompetence of the CSA, the Minister will bring regulations before this House to ensure that in future we can take up the spirit of this amendment.
If, in practice, the CSA fails to do what we fear it will fail to do, which is to collect reliably, it is the woman, the parent with care, who will suffer. On the understanding that she will receive an annual print-out of the bonus that is credited to her, and thereby we can monitor that she is receiving what she has been promised; and on the understanding that, if she is not getting what she has been promised—and that is clearly owing at least in part to the inadequacies of the CSA—we can revisit the subject and the Minister will make regulations to overcome those deficiencies of the CSA; then, in the light of all that, with your Lordships' leave, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 4:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals to child support appeal tribunals: amendment of section 20 of 1991 Act
. In section 20 of the 1991 Act (appeals), subsection (1), at end insert—
"() Any parent with care who has satisfied the obligations to authorise the Secretary of State under section 6(I) and to provide information under section 6(9) but is aggrieved by a decision of the Secretary of State made under sections 6(2) or (II) may appeal to a child support appeal tribunal against that decision.'"').
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the harm and undue stress provisions. They allow the mother not to give information if she or her family may suffer harm or undue distress as a result of doing so.
That was a very welcome change in the 1991 Act, as a result of the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and other Members of this House. The effect of this amendment is to extend those provisions so that they may, on appeal, apply to someone who has signed the authorisation to the Secretary of State and then comes to believe that she may experience harm or undue distress as a result of having done so.
Research on the ground suggests that this is a very necessary provision. I referred to the Children's Society's study Losing Support. It found that 12 out of 54 mothers who had completed a maintenance application form were unaware at the time that they had any right at all to refuse to co-operate with the agency and were unaware of the circumstances in which consent could legitimately be withheld. One of them who had been a victim of domestic violence completed the form because she believed that the risk of a deduction from her income support was a greater threat than her ex-husband's potential violence.
When the Minister talks about women being made to consider very carefully whether they should refuse to co-operate with the agency, whether or not he knows it, that is the kind of thing to which he is referring. In that sample, four single mothers had tried to withdraw their agreement to co-operate, once they had found out about their rights and had some experience of the effects of co-operating. All of them found it to be impossible. That is the situation that this amendment is designed to address.
Some further research, which is still in progress, came to hand this morning. It is the kind of thing where the footnotes are not yet checked, so I ask the Minister to treat it with caution, as its author has asked me to do. It reveals quite a lot of problems. People asked to sign the form under Section 6(1) of the 1991 Act find that they experience a good deal of difficulty. Only three out of 15 who claimed harm and undue distress managed to get the matter resolved quickly. All of them first had a distressing interview with the child support officer or were required to produce medical evidence.
I did not have time this morning to check the Official Report, but I thought that we were given an assurance in 1991 that they would not be required to provide medical evidence. They had been put under considerable pressure. One of them told the officer, "He has a thingummy for assault; check his records. What they said to me about this form was that it was against the law for me not to sign it." That is the kind of situation

1855
in which a woman may want to invoke the harm and undue distress provisions when she did not do so initially.
Let us consider what happened to that particular woman. Some time afterwards she encountered her former partner:
"He got me coming down from the shops and started shouting at me and threatening me because the CSA had sent another letter to his work. I never gave them any information because I knew what was going to happen".
So she found herself in danger as a result of the CSA's actions, even without her co-operation.
It seems to me only equitable that a woman in that situation should be able to invoke the harm and undue distress provisions, even though she had originally, before she knew that she would encounter such a reaction from her former partner, signed the maintenance application form. As the law stands at the moment, if a woman once signs a maintenance application form, it is like selling her dowry. She never gets it back. She never gets back the right to invoke harm and undue distress. I feel that a great deal of pain, violence and possibly bloodshed might be saved if this amendment were accepted. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I previously explained during the progress of the Bill in its various other stages, parents with care who are in receipt of relevant benefit are required to give their authority for maintenance to be sought unless the Secretary of State considers that there would be a risk of harm or undue distress occurring to the parent with care or any child living with her if she were to do so.
This amendment would give a parent with care, who has given her authority, the right to appeal to a child support appeal tribunal that the requirement should not have been imposed or should be withdrawn. No parent with care is required to give her authorisation without the agency first giving careful consideration as to whether giving that authorisation would cause her, or any child living with her, harm or undue distress. Even after she has given her authorisation, if she believes that she or any child living with her might be caused harm or undue distress if it remains in force, she can ask the Secretary of State to consider the position and, if he accepts that there is a risk of harm or undue distress, he will lift the requirement to co-operate. If I heard the noble Earl correctly, he did not seem to realise that that possibility existed for a parent with care who had given her authorisation but who then, as he described it, had second thoughts about it—perhaps because of other circumstances. So she can ask the Secretary of State to consider the position. If he accepts that there is a risk, he will lift the requirement to co-operate. The parent with care can then ask the Secretary of State to cease pursuing maintenance, and he must do so.
I have described in some detail in earlier proceedings the detailed procedures we go through in order to make sure that the parent with care realises that she does have the right to ask for the requirement to co-operate to be lifted. I do not propose to repeat them at length at Third Reading. I will simply say that the parent with care has, in total, 12 weeks to consider her position with several
1856
opportunities to make further representations during that time. The child support officer will consider making a reduced benefit direction only if he is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that there is a risk of harm or undue distress by imposing the requirement to co-operate. The parent with care has a right of appeal against the child support officer's decision to impose a reduced benefit direction. The appeal tribunal will consider all the relevant facts and will decide whether the child support officer's decision was correct.
The noble Earl asked about the need for medical evidence. Guidance to staff is that the parent with care should be believed unless what she says is contradictory or inherently improbable. Evidence is helpful, but it is not essential. The intention is that all parents with care should co-operate unless there is a risk that harm or undue distress might occur to the parent or any child living with her. I have said many times before why that is right. A parent with care should not prevent the payment of maintenance by the absent parent and allow the burden of maintaining her children to fall on the taxpayer, unless there is good reason.
It is not Parliament's intention that co-operation in seeking maintenance should be voluntary. If a parent has good reason not to co-operate once she has given her authority, then she will be listened to and, if she has good cause, the Secretary of State will withdraw the requirement on her to co-operate and will cease collecting maintenance if she requests him to do so. If she does not have good cause for refusing to co-operate, the agency will continue to seek and collect maintenance and it is right that it should do so.
I hope I have shown that there are already sufficient practical safeguards built into the requirement to co-operate process. Several different officers are involved in the decision-making process and, finally, there is already a right of appeal against the decision to impose a reduced benefit direction. I do not believe that there is any need for a right of appeal against the decision to impose the requirement and invite the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment in the light of my explanations, both today and at previous stages, as to the steps that must be taken before the agency can come to the conclusion that a direction should be imposed.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe the Minister described entirely correctly how the world exists in the Government's intentions. Unfortunately, that is almost equivalent to saying that he described how the world exists in the Government's imagination. If the Minister looks at the Children's Society study—it is a serious study by reputable scholars—he will find that that is not the way it is on the ground. People are being placed under severe pressure to sign the form to authorise the Secretary of State.
With regard to asking the Secretary of State to change his mind after signing the form, that is a little like saying that I can ask the Minister to agree to amendments. So I can; so can any man; but will he come when I call him?

1857
The Minister's response is not good enough. Circumstances may change later on and it is certainly the case on the ground that in the study to which I referred all the women who found the need to invoke the "harm and undue distress" provisions after signing the form, found that it was utterly impossible and no such application would be entertained.
If the Government's intentions are as they are—I accept the Minister's description of them—can he make even stronger efforts to communicate them to the people on the ground? Can he say whether those who enforce these provisions are subject to performance-related pay, and is the number of cases of harm and undue distress they allow any part of that performance? I should be grateful for an answer to that question before I decide what to do with the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have already explained, in my answer to the question about medical evidence, that guidance is given to staff in regard to what they should do and what they should seek. That is one point.
The second point is that of course there is performance-related pay. I am afraid I cannot say off the top of my head at this Dispatch Box what the detail is of how it is arrived at, but by raising it the noble Earl clearly implies that officers of the Child Support Agency, knowing that the woman had good cause, would take the opposite decision simply in order to get cases out. I reject that. I am pretty certain that all the officers of the agency, as indeed all civil servants do, attempt to do their job to the best of their ability and to be fair to all the parties. I underline "all" the parties; not just the person in front of them, but also the taxpayer who stands behind all this. I must therefore reject the suggestion implicit in the noble Earl's question regarding the way in which officials of the agency work. Agency officials can take into account what the parent with care is saying. She has all the opportunities I mentioned to explain to the officers of the agency why she would be fearful and what she thinks her ex-partner might do to her if she were to give the agency details to allow them to pursue him for payment of maintenance. But they must make the judgment of whether that is reasonable. I have tried to explain that in those circumstances they give the parent with care the benefit of the doubt.
In regard to looking again at the process in practice, we have a working party looking at the requirement to co-operate and it is examining the process. If it gives any comfort to the noble Earl, I shall ask to have a discussion with them to satisfy myself that the answers I have given him are correct in relation to the way in which officials behave in this matter.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister says that people are not influenced by financial incentives. Coming from a free market government I find that a little surprising. I have not for a moment been suggesting anything improper. The Minister must have heard the phrase "grey area". There are a great many decisions for which one can see defensible reasons for making them one way or the other, and if performance-related pay does not create an incentive to make decisions one way rather than the other, what on earth is it doing?
1858
I heard what the Minister said about the working party and welcome it. I ask him to think very carefully indeed about whether things really are working on the ground in the way that he thinks they are. There are large numbers of women throughout the country who are a great deal more reluctant to co-operate with the agency than they were when it first came into being and, from the Minister's point of view, that is not good news. But it is his problem. He will have to cope with it. I think I can leave him to it and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 5:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Appeal to the High Court: repeal of sections 22 to 25 of 1991 Act
.—(1) Sections 22 to 25 of the 1991 Act (relating to Child Support Commissioners) shall cease to have effect.
(2) For the purpose of this section, "relevant decision" means any decision made under the 1991 Act or this Act by a relevant entity; and "relevant entity" means—

(a) a Child Support Appeal Tribunal;

(b) a magistrates' court or a sheriff court; or

(c) in the case of a decision from which no appeal lies (directly or after a review) to a Child Support Appeal Tribunal or to a magistrates' court or a sheriff court, the Secretary of State or a child support officer.

(3) Any person affected by a relevant decision may (without any leave) appeal to the High Court, where such an appeal shall be assigned to the Family Division; or, in Scotland, to the Court of Session.
(4) The parties to such an appeal shall include the Secretary of State and the person with care and the absent parent under the assessment in question.
(5) On such an appeal, the court may—

(a) correct any error of fact or law involved in the decision appealed from;

(b) itself exercise any discretion which had been exercised in the decision appealed from;

(c) make an appropriate order which may be consequential on the foregoing; and

(d) make any other order which it may consider necessary in order to prevent the operation of the 1991 Act or this Act from causing hardship or injustice to any person.

(6) For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that subsection (5) (d) above enables the court to make an order which could not have been made by the entity whose decision is appealed from.
(7) Unless the court otherwise orders, the costs of all the parties to an appeal under this section shall be paid on an indemnity basis by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Minister said just a few moments ago—I think I have his words correct—that he hoped that the excuses for absent parents not to face up to their responsibilities will he peeled away. I am asking the Minister to have the courage of his convictions on that. I think we are all agreed that absent parents are responsible for the maintenance of their children. I think we are all agreed that they have to pay, in proportion to their means, what they can and as they can. The question is whether that is being achieved by this Bill or whether it is as disproportionate to actual ability to pay as was the poll tax. If the Minister's confidence is justified, then he need not he afraid of accepting this amendment, which allows an appeal to the High Court for those who are dissatisfied with their experience of the Act.
Anyone who suffers a grievance will want redress. That is part of the human condition and it is part of the stuff of ordinary politics. Anyone who tries to go to the CSA and get any kind of sense by way of an answer out of it will get nothing. I remember how I felt when I once had to close a bank account in California. I needed the money urgently because it was owed to the Inland Revenue in this country. But over six months I received one computer-generated letter after another inviting me, now back in London, to attend seminars on house purchase in California. The only thing that got an answer out of that California bank was my London bank manager dressing up to look like a bailiff and going and sitting for two days in the bank's London head office until it did something.
Dealing with the CSA is a good deal worse than that. If one needs to get an answer out of the CSA one has to start by going through the Minister; and even then it is difficult. The Minister knows that himself. He knows how many such cases have come into his office. That is why this amendment provides for those who are aggrieved by the actions of the CSA—and very many people are—to be able to have their day in court and to give the court power to correct any error of fact or law involved in the decision.
That is a quite vital provision because it compels the CSA to answer before a higher authority. I say to the Minister that we are all concerned to discourage people from illegal forms of protest. No one in Parliament can possibly want to see those. But the desire to be able to try to find some kind of redress is a very deep one and it cannot be abolished. If we want to prevent people from seeking redress in illegal ways, of the kind none of us approves, we have to create legitimate outlets for grievances—and a legitimate appeal to a properly constituted court of law is such a recourse. It is far, far preferable to having people disturbing the peace and quiet of Ministers in the very small amount of time they ever get off work. That is one argument for the amendment.
The second argument concerns the powers of the CSA, which are fairly extreme. It sticks in my gullet to have that kind of power enjoyed by a body whose decisions, by its own admission, are very nearly 50 per cent. erroneous. I was going through my CSA papers over the weekend and came across a letter I had written before the gracious Speech to my honourable friend Liz Lynne, at her request. We were discussing among ourselves, when we were expecting in the gracious Speech a Bill to amend the 1991 Act, what would be the minimum terms we would need to find in that Bill in order to agree to the continuation of the 1991 Act. I offered my honourable friend three, and there were others which we do not need to go into now.
One was that the parent with care should never he below income support level because she was getting maintenance. We found on the maintenance disregard amendment that the Minister was not persuaded about that. The second was that the absent parent should never be below income support level because he was paying maintenance. That has not been achieved. My third—this is the one which is relevant to the amendment—was
1860
that, whatever other departures and so forth there were, there should be a discretion to vary the formula in circumstances which no one had foreseen.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was quite right in the Renton Report that the draftsman can never foresee all circumstances. It is the weakness of the departure formula on which the Minister has relied that it can only ease the formula in situations which the draftsman happens to have foreseen. He can go on and on making more regulations but he cannot make the regulations until after the case has arisen. He cannot lock the stable door until after the horse has bolted. That is why this amendment also includes a power for the court, which is, of course, not an interested party—it is not judge and party in its own cause—to make,
"any other order which it may consider necessary in order to prevent the operation of the 1991 Act or this Act from causing hardship or injustice".
On these Benches those were always the minimum conditions on which we would agree to the 1991 Act. I said that in this Chamber in 1991 and I have not changed my mind since. I have never understood that a tiny piece of exposure to evidence, to respect for an individual case, would actually wreck the Act. I believe that it would strengthen it. But if the Minister says that it would wreck the Act, that would be the worse for the Act. However, if he wishes to preserve the Act, I think he would be extremely wise to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I venture to support this amendment. It brought back to my mind something that occurred in 1991, which those who were concerned with that Bill will recollect. The Bill as introduced allowed for an appeal either to a court of law or to an administrative tribunal. It was pointed out that the Government had to make up their mind what they wanted. Then there was a long, long pause between the Committee and Report stages. It was exceptional in that regard that the Bill was not hurried on so fast that there could not be discussion.
We all knew what that was due to and what was happening. There was an argument between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Social Security. As we expected, and entirely consonant with the 1991 legislation, the Lord Chancellor's Department, representing the rule of traditional law, was defeated. Appeals went to an administrative tribunal entirely consonantly with what the 1991 measure provided. Decisions were not to be made by a magistrates' court, as theretofor, were not to be made subject to appeals to the High Court, but were to be made by regulations, by administrative ukase, by officials applying an algebraic formula which no one claimed to understand; and if there was an appeal it was to go to an administrative tribunal.
In his amendment the noble Earl is trying to nudge us a little further back towards the rule of law. That is thoroughly satisfactory. I entirely agree with him that we really want to get rid of the 1991 Act; to provide

1861
appeals from a Magistrates' Court and to translate that court into a family court, as has been urged authoritatively time after time, and thus restore the rule of law in this respect. Failing that, it seems to me that what the noble Earl proposes is salutary.
The Minister has argued strenuously that what he recommends is right because it amounts to making absent fathers support their children as far as is reasonable. That was precisely the provision that was in the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1895. Perhaps I may be forgiven for egotism. I point to a decision of the Divisional Court during my time there. It was the decision in the Attwood case which was binding on magistrates and which they implemented.
We said that where there are two households in the place of one previously, the standard of living of both is likely to be reduced because one income has now to support two households and, frequently, two families. We said that although that might be so, the first wife and her children should never be relegated to a standard of life lower than that of the husband or any second family of his. Of course, one could only draw a broad picture because, naturally, where there are two households, the husband will inevitably tend to favour the second. The Minister is quite wrong in believing that he, his department and the Child Support Agency have invented any new principle or approach. That is not so. I support this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has proposed a new clause very similar to one he proposed at Report stage of this Bill, which would repeal Sections 22 to 25 of the 1991 Act and allow appeals to the High Court instead of, as now, to a Child Support Commissioner.
I do not intend to rehearse at length all the arguments I have previously advanced as to why I do not consider this amendment proposes a sensible way forward. But I should like to remind your Lordships of my principal objections. First, this amendment would undermine all first and second level decisions on the assessment, payment and collection of child support maintenance. In effect, it would return such questions to the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has made it clear on a number of occasions that that is his preferred solution to this problem of child maintenance.
Secondly, the lack of any requirement to obtain leave to appeal would result in a great deal of extra work for the High Court and the Court of Session and family law cases currently being dealt with by the High Court would be very seriously delayed. Thirdly, and last, the proposal that all costs would fall to the Secretary of State would be a most unwelcome burden on the taxpayer. And this burden could be quite considerable since hopeless, or even vexatious, cases could be pressed with no fear of incurring costs.
I fear that that is exactly what would happen. I have read a news-sheet by an organisation called NACSA, in which the noble Earl and his honourable friend, Ms. Liz Lynne, could be described as the hero and the heroine. In that news sheet, and rather in jest,
1862
they "scold" what some of their members are doing in order to make the CSA's task even more difficult. It refers to complaints about replies not being received to non-existent letters; mass requests for interviews at local DSS offices; and informing the agency of a change of address about once a month. To keep it simple, we are told that group members are in effect constantly moving into each other's houses. It is like musical homes. The trouble is that if they continue like that for very long, the poor CSA officials will end up running around in circles, not knowing where to send letters.
If anyone doubts my judgment that vexatious and hopeless cases would clutter up the whole High Court system, I hope that from what I have quoted from this news magazine about the people who have been involved in doing a great deal of damage to the CSA, it will be realised that such people will very rapidly get to work on this system in order to make sure that the CSA, even with the new system, does not work. I believe that there would be vexatious appeals. That is the way in which we believe that the situation would work out.
The noble Earl made it clear on an earlier occasion that, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, his real objection is to the current system, and that he believes that it does not allow anyone who is aggrieved by any decision under the Child Support Act or its regulations, a proper right of appeal. I cannot accept that. I am sure that your Lordships are well aware of the route a person will follow if he wishes to challenge a decision of a child support officer.
The first stage is an internal review of the decision by a second child support officer within the agency. As I have explained before, that will—and does in fact—resolve some of the mistakes that are made, perhaps from both sides, because everyone involved with filling in forms knows that mistakes can he made. The person who completes the form can make mistakes in the same way as the person who reads it.
Thereafter the case may proceed to appeal before an independent appeal tribunal; the child support appeal tribunal. These tribunals are completely independent and will have a legally qualified chairman and, normally, two members who are appointed by the president of the child support appeal tribunals from a panel of people who, in his opinion, have knowledge of the area and are representative of people living or working in the area.
Any further challenge must be taken, with leave, to a child support commissioner. This will be on a point of law. A commissioner's legal standing is equivalent to that of a High Court judge and his decision on any case creates case law to be followed in later, similar cases. An appeal against a commissioner's decision may be made to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session.
The current system allows for a higher adjudicating authority to decide whether or not a child support officer has reached his decision within the provisions of the Act and regulations. It also allows for the law to grow, in a way which the noble Earl should

1863
approve of, through commissioners' decisions and decisions of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session and the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. I believe this approach is entirely appropriate for the purpose. The noble Earl's amendment is neither necessary nor desirable. I hope that with my explanation of what goes on currently, he will be persuaded to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister watched the "Newsnight" debate on the Conservative leadership. He will have heard some quite strong opinions expressed. I would not dream of hurling those opinions against him across the Chamber. I would not hold him responsible for some of his, shall I say, rather more unusual followers. I ask the Minister to return the compliment.
I think that the Minister knows that we on these Benches are entirely committed to action in legal and political forms. I think that he also understands that it is our party's position—and has been so since my great-grandfather made it so in 1832—that we can prevent illegal forms of protest only by creating the hope of legitimate political change and by creating a channel through which that can be pursued. That is what I am attempting to do here and I should be very disappointed if the Minister held it against me.
The Minister says that the amendment would undermine all the lower levels of the system. No, it would not. It would help to gain the system consent and, thank God, even in near-dictatorships it is often impossible to operate a detailed administrative procedure without some degree of consent. If that ever ceases to be so, I shall regret it. Of course, over time the courts would build up a series of principles, test cases and verdicts which were known which would narrow the area within which any appeal could take place.
The Minister invoked extra work, but there is no doubt that the CSA cannot do the work as it stands at the moment. If the Minister feels like introducing an estimate or getting his right honourable and honourable friends in another place to introduce an estimate to double, treble or quadruple the estimates of the CSA, perhaps he could then complain about extra work. Let him shoulder the work first before he complains about it being moved anywhere else.
The Minister complained that the lawsuits might be vexatious. He has such confidence in the rightness of his formula. I wonder whether he recognises that there could be any other. Here we come to the hub of the problem: all governments think they are right. All Administrations see it their own way. They are all aware of how utterly reasonable they are. They therefore become impatient and rather like the German diplomat in Ustinov's Diplomats who said, "Why is everyone so stubborn? Nein! nein! nein". That is a mood that every administrator understands. That is why there must be a review by an impartial authority, bound by the rule of law and with no interest in getting it right. I commend the amendment to the House.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 26; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L

McNair, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ezra, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Geraint, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Halsbury, E.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hooson, L.

Tope, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tordoff, L.

Listowel, E.

Whaddon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Harlech, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Hayhoe, L.

Ailsa, M.

Henley. L.

Aldington, L.

Hooper, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Howe, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Inglewood, L.

Ampthill, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Annaly, L.

Kingsland, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Lindsay, E.

Balfour, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Birdwood, L.

Lucas, L.

Blaker, L.

Lyell, L.

Blatch, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Burnham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cadman, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caldecote, V.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Milverton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mountevans, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Munster, E.

Courtown, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cranhorne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Nelson, E.

Newall, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Davidson, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L.

Oxfuird. V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elles, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elliott of Morpeth. L.

Rees, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Foley, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Goschen, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gray of Contin, L.

Sandford, L.

Harding of Petherton. L.

Sandys. L.

1865

Seccombe, B.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Slim, V.

Tebbit, L.

Teviot, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Strange, B.

Vivian, L.

Wise, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wynford, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 6:
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, this amendment returns to the question of distress. As your Lordships know, it is a self-help remedy whereby a creditor can take possession of the goods of his debtor and sell them. It is a harsh remedy and a most disagreeable process with bailiffs in the house, furniture put out on the pavement and so forth. It was most rigorously controlled and fenced in both at common law and by statute.
We have discussed the matter previously but have not had an answer to the central question; namely, why does the Child Support Agency, why does the Secretary of State, need Section 35 of the 1991 Act? I shall return to that matter in a moment; it is a brief point.
First, immediately after the Report stage I wrote to the Minister on a specific point. Of course, he has not had an opportunity to reply and I hope that he will be able to do so today. If not, I shall perfectly well understand. The specific issue was as follows. Under Section 35 of the 1991 Act and the corresponding provisions of the Magistrates' Courts Act relating to distress—and I believe also under the county court provisions—there is provision as to special damages for irregular distress. I take that also to mean illegal and excessive distress. But those provisions are differently phrased in the 1991 Act and in the Magistrates' Courts Act.
As soon as a provision is differently phrased everyone is alerted to the fact that a different meaning is attached. The courts will certainly assume that when the draftsman changes the formula a different meaning is attached. I wrote to the Minister asking why there was a change of terminology and whether a different result was intended. That is a minor technical point which relates to special damages.
The central point is that under Section 33 of the 1991 Act the Secretary of State can obtain from a magistrates' court a liability order. That order establishes that the absent father is liable to pay the sum stated. The magistrates cannot question the sum stated. They cannot listen, for example, to the debtor saying, "The application of the formula left me with only one penny a week", as in one notorious case that was reported. Magistrates' courts have simply to register the liability order.
When that happens a warrant for distress ensues under Section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act. As the Secretary of State can obtain a liability order and an ensuing distress warrant, why does he need the provision of Section 35 of the 1991 Act. On the face of it he does not. One suspects that it must be giving him something that the Magistrates' Courts Act does not give.
We are liable to have that suspicion because wherever we look at the 1991 Act we find exceptional powers being vested in officials; for instance, the power to enter private premises under pain of a penalty, the right to interrogate the employer on the manner judged to be in default and his fellow employees who must answer under pain of a penalty. They are given the right to infringe the priceless heritage that we have of Inland Revenue confidentiality. Therefore, when we find what is on the face of it a completely unnecessary provision we are bound to ask what is sought in Section 35 that is not given in Section 36 of the Magistrates' Courts Act. I have therefore moved to omit Section 35 of the 1991 Act.
I understand that most Members of another place have adjourned to College Green, but I imagine that they will reassemble at the other end of the Palace to consider the amendments made to the Bill by your Lordships. I hope that this amendment will be one of them. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is concerned that Section 35 of the 1991 Act gives the Child Support Agency additional or exceptional powers, and that this section is not needed as there are provisions for the levying of distress in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
It is possible that the provisions in Section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act relating to the enforcement of orders given by magistrates' courts might apply to cases where a liability order is granted under the provisions of Section 33 of the Child Support Act. I say "possible" because there is a question as to whether liability orders, which were introduced in legislation enacted after the Magistrates' Courts Act, are orders for the purposes of Section 76.
The provisions for distress in the Child Support Act could, to that extent, be considered additional to those in the Magistrates' Courts Act. However, they were introduced for specific reasons. As I said on Report when we discussed this issue, a decision was made to use magistrates' courts rather than county courts for the purpose of obtaining liability orders because magistrates' courts are often more local and easier for parents to attend.
The provisions in Section 35 of the Child Support Act enable distress action to proceed promptly, in cases where it is appropriate, without the delay and expense that would arise from a further application to the court for a warrant of execution or warrant of distress. They also enable distress action to be taken without the involvement of the police, who are responsible for executing warrants of distress in some magistrates' courts.
The provisions in Section 35 are similar to the provisions in the Local Government Finance Act 1988, which gave local authorities the power to levy distress

1867
without involving magistrates' courts further and it was thought appropriate for the Secretary of State to have the same power. The Secretary of State's position cannot be compared with that of a private creditor. He is not pursuing a debt owed to himself but one owed to the parent with care. As I have already made clear in earlier debates, the Child Support Agency does not proceed lightly with distress action. Absent parents are given every opportunity to reach and abide by an agreement about repayment before an application for a liability order is made. Once the order is granted, they are given a further opportunity to reach an agreement before distress action is initiated. But if no such agreement is reached, I believe that it is right that swift action should follow to ensure that the parent with care and children receive the money to which they are entitled as soon as possible.
Reference was made on Report and in the letter to which the noble and learned Lord referred today to the provisions in Section 35(6) relating to special damages. It has been asked why they are different from the provisions in the Magistrates' Courts Act. The reason is that the provision in Section 78(3) of that Act is capable of being interpreted so as to allow for general damages as well as special damages where there has been a defect in the distress warrant or irregularity in its execution. The wording of Section 35(6) of the Child Support Act 1991 makes it quite clear that special damages can be recovered only where there has been any irregularity in the levying of the distress.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, is concerned that the provisions in Section 35 give the Child Support Agency, acting for the Secretary of State, excessive and unreasonable powers. But I do not believe that to be the case. The child support system contains provisions for appeals to an independent child support appeal tribunal in cases where the parent is concerned about the amount of the assessment. Legal proceedings, by way of an application for a liability order, are necessary before distress proceedings can be started. As I said on Report, that will involve a hearing in the magistrates' court at which the absent parent will have the opportunity to argue that the debt is not due; for example, because payment or part payment has already been made. Distress proceedings can then be initiated without further reference to the court if, within a reasonable time, the absent parent has not made arrangements for payment. That is similar to the procedure in the county courts where the issue of a warrant of execution is an administrative decision in most cases.
The provisions in Section 35 are similar (although I accept not identical in every respect) to provisions in both the County Courts Act and the Magistrates' Courts Act. They include a number of safeguards for the absent parent—for example, listing a range of goods that cannot be seized and making provision for special damages—and appeals if the distress process is irregular in any way.
I believe we are all agreed that the ability to levy distress is necessary to ensure the effective enforcement of maintenance in those cases where the absent parent
1868
does not co-operate in meeting his liabilities. I hope that the explanation that I have given reassures the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that Section 35 does not give excessive powers to the Child Support Agency but merely ensures that distress proceedings can be initiated promptly and effectively in those cases where, regrettably, it becomes necessary. I accordingly invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister for his explanation about the special damages provision. I only say that the difference is quite insufficient to justify Section 35 if it is otherwise unnecessary.
As before, the noble Lord made a number of contentions which have nothing to do with this issue. It is nothing to do with the issue that the 1991 Act preferred the magistrates' court to the county court. That is not in question. Indeed, we have suggested that the Magistrates' Courts Act gives quite sufficient power to levy distress.
Another irrelevance is that we think distress is necessary. Again, that is not in contention. We say that the statute book is being cluttered up with a quite unnecessary power when there is the right to levy distress in any event under the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Therefore, I come to the one point where the noble Lord justified Section 35—that is, by saying that it is not certain that there is a power to levy distress after a liability order under Section 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Act. With all respect, I entirely disagree. What is more, it is not my disagreement, which is neither here nor there. The statute states:
"where default is made in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction or order",
"or order" obviously includes a liability order,
"of a magistrates' court, the court may issue a warrant of distress".
It is not only the plain words of the statute, because the authoritative notes of Halsbury's Statutes of England state expressly that that covers liability orders under the Child Support Act. I have marked the relevant passages and can pass them to the noble Lord if he doubts my interpretation of what he said. Therefore, it is not I who says that the point is quite idle, that it is uncertain whether a liability order under the Magistrates' Courts Act gives rise to a warrant of distress. It says so in the plain words of the statute and in the authoritative notes in Halsbury's Statutes of England.
Finally, the noble Lord said that under Section 35, the warrant of distress would not he executed by police officers; nor would it. But who would rather have an officer of the Child Support Agency who has already antagonised absent fathers to an extent which is now notorious? Who would not rather have an experienced police officer used to enforcing warrants of distress and carrying them out? Who would not prefer a police officer to the heavy-footed child support officer or inspector or whoever the official is who has shown and shown repeatedly—as has emerged from our discussions on this Bill—a consistent animosity against absent fathers as though they were the villains of the piece evading supporting their children?

1869
After the last Division, there is no point in dividing your Lordships' House on this matter. But I ask your Lordships who are present to say that it is clear beyond any doubt that Section 35 is unnecessary. It is merely cluttering up the statute book. It is entirely consonant with the bureaucratic aggression that was constituted in 1991. Having said that as spitefully as I can, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 7:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Contribution to maintenance by deduction from benefit: repeal of section 43 of 1991 Act.")
. Section 43 of the 1991 Act shall cease to have effect.
The noble Earl said: The noble and learned Lord has just given us the most superb justification for having brought back the amendment. He has been asking that question about Section 35 since the Committee stage, but it is only now that he has received an answer. It is possible that I might also receive an answer to Amendment No. 7 which I have not received before.
The amendment deals with the deduction from the income support of the absent parent if he is receiving that benefit. It has been my contention since 1991 that that is an altogether excessive and wasteful use of administrative power. It is excessive because income support is, as the Minister said during the proceedings on the Bill, a benchmark for subsistence. If one takes further deductions away below income support, one risks reducing the person to below subsistence level.
The other point is that we have here the whole weight of the state involved in getting from each person the princely sum of £2.30. As a taxpayer, I question whether that is an efficient and cost-effective use of my money. The agency is well known to be under very considerable burdens. It is also well known to have more work that it can possibly cope with. Like anyone else facing overwhelming pressures, it really ought to concentrate upon things which are rather more worth doing from its point of view.
I remember the effort that was put in to collecting the poll tax from the "20 percenters". The Audit Commission pointed out that it cost £15 to collect every £6 of revenue collected. I do not know what the disproportion is in the matter because the Audit Commission has yet to look at it. I should be very interested to know the result when it does so. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I have said on a number of occasions, the Government believe that all absent parents should normally provide at least a small contribution towards the support of their children. The amendment would mean treating income support recipients more favourably than absent parents with similar levels of income from other sources. The standard current maintenance contribution in those cases—£2.35 per week from April 1995—provides a small but continuing recognition of the financial responsibility which parents have for their children.
1870
We recognise that it would not be right to expect absent parents to pay maintenance in all circumstances. The criteria for those who receive income support are clear cut. Those who contribute will be aged 18 or over, will be seeking work, and will not have dependent children living with them. When they do find work they will already be used to providing support for their children. Then, of course, they would continue to provide that support, although perhaps at a higher rate, when they are in work.
Absent parents who are aged under 18 and receive a lower rate of benefit, and those who are claiming benefit because they are sick or disabled or who have a child living with them, are not expected to make that contribution. There are also safeguards for those who have failed to budget for other essential expenditure and could face eviction from their homes or disconnection of fuel or water supplies. Deductions from income support to meet rent arrears or fuel or water charges are given priority over child maintenance. Where three such deductions apply, no contribution to child maintenance is required.
The question of collecting that maintenance is fairly easy via the Benefits Agency itself. That makes it not a very costly collection to undertake. Given the existence of the safeguards that I have mentioned, we do not consider that it would be right to treat unemployed, absent parents who receive income support differently from those with similar income from work. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister invoked people with similar levels of income not derived from income support. If any people are receiving such low incomes from wages, they are being underpaid. Moreover, they will either be receiving family credit or, if they come into the new pilot scheme—for which I received the consultation paper recently—they will be receiving earnings top-up. That is one thing that I believe the Government have probably got right. Therefore, in the end, such people will be receiving rather more. However, if they are not, they are sweated labour.
The Minister mentioned water as being something which was capable of taking priority over child maintenance. I am extremely relieved to know that something is capable of taking priority in that respect. However, what I do not understand is: if water, why not food? The logic of that distinction seems to me to be a little curious. In fact, the insistence on wasting effort in getting money from absent parents on income support seems to me to be an example of the obsessive quality which over and over again shows in the Government's pursuit of the Bill. In 1991, I divided the House on the issue at 10 minutes to midnight. I am proud to have done so. However, I shall not repeat the performance this evening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 11:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Parent with care: application of 1991 Act
. In section 46 of the 1991 Act, after subsection (11) there shall be inserted—
"() In cases where the child spends 140 nights a year or more with each parent, this Act shall cease to have effect." ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment arises from the issue about 104 nights in shared care which we discussed on Report. The provision under the Bill at present is that if the allegedly absent parent has care of the child for more than 104 nights of the year—
Noble Lords: 140!
Earl Russell: Yes, my Lords; I know that 140 nights are mentioned in the amendment, but I am talking about the present position which relates to 104 nights. Any number of nights below that are counted as nothing.
The amendment came to my mind while I was reading the speech on another amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. The noble Lord was complaining about the presumption of the Act that there is always one parent who is absent and one parent with care. He argued that that conflicts with the approach of the Children Act which tends to assume shared residence and responsibility for the child being divided between two people. It really is a case of oil and water.
However, while reading the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I began to wonder whether there should not come a point when the child is spending so much time with each of the parents that neither of them should properly be counted as absent. If neither parent is counted as absent, the whole system under the child support legislation cannot work; one would have to go back to ordinary shared residence systems and support arranged in detail through a court. If the whole presupposition of the legislation is false, I do not see how it can work.
I shall now explain how I arrived at the figure of 140 nights. It seems to me to be a reasonable figure to take for an assumption that both parents regularly have care of the child. If one has a child for 140 nights in one's own house, that seems to me to be regular care. However, I will admit that I am not wedded to the figure of 140. If the Minister thought, for example, that it ought to be 150 or 160 nights, I would not necessarily wish to argue the toss with him. Nevertheless, I am asking the noble Lord to recognise that it is not true in every situation that one parent is absent. It is in order to make that point that I beg to move my amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I read this amendment with some puzzlement but I can see now what the noble Earl is driving at. However, it occurs to me, if we take the case of the absent parent, that if he makes sure that the child is with the parent with care for 141 nights, he can presumably avoid his responsibilities. Is that right? If he is in a much better financial situation than the parent with care, once one introduces this number of nights, is not one introducing the danger that by adding just one night to the figure that one chooses, the absent parent gets an opportunity to avoid his responsibilities for maintenance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Earl explained, this amendment seeks to remove from the jurisdiction of the Child Support Agency cases where the absent parent and the parent with care each provide at least 140 nights of care for a child over the course of a year. It means that, in these circumstances, a parent could obtain child maintenance only by application to the courts or by agreement.
The maintenance requirement is shared. It is not a matter of one parent's liability to another; it is a matter of both parents' liability to the child. There is a calculation in the formula as regards who has the resources. If both parents have sufficient resources, that shared liability operates. If one has the resources and the other has limited resources, there is what might be called a transfer of funds.
The existing provisions mean that an absent parent's maintenance liability is reduced where he is providing a significant amount of care for a child. We believe, as we debated at previous stages of the Bill, that an average of two nights a week continues to provide an appropriate benchmark. We can see no case at all for removing access to the agency from parents with care simply because an absent parent, who could be well off, is caring for a child for well under half the nights of the year.
I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and use the example of a case where an absent parent leaves the matrimonial home, taking with him the vast bulk of the family's income. Let us assume that he cares for his children for 150 nights of the year. The parent with care—although I suspect she would not then be defined as that—still has to care for the children for the other 215 nights of the year, but has no income to do this. The absent parent still has a responsibility for the children when they are not physically with him and should contribute where he can. There is, therefore, still a question of maintenance even where the absent parent provides significant amounts of care.
The amendment could potentially disadvantage all the parties. Children would not benefit from the consistent and realistic levels of maintenance which the agency provides because any awards of maintenance by the courts would be based on discretion. Parents with care would lose the advantages of the one-stop service for child maintenance which the agency can provide. Absent parents could not know with any degree of certainty what their maintenance obligations were going to be. Where the parent with care decided not to seek a child maintenance award, there would he increased benefit expenditure at the expense of taxpayers, many of whom are themselves bringing up children on low or moderate incomes. While I admire the cleverness of the noble Earl in thinking in his bath of a variation to the two amendments we have already discussed, I am afraid I cannot accept his clever try.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not know why the Minister supposes that I was in my bath; I was in my study at my desk. Not everything this Government know is in fact the case and we have at last managed to get that point demonstrated. I would like a reply from the Minister before we leave the issue. Does the Minister understand that there can be a situation between two

1873
parents in which neither of them can appropriately be classified as an absent parent? I take the point he made about the remaining 220 nights of the year. I told him that I was not going to argue over figures. However, I want to know—I shall give way if he can answer me—whether the Government can imagine a situation in which neither parent is properly classified as absent. That is what this amendment was put down to find out.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall respond to that. We accept that there are situations where the care is more shared than it is in many of the cases. Frankly, I think they will constitute a small number of cases. There is a mechanism for taking that into account when the liability is shared between the two so that if the absent parent looks after the child for more than the 104 nights in the year, that is the benchmark and some consideration is given to the fact. I suppose that that does not go as far as accepting that neither one is the parent with care and neither one is absent, but we always have to start from the position of having a parent with care and an absent parent even if we move towards—I suspect this happens in very few cases—a 50:50 division of the parents looking after the child. The situation will be catered for.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister seems to be telling me that all fathers are absent but some are more absent than others. I think it is a colossal a priori to assume—I think I have the Minister's words right—that we must always start from an absent parent. That shows the depth of a priori thinking behind the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand the debating point the noble Earl is making but, equally, I could say that we must always start with the parent with care. I suggest that in the case of every child, that can be fairly readily determined by the simple question of who receives the child benefit.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that itself is a question on which I must come back to the Minister, as I did with his predecessor, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. The Minister has chosen a bad example for his purpose. The rules for dividing child benefit between separated parents who share care are urgently in need of revision. It is causing widespread dissatisfaction and I have a large postbag about it. Therefore I think that the Minister was a little unwise to pick that example. He said that in the case I was envisaging the woman would he getting nothing. However, there still are courts and, if the Child Support Act ceased to have effect, they could have effect. They could deal with a situation where, because it would be unusual, discretion was needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested a parent might evade his responsibilities by having care of his child for 141 nights a year. That is a curious way of evading one's responsibilities because I should have thought one might be taking on as many responsibilities as one was evading, and one would not necessarily he the financial gainer by that either.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if the absent parent wishes to try to evade his responsibilities all he has to do is to ensure that he beats the limit by one night.
Earl Russell: My Lords, that is, of course, equally true of the 104 nights provision which we have at present. It has been said that that is an incentive to parents with care to deny access. If there is to he any limit at all, the point must apply. If we are not going to have a limit, we shall have to go back to thinking in terms of the Children Act and shared residence. I think I have opened up a can of worms but I am quite content to leave them to wriggle. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 12:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Applications by those receiving benefit—failure to comply: repeal of section 46 of 1991 Act.")
. Section 46 of the 1991 Act shall cease to have effect.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is one of the big ones and it deals with the benefit penalty; that is, the reduced benefit direction which falls on a woman who refuses to give information to collaborate with the agency. Most usually she refuses to name the father of the child. She is at present subject to a benefit penalty of 20 per cent. for the first year and 10 per cent. for a further six months. That is a draconian penalty. It risks bringing her below subsistence level and what is more it must risk physical hardship to the children. It is a great deal too severe.
The Minister says—I am sure that he is just about to say it again—that it is designed to induce her to think carefully before she decides whether to collaborate with the agency. It has done that. It has made many women collaborate with the agency who have already been victims of domestic violence and who are at risk of being so again. Indeed, in a number of cases which have come to me from CAB sources, they have been. The Minister will also say that if there were not a benefit penalty, women would have no incentive to co-operate with the agency. I can practically compose his speech for him. I am sure that it is already on tape. What the Minister says is, of course, true. Had the issue of the maintenance disregard not already been resolved, I should have thought that that was the practical way to do it. However, if it means that women have a voluntary choice as regards whether to co-operate with the agency, I would not regard that as nearly as terrible a consequence as the Minister would.
There has to he consent somewhere in the system or it will not operate. One can impose on some of the people all of the time or on all of the people some of the time, but one cannot impose on all of the people all of the time. Therefore, to make the system work there has to be free and willing consent to the working of the system from one parent or the other. We are not getting it from many of the absent parents. If the parent with care does not consent to the system either, it will not work.
I am giving the Minister every opportunity to preserve the Act if he can. He does not show a great eagerness to take it. If we did move to dealing only with parents

1875
with care who genuinely want the services of the agency I believe that it would manage a great deal better than it does at present. That would also avoid a considerable amount of cruelty. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl moved the amendment in Committee. I have already this afternoon, as I did previously in Committee and on Report, gone into some detail about the safeguards that I believe are built in to ensure that a parent with care is not put at risk. The reduced benefit direction only comes into play if the parent with care has refused to co-operate in the pursuit of maintenance without good cause. The noble Earl has heard my speech on a number of occasions and I have heard his, so we are going round the same bush. Nothing surprises me, and he tells your Lordships that he will not be surprised by what I am about to say. That is because my view is totally consistent and correct, as the noble Earl believes is his.
The purpose of the reduced benefit direction is to make a parent with care think very carefully about her decision not to co-operate in seeking maintenance. We believe that it is right as a matter of principle that parents with care should co-operate unless there is good reason why they should not do so. We addressed that issue earlier at some length. The amendment would mean that parents with care could wilfully refuse to co-operate without sanction. For the reasons I have already given, we believe that the sanction should be retained.
The noble Earl suggested that accepting the amendment would help me to preserve the Act. I cannot understand how making co-operation entirely voluntary would help me to preserve the Act. He has not in any way convinced me in that regard. I am afraid that, as on the previous occasions when we have discussed the matter, I cannot possibly accept the amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to withdraw it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree that we all think that our opinions are correct, but the effect of the amendment would not he to make my opinion or the Minister's opinion, or anyone else's, to be taken as correct, it would be to make the woman's opinion to be taken as correct.
The Minister talks about good cause. How much do we really know about what goes on in the privacy of other people's marriages? How much do we really know about whether the woman has good cause? Most women have a built-in sixth sense which gives them a sense of danger when they are in the company of a particular man. If a woman has that sense of danger about a partner she has left she may be unable to give a rational account of it to any official in the country. Yet she may be quite right. Even if she is wrong, if she has that built-in sense of danger she ought to be able to avoid being forced back into contact with that man.
Once again the Minister is setting up the bureaucracy as the ultimate judge of right and wrong. That is something which, in this Bill, we on these Benches have always found profoundly offensive.
1876
The Minister also says that he does not understand how it could make the Act more secure if people were voluntarily able to refuse to co-operate with it. The Minister knows about volunteering. He knows about consent. He knows that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. He knows—at least he ought to know—that the agency cannot get through its work because it is snowed under dealing with people who are refusing to co-operate. As Miss Chant said last week, even women refuse to co-operate.
If the Minister chooses to use all his powder on forcing in to the system people who will not consent and never will consent, then the Act will come to an end rather sooner than it would have done otherwise. That is the Minister's choice. If that is what he wants, let him have it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 15:
Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
("Removal of carer's allowance from maintenance requirement
.—(1) Schedule I to the 1991 Act shall be amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph I of Schedule Ito the 1991 Act, for sub-paragraphs (a) (b) and (c) there shall be substituted—

"(a) with respect to each qualifying child, an amount equal to the amount specified in column (2) to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 for a person of the same age (income support personal allowance for a child or young person); and

(b) an amount equal to the amount specified in paragraph 3 of that Schedule (income support family premium)."

(3) In sub-paragraph (2) of the said Schedule, for

"MR = AG—CB"

there shall be substituted

"MR = AG",

and the definition of CB shall be omitted."").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 concerns the carer's allowance. That is the element in the formula which is paid to the parent with care for the care of the child. The inequity arises where there is a second marriage and there is an allowance for care for the first wife but no such allowance for the second.
The Minister may say that caring for children costs money. Anyone who does it freely forfeits earning power. That is true enough, but if it is true in one marriage why is it not true in the other? I could see the sense if the formula allowed the carer's allowance for both the first marriage and the second. Or I could see the sense if it were allowed in neither. What I do not see is the ground for the discrimination which gives it to the first marriage but not to the second. Is this intended as a tax on second marriages? If so, will the Minister admit it? And what does he think the public will say about it? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the spirit of the amendment but perhaps not with the consequences in quite the way the noble Earl, Lord Russell, intends. In this day and age it is not particularly sensible to assume that a payment must be made to a parent as a carer. I believe that the proposal would reduce the amount of acrimony that the noble

1877
Earl rightly identified when the mother of the second family does not appear to be recognised in the same way as the mother of the first family.
Having said that, I believe that the right solution is that the entire package of maintenance should be re-apportioned so that there are higher child allowances rather than one allowance to the mother as carer and additional allowances for each of the children. I do not believe that there should be any reduction in maintenance flowing into a first family, but it should be treated as it ought to be, as child support rather than mother support. That would be a much better, fairer and more realistic definition of what the Child Support Agency seeks to do.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I recall that we had a thorough debate on this issue at Committee stage. The noble Earl explained that the amendment is intended primarily to remove the carer element from the calculation of the maintenance requirement—the amount which is calculated to meet the child's basic maintenance needs. He again argued that the carer element is a cause of inequity between parents with care and new partners of absent parents and that many second wives feel that they are paying maintenance to the first. The noble Baroness offered me an elegant way out of the dilemma, with the same amount of money going to the first family. I am intrigued by it. However, I think that probably the second wives and the absent parents would still consider that they were paying money to the first wife.
The maintenance requirement, of which the carer element is a part, is not the bill that is presented to the absent parent. It is an amount that we feel represents the basic maintenance needs of a child. It is not the sum paid to the parent with care, but an amount which both parents should contribute if they can afford to do so. Once the maintenance requirement has been established, then both parents are assessed to see how much they can afford to contribute towards those maintenance needs. Where a parent with care has assessable income of her own, then she is assessed as contributing towards the maintenance requirement, including the carer element. That has the effect of reducing the amount that the absent parent is required to pay.
That is a fundamental principle of the 1991 Act. Section 1(1) states:
"Each parent of a qualifying child is responsible for maintaining him".
Therefore it is wrong to say that absent parents are paying spousal maintenance for the first wife. I realise that in the majority of cases the parents with care do not contribute to the maintenance requirement because they do not have sufficient income. I have gone over that issue many times. The noble Earl is quite wrong to argue that the formula favours first wives. If first wives can afford to contribute to the maintenance requirement, they do so. The fact that the majority cannot afford to do so is clear evidence, as I have said before, that in a large proportion of cases, even after paying maintenance, second families are still much better off than the parents with care.
1878
The noble Earl argued that second wives are, in effect, supporting first wives. I do not agree with that. An absent parent's basic liability under the formula is based on his own income and outgoings. If he has a new partner and stepchildren, no regard is had to his new partner's income. However, if paying the assessed amount would cause hardship, then the protected income provisions, under which the income and outgoings of the whole family are taken into account, can reduce the amount that he has to pay. Here the new partner's income is relevant but only in determining by how much the proper liability can be reduced. In such cases, her income can never serve to increase his basic liability. In other words, this hardship provision allows an absent parent to meet the needs of his second wife where she does not have sufficient income to support herself.
In those circumstances, therefore, she and her children are given priority over the absent parent's duty to maintain the children of his first marriage. However, the amendment that the noble Earl would have the House accept would greatly reduce the amount of money going to the first wife and her children.
I come back to the principle that I have stated over and again. People cannot walk away from the consequences of their first marriage or, if not marriage, their first partnership. They cannot shrug it off on the taxpayer. They have to face up to their responsibilities just as the ordinary couple with a happy marriage have to face up to whether they can afford to have more children than, say, the two or three they have. They come to the conclusion that they cannot. They have to live within their means.
The absent parent has some responsibility to think in the same way as the man who is happily married, looks after his wife and family and pays his taxes. I believe that the responsibility as outlined at present, with the way in which the money is apportioned, is right, just and proper to the children of the first marriage. It ensures that those children receive some of the money that the absent parent is due to pay in facing up to his responsibilities to look after them. As I said when we debated the issue previously, that includes the person who has to look after them. The children cannot be on their own, by themselves. I think I said that unlike days of ancient Rome, or perhaps before, children could not go out and find a friendly she-wolf. They have a mother. She is the parent with care. I believe that her position as the carer has to be taken into account in building up the total maintenance.
I very much hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment, because I am afraid, as previously, that I cannot accept it.
6 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not argue with the Minister when he states that people simply cannot walk away from their first families. What I should like to hear him say is that when their first marriages have, regrettably, broken down and they have in good faith undertaken second marriages, they cannot walk away from their second families either.

1879
The question that I wished to hear him answer was this. Why is there no carer's allowance for the second wife? I may possibly have been distracted and, if so, I apologise to him. But I did not hear an answer to that question. 1 should very much like to hear an answer to it before I decide what to do with the amendment.
The children of the second wife cannot go out and find a she-wolf either. They have to be cared for. Every argument that the Minister put forward for a carer's allowance applies just as strongly to the second wife as to the first wife. I simply do not understand why one is allowed a carer's allowance and the other is not. Has the Minister any answer to give me on that?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that there really is a huge gulf between the noble Earl and myself. Dare I say this to him? The two "walk aways" that he describes are not simultaneous. The first walk away takes place before the second. Such matters have to he taken into account. I believe that the responsibility is there and is clear.
Regarding the position of the second wife, as I have said on a number of occasions, all the evidence, including the way in which the formula works, shows that the second family is a great deal better off than the first family. What the noble Earl seeks to do would increase that disparity against the interests of the parent with care and the first family. That is why I believe that there is a major gulf between us.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it may or may not be true that the second family is usually better off than the first. It is certainly not true that the second family is always better off than the first. But, however badly off the family is, there is not a carer's allowance for the second family.
What the Minister has just announced is a very deliberate intention of setting up a formula to discriminate against second families which were entered into in good faith before this Act was under way. Once people have children—they did not ask to he born—the responsibilities to them need attention also.
There are quite a number of voters who belong to second families. I hope that the Minister will tell them too. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not mored.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 17:
Before Clause IX. insert the following new clause:
("Welfare of child a primary consideration.")
. In any transaction or decision under the 1991 Act or this Act. the welfare of any child affected shall be a primary consideration.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the statutory reference to the welfare of the child or children. We debated this at length at Report stage. It is an extraordinarily difficult problem. I do not think that any of us was satisfied that we had found the right solution, except perhaps the Minister, who is as incurably optimistic as he is able and courteous, which is saying a great deal.
1880
At Report stage, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, proposed that the welfare of the child should be paramount or, to put it another way, that those concerned with decision making under the 1991 Act and this Bill should have paramount regard to the welfare of the child.
I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was entirely happy. The Minister gave reasons for disagreeing with that approach. However, he proposed instead that the matter was taken care of by the formula in Schedule I to the 1991 Act. That is doubly misconceived. First, it is perfectly absurd to suppose that a matter that requires such fine tuning as the welfare of a child, and giving regard to the welfare of a child, can be the subject of a formulaic approach.
Secondly, our experience of the way in which the formula has worked so capriciously and frequently so unjustly gives us no confidence that it is a proper measure for the welfare of the child. In consequence of that debate, I wrote as soon as possible to the Minister. With all the hurry and stress of the litigation he has had no opportunity of replying by letter. I suggested that the test should be that those concerned should have primary regard to the welfare of the child or, to put it another way, that the welfare of the child should be the primary consideration. It was in every way desirable that those who put their name to this amendment—that is the noble Earl, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter—and the Minister, his advisers, his legal advisers and the draftsman should have been able to discuss this important matter between Report stage and Third Reading. For the reasons which your Lordships now know, abundantly, that was not possible.
Perhaps I may say why I believe that the test I propose is preferable, standing intermediately with what the noble Earl proposed and the Minister's counter proposal. I take it as axiomatic that the formula solution is utterly unsuitable. Therefore, one needs to find something less unsuitable. If one says that the primary consideration shall be the welfare of the child, it involves a double approach. At any rate, that is how I would interpret the words. The duty of any decision-maker under the 1991 Act or this Bill is to look first to see how the welfare of the child is affected. Secondly, the primary consideration of the welfare of the child should prevail unless there is some other consideration which is substantially more weighty.
I need to make only one other point. I referred to the welfare of any child affected being a paramount consideration because there may he more than one child. That was one of the fundamental failures in 1991, not to appreciate that there might he many children whose welfare should he considered. I hope that what I suggest will enable all the children to he considered. Let their welfare he the first and ultimate thing to be considered, unless there is some other over-weighing consideration, which may he the welfare of another child. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, on the ingenuity of the phrasing of his amendment to which I was pleased

1881
to add my name. The noble and learned Lord, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I are founder members of the "Welfare of the Child" club because we discussed it at every stage of the 1991 Act and now at every stage of this Bill. As everyone knows, we have made numerous attempts to try to strengthen the proposition to see whether we can find a form of words which the Government could accept and which would cover the point we are trying to make.
As the Minister knows, we went right through the 1991 Act and in the end, through an amendment in the other place to a Lords amendment, the Government produced Clause 2 of the 1991 Act. It states that where any discretionary power is involved, the child support officer,
"shall have regard to the welfare of any child".
We believe that in practice that is not working and we have anecdotal evidence to that effect. It is not being given the consideration that it should receive. If the Minister accepts the principle that some improvement needs to be made and that this wording is not exactly right, the only way to deal with the matter is for the Government to accept the amendment and amend the Bill in another place.
I believe that the words which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, devised, "a primary consideration", meet the case. I looked up the word "primary" in the Concise Oxford Dictionary and the definition is:
"of the first rank in a series".
That definition seems to me exactly to fit the circumstances which we are discussing that the welfare of the child is first, but in a series of considerations. Therefore, it is the primary consideration.
I expect that the Minister will put legal arguments against the exact use of the word. However, he should say whether it is only in the phraseology or whether it is the principle that is at stake. I believe that the noble and learned Lord used a good description and definition. If the Minister attempts to say, as he did at previous stages, that his approach to the problem is to deal with it through guidance wording in the code of practice which I believe is being drafted, could he say exactly how it will he done? What wording will be used in the guidance and code of practice if there are arguments for not putting the provision on the face of the Bill? I believe it is a good argument. The words are right, they meet all the points that we made at the previous stage of the Bill and I hope that the Government will be able to accept the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too wish to congratulate the noble and learned Lord on devising the wording of the amendment. It is probably as good as we can get and it is needed. The Children's Society study, Losing Support, to which I referred earlier today, devotes a whole chapter to the effect of the implementation of the Act on the children. The study is not particularly encouraging. It reports what it calls,
"deterioration in the quality of contact".
The method of the survey is based on a case study of a series of individuals and it gives the direct speech, usually of the parent with care speaking, but in one case the child. One says:
1882
"They [children] can't understand what the Child Support Agency is … They just know that he didn't pay for the Christmas presents, that he didn't contribute to the birthday presents".
Another says, talking of her son going out with the father for the day:
"He always used to go to MacDonalds, but the last time he took him out for a Saturday he took him into [town]. It was bitterly cold … They'd been walking round town all day, sat in the car to eat sandwiches. When he came back he'd gone that purply-blue colour … He's saying he can't afford to take him to MacDonalds … I think he's cutting down".
Another said that her son,
"would come back to the house, rush upstairs, slam the door and refuse to speak to me—once he accused me of all kinds of things his father had told him which were real distortions of facts".
In another case, the son said:
"Why are they doing it?— I thought they were supposed to be for the children and not upset us like this".
There are many more examples like that. The study could not find a single case in which the relations of the child with the parents had benefited as a result of the Act.
When we find something causing this much unhappiness and distress, opening up old sores, creating new conflicts, there ought to be some give in it. It ought to be possible to retreat a little from the formula if implementing it causes so much unhappiness.
Perhaps I may remind the House that I speak as a child of divorced parents. I know just how much argument these matters can generate. I am truly thankful that my parents did not have the CSA to contend with. I do not know how much mischief it could have caused. There must be a machinery to allow a retreat when the Act causes real psychological and physical harm, as, given the cases I quoted, it may well be doing. I am glad that this amendment is on the Marshalled List. I am happy to support it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment would introduce a new clause which would require the welfare of any child affected by any transaction or decision under the Child Support Act to be a primary, or first, consideration, whether the decision was a discretionary one or not.
We have had extensive discussions on the existing welfare of the child provision in Section 2 of the 1991 Act several times during the progress of this Bill. That existing provision ensures that the welfare of the children who may be affected is taken into account when discretionary decisions are made. As I have indicated during previous debates, I have no evidence that the Child Support Agency's staff arc failing to consider welfare. I shall come to the point about how they are guided shortly. I understand the concerns that noble Lords have to ensure that this House safeguards the position of children involved in child support cases. However, I believe that Parliament made the right decision in 1991 when it approved the wording in Section 2 of the 1991 Act.
This amendment goes further than that in two respects. First, it introduces a need to consider the welfare of all the children concerned in relation not only to discretionary decisions but also in relation to any non-discretionary decision or transaction made under

1883
the legislation. And, secondly, it would put the welfare of the children, all of the children, as the first consideration.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale suggested in his contribution to the debate and in a letter to me that the expression "a primary consideration" would mean that those concerned should have primary regard to the welfare of the child. He suggests that this would involve one or other, or both, of two approaches: first, that those concerned should look first at the welfare of the child; and, secondly, that the welfare of the child should prevail unless some other consideration was significantly more weighty. While I understand what the noble and learned Lord wishes to achieve, I do not think that this amendment presents a workable alternative to the existing provision in Section 2 of the 1991 Act. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "primary" as meaning of the first importance, or of the first order in any sequence or process—as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out. For example, if each child's welfare is a first consideration in each case, it would be very difficult to determine whether the child of the first family or of the second family should take priority when a decision has to be made.
The amendment refers to any transaction or decision under the 1991 Act or this Act, and so it seeks to import consideration of the child's welfare into all decisions on child maintenance. But, as I hope to persuade the House, this is meaningless as it applies to decisions where there is no discretion. I think it might be helpful if we considered for a moment what that would mean in practice.
Let us look at the way the amendment would affect the decision-making process in relation to the maintenance assessment itself. As part of the assessment-making process the agency would be required to establish whether there were any matters relating to the welfare of the children in either of the households concerned, or in any of several households in some cases. They would then have to consider what difference welfare of the children should make to the assessment outcome. Here we have several problems. There is no provision in the legislation relating to the formula for the assessment to be varied for discretionary reasons other than under the departure system introduced in this Bill. In effect, therefore, having decided that the formula amount is wrong in the light of the welfare needs of one or more of the children, the agency cannot do anything to adjust the amount in payment.
Notwithstanding this difficulty, let us consider how the agency might find that the assessment needed to be altered. In some cases, the agency might decide that no maintenance should be paid by the absent parent so that his own children living with him did not suffer the reduction in income which an increase in maintenance payments would cause. This, however, would lead to difficulty for the parent with care and her children. She might argue that instead of the absent parent being discharged from his obligation, he should in fact pay
1884
more because of the welfare needs of the children living with her. It is not clear how the agency would decide which child's needs took priority—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that I drew his attention to a case that was decided in 1926 which makes it clear, even if the word "primary" does not, that there may be other considerations. That also takes care of the case where there are two children both of whose welfare must be considered. The decision-maker must look at both children as a primary consideration and must balance the two. I believe that that is taken care of by the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I appreciate the reference to the 1926 case. I know that the noble and learned Lord regards it as relevant. The judge held that the statutory phrase "first and paramount" did not preclude other considerations. However, that case was heard quite a long time ago, in an era when parents' rights were all-important. The Children Act 1989 sought to move away from rights over a child to responsibility towards a child. While I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord sees an importance in that case, Re Thain, I am not sure that I can agree with him, given the long passage of time and the quite different circumstances of today. Perhaps I may—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble will remember that ultimately it was a decision of the Court of Appeal, and so far as I know it has not been dissented from in any way.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, my Lords, the noble and learned Lord is correct. However, my point still stands. The case was settled all those years ago in quite a different climate. We have moved on from there. That may indicate that I do not give the primacy to the opinions of courts of some time ago that perhaps I ought to give. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will forgive a non-lawyer for deciding that perhaps we ought to try to look at the world of today, and not the world as it was when that case was determined in 1926.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, it might be considered that we have moved back.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, on anybody's arithmetic, 1995 is moving on from 1926.
As I was saying, it is not clear how the welfare of each child would he the first consideration.
On the other hand, there may he a situation where the absent parent has no second family. The welfare of the child consideration in that situation might result in a decision to maximise the payments to the child at the expense of the needs of the parent.
I have already said that the agency has no discretion, even after this amendment, to vary the answer provided by the formula except in so far as the departure provisions in this Bill will introduce discretion. And so the obvious question is: why would it be necessary for them to consider this matter at this stage, reaching decisions that they cannot implement? I find it difficult to see how the agency can consider welfare when it has

1885
no discretionary power to change the outcome. Once the assessment has been completed, the absent parent is requested to start making payment. If he fails to do so, the question of enforcement action will arise. At this stage, discretionary decisions may be needed, and at that time the welfare of the children concerned will be considered. The existing legislation and wording of Section 2 of the 1991 Act already deals with that.
I hope that this example gives an indication of the difficulties that could arise if this amendment were accepted. As I said on Report, the formula takes proper account of the financial needs of the children, both those for whom maintenance is an issue and other children in the households concerned. The formula provides for various allowances in exempt and protected income. Indeed, through the allowance in protected income it provides for the second wife. It provides for her own living expenses rather than for her as a carer of the children. That matter exercised the noble Earl in an earlier debate. So the formula caters for the varying ages and special needs of the children. I believe that it was the aim of Parliament in 1991 that the welfare of the child, in the sense of the child's proper support, should be achieved through the introduction of a formula based on objective criteria rather than discretion. I believe that that continues to be the best way to deal with the vast majority of cases. It would not he helpful to the children for whom maintenance is due to return to a situation in which their chances of receiving maintenance depended on a discretionary decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me how that worked on the ground. From the time that staff begin working for the agency their training stresses the importance of consideration of the welfare of the child and explains its relevance. My honourable friend, Mr. Burt, who was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, explained to the Committee in another place that discretionary decisions must bear in mind the welfare of any affected children. Throughout the guidance and bulletins issued by the agency for staff exercising decisions on behalf of the Secretary of State and in guidance issued by the Chief Child Support Officer, those requirements are reinforced at every stage where a discretionary decision must be taken—for example, in relation to the requirement to co-operate and stages in the enforcement process.
In Committee, I said that I had no evidence to suggest that officials were failing to consider the welfare of the child where it was appropriate to do so. However, we are in the process of preparing more comprehensive guidance, which draws together in one place the various issues in relation to welfare that should be borne in mind when discretionary decisions are made. The agency makes most of its manuals available to advisers and others on request. That further guidance on the welfare of the child will also be made available on request in due course when it is drawn up.
I hope that I have persuaded your Lordships that this amendment would introduce significant difficulties into the child support system with no beneficial consequences to the children. With that explanation, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment,
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am grateful particularly for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Earl. But I am also grateful to the noble Lord for his very full explanation. As for discretionary decisions, Section 2 at the moment prevails. That merely says that "regard" shall be had to the welfare of the child. That is virtually useless. It merely means that lip service, or eye service, may be paid to the welfare of the child and the decision maker then passes on.
This amendment at any rate gives a little more in "primary" regard—the first consideration. But in the end, the Minister comes back to the formula. In my submission, even if the formula were successful and proved its success, it is an utterly unsuitable way to deal with the welfare of children. It is much too rigid and quite impracticable.
Going through various press cuttings at the weekend, I came across a most informative article with the headline:
"Children are the real victims of CSA purge on absent fathers".
It has not worked out properly and that is only one respect in which the formula has shown its absurdity. The most absurd was the notorious application of the formula which left an absent father with only one penny a week. But it is simply unsuitable to apply a formula to measure the welfare of a child. As that article whose headline I just cited shows, it has not worked out beneficially for children.
Your Lordships may remember that there was a pair of opening batsmen for one county who sought to put off the fielders by calling "No" when they meant "Yes" and "Yes" when they meant "No". Of course they ran each other out very quickly. The Minister is in no danger of confusion. I think that every one of his notes on amendments has ended with "Reject". He has said firmly "No" meaning "No", and meaning "I shall get my supporters whipped into the Lobby against the amendment". Nevertheless, this is such an important matter that the view of the House ought to be taken on it.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 84.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Berkeley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mayhew, L.

Craigavon, V.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Dubs, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Eatwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Erroll, E.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Seear. B.

Fitt, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tope, L.

Hamwee, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Harris of Greenwich. L.

White, B.

1887

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Leigh, L.

Ailsa, M.

Lindsay, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Long, V.

Ampthill, L.

Lucas, L.

Annaly, L.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bethell, L.

Birdwood, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blaker, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Blatch, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Milverton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountevans, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Munster, E.

Burnham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cadman, L.

Newall, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Norrie, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Courtown, E.

Orkney, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Oxfuird, V.

Pender, L.

Denham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rennell, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gisborough, L.

Selborne, E.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hacking, L.

Stewartby, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strange, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hogg, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Vivian, L.

Kingsland, L.

Wise, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.43 p.m.
Clause 18 [Deferral of right to apply for maintenance assessment]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 13, line 36, at beginning insert (""Subject to subsection (10A),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 21. Amendment No. 18 is a paving amendment for the main amendment, Amendment No. 21.
Amendment No. 21 seeks to allow second families and absent parents who are also parents with care, who have had pre-April 1993 agreements overturned and as a result are paying increased child maintenance, to apply to the CSA for increased maintenance for the children living with them. When this matter was debated at Committee stage in the other place, the response of the Government was that the deferral was needed for administrative reasons; that it would be unfair to allow
1888
some of the pre-April 1993 settlements into the CSA and not others, and anyway those families could go back to the court for an increase in the maintenance order.
The argument about it being unfair to allow some people into the system and not others is flawed when one realises that the majority of those with pre-April 1993 orders or agreements are already in the CSA system because the parent with care is in receipt of benefit. We would go on to argue that it is unreasonable and unfair to have brought some old cases into the scheme irrespective of whether the parent with care wished to have the original agreement overturned, but to bar those parents with care who want the original agreement to be replaced by a CSA assessment. It is also not reasonable to argue that second families can go back to the courts. It is precisely because of the problems with the court system that the CSA was introduced—the Minister has said that many times—and in any case many second families cannot afford the court costs, especially as they are now paying out under a CSA maintenance assessment.
When the Minister replies, perhaps he can give us some idea of the numbers of cases involved. The category we are describing must be far smaller than the approximately 300,000 pre-April 1993 cases which are still waiting to be taken on by the CSA. We would like to ask why the later compulsory cases are not deferred instead, especially when we accept that benefit claimants who want maintenance can apply of their own volition. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, we on these Benches support this amendment, if not all of the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in moving it. The Government have got themselves into a mess with what is known as a pig-in-the-middle situation where there is a second family; the father is paying out maintenance to his children by his first wife, but no maintenance is coming into the household for the second wife's children by her previous husband. That causes a good deal of confusion, mess and hardship. It is the sort of thing that happens if one follows formulas blindly without seeing where they lead. I hope that something will be done about it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I have previously explained during consideration of this Bill, the Government's original plan was that all cases would come into the agency's jurisdiction within four years. That will not prove possible because of the problems faced by the agency and the need to introduce new procedures, particularly the departures scheme. We would not want to jeopardise the smooth introduction of other provisions by taking on these cases immediately.
I understand the difficulties that face a parent with care who receives only a small amount of maintenance through a court order, while her current partner pays out a larger amount of maintenance in child support. If the CSA were to accept an application from a parent with care whose current partner pays child support maintenance there would of course be no guarantee that the agency's assessment would he significantly more than the court order.

1889
The mere fact that the family finances have been affected by a child support assessment is a change of circumstances which could he put to the court in support of an application to vary the court maintenance order. Although there is no obligation on the courts to have regard to the levels of child support obtained under the formula assessment, the courts are aware of the principles and effect of the child support formula and the levels of maintenance it produces.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked how many cases we thought might fall into that category. Our best estimate is around 5,000, though that can be no more than au estimate. However, I am advised that the intended effect of this amendment can he achieved by introducing regulations under the power in Clause 18(7), so no further amendment to the Bill would be needed. Having said that, I do not want to mislead the House in regard to our intentions. Our priority must be to secure improvements in the level of service presently offered by the agency to ensure the smooth introduction of the departures system and to provide maintenance for those who have no access to the courts.
There would he nothing to prevent a decision to put people in this category at the head of the queue when the time is right for the take-on of those deferred cases in the future. It is too soon to say when that take-on will begin because we shall have to make a judgment in the light of the situation at the time. I should not like anybody to think that I am making anything in the way of a promise. Undoubtedly that could he done if one wished to do it in the future by using the regulation-making power under Clause 18(7).
I know how suspicious some noble Lords are in relation to regulation-making powers. But dare I say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that his confidence in the outcome of the next election will he judged by how closely he tests me in this regard because the regulation-making power will he there, if he is highly confident, to make the changes he wishes. If his confidence is a little less than he likes us to believe it is, then perhaps he will try to press me on that. However, I can assure him that the regulations are there. I am not giving a commitment, hut I am explaining that if one wanted to do it in the future when the position of the agency was better than it is today the power is certainly there to do it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister. I have a good deal of confidence about the result of the next election. There will be much the same majorities as the Government have been achieving today. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support. I was struck by the Minister's expression—to jeopardise the smooth introduction of the scheme. We heard that during the proceedings on the 1991 Bill, If there is a problem with a parent having to work out the formula, I remind the House that at Report stage we pointed out that an excellent child support handbook has been produced by the Child Poverty Action Group. It would enable the parents to work out the formula before they went to the agency and they could see whether it was worth while.
1890
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for saying that 5,000 cases would be involved. That means that the Government are saying that they could use the regulations, that the number of cases involved is small and it would not he a very heavy burden, but in principle they choose not to do so. That is interesting. He hinted—as he said, without commitment—that when everything is working well these cases should he somewhere near the head of the queue. Under a Labour Government they will be at the head of the queue. However, I have not said that we will introduce the regulations to allow this to happen because there might be some public expenditure implications. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 23 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Repayment of overpaid child support maintenance]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 19, line 7, at end insert:
("(6A) For the purposes of this section any payments made by a person under a maintenance assessment which was not validly made shall be treated as overpayments of child support maintenance made by an absent parent.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this minor amendment is needed to ensure that the policy intention that all overpayments should come within the scope of the provisions in Clause 23 is achieved, including, in particular, payments of child support maintenance that should not have been paid at all. I regret that it has proved necessary to introduce an amendment at this late stage.
The clause as currently drafted does not include within its provisions overpayments arising from assessments which were not validly made. Invalid assessments can arise in a number of ways. For example, it may he established following a review or appeal that the Child Support Agency had no jurisdiction to make an assessment. Such cases might include those where the absent parent was not habitually resident in the UK, or there was no qualifying child, or there was already a written maintenance agreement made before 5th April 1993. Cases might also arise where the absent parent accepted paternity at the time the assessment was made but subsequently disputed it and was found not to he the father. We do not expect there to he many of these cases but it was always the intention that they should come within the provisions of this clause. Without the amendment absent parents who have overpayments arising from such circumstances could find it difficult to recover those payments. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord said that there would he only a small number of such cases. Can he give an indication of the number'?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords. I am afraid I cannot. I would perhaps he wrong if I guessed at a number. There were very few indeed—very many fewer than the 5,000 I mentioned earlier.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Compensation payments]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 19, line 27, 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 Baroness said: My Lords, with this amendment we are revisiting the problem of family credit and the six-month rule. Hardship is caused where maintenance is not received on time, or is reduced in a review, or where the Child Support Agency—the collection agency—has not been competent. Because the family credit of the woman or parent with care has been fixed assuming a level of maintenance which she does not receive, yet, at the same time, her family credit cannot be adjusted for up to six months, she can suffer very real hardship for that period.
None of us has argued that we want to abandon the six-month rule as such but we argued from both the Opposition Benches at the Committee and Report stages that where the CSA was the collection agency it should pay the sum represented by the combined family credit and maintenance it would and should have collected irrespective of whether the maintenance remains unchanged. In other words, it would uncouple the payment to the mother from the collection from the father, just as the CSA now does in cases of income support. There is no difference in principle between the two.
The Government resisted this proposal on one rather simple argument—that there were winners and losers with the six-month rule and tough luck! I am sure that that is infinitely comforting to mothers with small children who will be among the losers; those who have an income which may fall below poverty level. I rather doubt that they will be so comforted by the knowledge that other people have gained. Hence we have brought forward this fallback amendment, which does not go as far as those put forward at Committee and Report stages but is a last effort to give women whose maintenance payments fluctuate at least a modest degree of protection.
It would offer partial compensation. It would ensure that no family credit or DWA claimants end up worse off than they would have done had they been without any CSA assessment. It takes into account the Government's argument that not all family credit or DWA claimants have the full CSA assessment taken into account in the first instance—for example, if the absent parent has not been making the payments before the benefit calculation. What we are suggesting here is that compensation should equal the amount of maintenance taken into account after the £15 maintenance disregard has been applied where that is larger than 50 per cent. of the actual reduction.
This is very much a fallback position but it would at least prevent some women on family credit and women on DWA losing out. We believe that the increased expenditure is insignificant; we do not believe that it
1892
will be difficult, in this age of information technology and computers, to administer; and, while protecting the six-month rule, it will ensure that where maintenance falls, a woman is not left for up to six months with an income very much below what the Government think she needs to live on. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is a serious problem. We support the amendment for very much the same reasons as the noble Baroness. I would add only a request that the Minister sends on these debates to those dealing with the replies to the consultation paper on earnings top-up, where some of the same questions may need to be considered.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the fact that we are revisiting this matter means that I was not persuasive enough in responding when an identical amendment was set down at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the problem was that we were not persuasive enough.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there we are. As I said, it was a complicated issue. I may even have said at that stage that it might have been easier if we had had overhead projectors or something to show the difficult calculations. But the intention of the amendment is to ensure that parents with care who receive family credit are fully compensated for any reduction in their maintenance arising from changes in child support legislation. I understand the intention behind the noble Baroness's amendment, but the proposal she makes runs into two difficulties.
First, it does not compensate a considerable number of parents who will be compensated by the Government's proposals. Secondly, it is extremely complex and time-consuming to implement, whereas the Government's proposals seek to deliver compensation speedily at the time income is lost and when help is most needed.
There is no simple way in which to identify the "right" amount of compensation where the maintenance assessment reduces for a parent with care on family credit. As I have explained before, the maintenance which is taken into account for family credit is the maintenance actually in payment immediately before the date of the claim. That would be less than the maintenance assessed in many cases where the absent parent was not meeting full liability. In some cases no maintenance will have been taken into account in the family credit award where the maintenance assessment was made later on in the six months' period. A compensation scheme based on the family credit award, as the noble Baroness's would be, does not help parents with care whose maintenance payments began after the award was made, yet their loss of income is real.
The noble Baroness's proposal also does not help parents whose maintenance is below the disregard level of £15. Nothing is taken into account in their family credit and under the noble Baroness's formula, the assistance to them would be zero whereas under our formula they would get some assistance. Our proposals

1893
aim to sidestep these problems by looking at the maintenance assessment itself and comparing the old and new assessment. That has the added advantage that compensation is quick and easy to deliver.
As I have explained before, our proposal is to compensate at the rate of 50 per cent. of the reduction in the maintenance assessment. That is intended to provide a broad measure of support. To compensate at any higher rate would over compensate the majority of cases because the potential effect of the reduction on the family credit would always be somewhat less than the reduction itself. That is partly for the reasons I have explained about the basis of the family credit award and the f15 disregard, and partly because at least 30 per cent. of all income is effectively disregarded in assessing the benefit.
I accept now, as I accepted before, that our proposal is not perfect. There is not a fully satisfactory way of identifying a compensation figure without enormously intrusive and lengthy inquiries, which would miss the point of compensation for loss to he there when the loss occurs. I very much welcome the noble Baroness's agreement that it is important that we stick to the concept of the six months' period of family credit. In my view, that perhaps remains a more important principle. That is why our proposal, which does not interfere with that, is the right way forward. The proposal we have is likely to be more generous to more people and thus more effective in meeting need than the amendment we now have before us. With that further explanation of the inter-relationship between family credit and any reduction in maintenance during the six months' period, I hope that the noble Baroness will he able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was listening very carefully. I did not understand quite a lot of the Minister's reply because what he said is not my understanding of most of the structure of the family credit benefit. As far as I can understand, he seemed to be focusing on the changes in the protection offered to women following the changes that the Government were introducing under their own steam.
In this amendment I was not so much concerned with the changes that the Government were introducing. They accept that they have an obligation to compensate. I was not arguing with that because that is accepted. I was trying to protect against future changes in maintenance which follow not from the Government's change in the rules, but from the changing situation in which the father who is paying finds himself. I was trying to overcome the situation where, for example, a mother has an assessment based on the husband's maintenance, which quite properly reduces with his changes in circumstances. As a result, the maintenance may be halved or even fall below that, but because the woman's family credit was determined one month before the payer's circumstances dramatically worsened, she is stuck at a level of family credit which is inadequate to float her off the poverty line. Those were the circumstances that we were trying to deal with—not the consequences of the Government's action. We expect them to take responsibility for what they have done. Where there are other circumstances over which
1894
the Government, the mother or indeed the father, have no control we are seeking to make a more flexible family credit system.
I believe that the Minister's answer was addressed to either a misreading of the amendment or perhaps there is a fault in the amendment as drafted. But the intention certainly was to offer a fallback to what we pressed for on an earlier occasion—that is to say, that the CSA would ensure that the full maintenance was paid as though it were the figure at which the family credit was originally assessed at the beginning of the six months period, in exactly the same way as income support is paid. That would not have been difficult because the sums are perfectly easy to work out. It would also have been fair.
As it is, we are left with the problem that if the woman fears that her husband's income will fluctuate, she would be very wise to go back onto income support in order to get the maximum sum and on that basis to go into a family credit situation where she will get the full sum. This is extremely worrying. I believe that there was an estimate of about 50,000 women who can expect maintenance to fall, family credit not to compensate and to he poorer as a result.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the problem with the noble Baroness's amendment is that it is inserted in Clause 24. Subsection (1) of the clause refers to,
"compensation or partial compensation for any reduction which is attributable to one or more prescribed changes in child support legislation".
I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making. I believe I answered her amendment as it is placed in the Bill. I equally answered the other point which she made in a more substantive way at Report stage. My argument now is much the same as it was then and encapsulates some of the points I made on the narrower question of Clause 24.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is too late now to untangle this matter. It is clear from what the Minister said at earlier stages that he was not going to move on this issue. This is one of the more worrying problems which result when one tries to appliqu?é a CSA and its structure of a collection of maintenance on to the existing structure of family credit. I believe that the Government have doggedly refused to address an issue which is of their own creation. The losers will be women who find their family credit fixed for six months and their maintenance fluctuating. As a result, their income will be below an adequate level of support. If this Government will not address the matter, I hope that the Minister, following his previous suggestion to my noble friend, has left enough power in regulation to those who may follow after him, to redress this anomaly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Departure directions: the cases and controls.]
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like, first, to say a few words of gratitude to the many

1895
noble Lords who have contributed throughout this debate for their interest and for the constructive spirit in which much of the debate has been conducted. I thank noble Lords on the Benches opposite. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for the expert knowledge they have brought to the debates on this Bill. I particularly thank them for their support for many of the provisions contained in it. Although our views have clearly differed in some areas, including the one we have just covered, where we have not concurred I have re-examined the issues. I hope I have been able to set out more fully the Government's intentions.
I wish also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for their contributions. The noble Earl has prompted us to revisit issues time and again during the course of the Bill's passage through this House, providing an opportunity to test not only this Bill hut the original Act.
I am grateful also for the contribution from the Cross-Benches from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It is with some trepidation that I tangle with the noble and learned Lord on matters of constitutional and family law, in which he is a great expert. I am grateful to him, however, for enabling me on occasion to put on record our intention with regard to certain aspects of the Bill. Although I am not able to go nearly as far as the noble and learned Lord would like in principle, I hope that I have been able to clarify some aspects of the Bill.
I should like to thank also my noble friends for their help and assistance. I extend my appreciation particularly to my noble friend Lord Lucas for his support throughout the Bill's progress through this House.
I should also like to thank the voluntary organisations, such as the National Council for One Parent Families and the Child Poverty Action Group, which have provided advice to all sides and have persuasively represented the interests of the agency's clients.
I have been criticised during this Bill's passage for "objurgations" against absent fathers—I have to admit that I had to look up that word in a dictionary—for "antagonism" and even "hostility- towards absent parents. I should like to put on record my recognition that there arc many absent parents who are at pains to maintain regular contact with their children and who have never flinched from their financial responsibilities to their children. Indeed, there are some absent parents who voluntarily pay maintenance well in excess of any amount which they would he required to pay under the formula assessment. I am pleased to have this opportunity to acknowledge the continuing care and support which such parents give to their children.
But there are also those who have gone to considerable lengths to avoid payment, who have sought to justify their reluctance to pay with numerous superficially attractive arguments. They have argued that the interests of children of later relationships are not acknowledged by the scheme, despite the effect of the formula, which almost always results in second families being better off; that they should not have to meet the
1896
cost of caring for children; and that many expenses should take precedence over the basic needs of their first family. They have mounted a nationwide campaign to scrap the Child Support Act; they have encouraged unlawful behaviour and some of them, I am sorry to say, have victimised Child Support Agency workers who were doing their best to deliver a service. Like, I am sure, every noble Lord, I very much regret such activities.
It is worth perhaps reflecting for a moment on what the Child Support Act is intended to achieve—that every parent should provide financial support for his children where he can afford to do so. The children of a broken relationship will not only lose the constant presence of one of their parents but will almost invariably suffer a drop in their standard of living. Following divorce, typically the absent parent is better off and the mother and children worse off. How many men who have stayed with their family can say they have at least 70 per cent. of their net income to cover their own expenses? The recently published White Paper on divorce and mediation leaves us in no doubt that,
"children suffer and are damaged as a result of conflict between their parents".
That point was made a little while ago by the noble Earl.
But regular receipt of maintenance can transform the lives of parents with care and their children. Even where the parent with care is on income support, it gives her a portable income which helps her to work if she wishes to do so, thereby raising the standard of living of her children and mitigating the financial effects of separation.
The payment of regular maintenance where the absent parent can afford it signifies his clear acceptance that he has a financial responsibility to his child. But we have learnt that it is not easy to secure acceptance of this responsibility. It is not easy to reverse a culture where the taxpayer could always be relied upon to provide a financial safety net. But we believe that this is the right way to go and have not been deterred by the resistance of some absent parents to the idea that they owe a decent level of support to their own children.
We have listened carefully to the helpful advice received from many quarters, in particular the recommendations of the Select Committee on Social Security in another place. That we have gone further than those recommendations with the provisions of this Bill is clear evidence of our commitment to getting child support right.
I know that it has been suggested that the Bill does nothing for the parent with care. It does. There are provisions within this Bill which have been introduced specifically with the parent with care in mind: the child maintenance bonus; the compensation payments to those who suffer financial loss; and the provision of grounds for departures which are specifically aimed at parents with care. We believe that the hest way to improve a child's standard of living is through the maintenance bonus, which helps the parent with care to return to work. We believe that that is a positive way to help parents with care.

1897
The principles which underpin the 1991 Act continue to enjoy widespread support. But the system has clearly had its difficulties. We have again listened carefully to the criticisms and we recognise that a small minority of cases will warrant particular consideration. The departures system introduced by this Bill makes provision for that consideration. It provides for a fairer system. It will allow an absent parent who has special expenses and genuine difficulty in meeting his commitments the opportunity for his case to be re-examined. In so doing, it removes any legitimacy in the argument of absent parents who arc simply intent on avoiding their financial responsibilities to their children that their assessments are unfair. Absent parents will not he able reasonably to refuse to pay.
The measures in this Bill have been designed to encourage voluntary compliance and so to secure the payment of more maintenance to parents with care. The whole purpose of the child support scheme continues to he to secure more maintenance, more regularly for more children. This Bill as it leaves this House will help to achieve that. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
7.16 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in speaking to the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, I should like first to thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy, good humour and helpfulness in dealing with the Bill. We have not accepted all his arguments, hut we have certainly enjoyed his performance. During the eight or nine years in which I have been involved in social security matters in this House, I cannot remember a Session like this in which we have had five major Bills on social security. That has meant a heavy load for the Minister.
I thank also my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, who has carried just as big a load as the Minister but without the flotilla of officials to assist her. I was pleased to take just some of the load by leading on this Bill. The attitude of my party to this Bill in this House and in another place was put well by my honourable friend, Mr. Donald Dewar, our shadow spokesman on social security, at Second Reading in the other place on 20th March. Referring to the 1991 Act, he said:
"We have stoutly maintained our support for the principle behind the Bill, but consistently argued from the beginning that there were some difficulties—sadly, in the event. some of those arguments have been justified … I think that we can all agree that the Child Support Agency started out with admirable aims and sensible objectives. It was launched with social purpose and was designed to improve on a court system that was demonstrably unsatifactory".
Later, referring to this Bill, he said:
"I reassure the Secretary of State that I shall not encourage my hon. Friends unduly to delay the Committee stage. We have always believed that proper consideration should be given and important points should he properly aired. People on both sides of the argument would want and expect that. However, we can learn much from the harsh experience of recent months and it is Important that we do so".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/95; cols. 31–33.]
My honourable friend also made it clear that the Opposition would not engage in what he called "trench warfare", and we have certainly tried to follow that precept in our consideration of the Bill in this House.
1898
So that there is no misunderstanding, I should make it clear that we had our reservations about the 1991 Bill—we expressed them at the time—not about the principle of the Bill, but about its practice. Those reservations were borne out by the actual operation of the CSA. This is not the place to repeat all the horror stories that we have heard at various stages of the Bill's passage both in this House and another place. We took no pleasure in that; nor in the likely problems of the CSA, but, as we know, the arguments for change became overwhelming and the Government have now been forced to act through the changes in administration which they introduced earlier this year and now in the Bill which is just leaving this House.
We took the view that in handling the Bill we would set out within the traditions of this House to probe, to amend and to improve it. I am grateful to the Minister for the Government's agreement to a number of our amendments dealing with departure directions and reduced benefit directions for parents with disabled children. We are grateful also for the helpfulness of the Minister's office, for his correspondence and for help in drafting one or two of the amendments. Furthermore, we are grateful for the full explanations that he gave of the complicated amendments, because we were trying to get the Government's explanation on the record.
I shall not pretend for a moment that we regard the Bill as perfect. It is the first step on the road to improvement, which may he long. Certainly, we would not support, and have not supported, changes that would make it easier in practice for the absent parent to evade his responsibilities, however superficially attractive such changes may appear in theory. As a responsible Opposition which firmly intends to form the next government, I am fully aware of our responsibilities as regards public expenditure. We have done our hest to improve the Bill as did our colleagues in the other place.
It is in our minds that we fully expect to form the next government and the CSA will he there when we assume office. We want to find a CSA that is working and this Bill and the administrative changes that were introduced earlier this year go some way to make that outcome a little more likely.
I conclude by thanking the Minister again for his courtesy and good humour. I hope that, as a result of the Bill, the Child Support Agency will he able to get on with the job that it was set up to do and do it much more efficiently and humanely.
7.20 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, for me one of the defining moments of the Bill was on the first day of Committee when the Minister said that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had reminded him that he had been replying to three noble Lords whose average age was close to 90. This place is sometimes known as a Senate. There arc some among us who genuinely entitle the House to deserve that title.
In terms of age and in other terms, pride of place must go to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord is recovering and that it is hoped he will leave hospital tomorrow. The noble Lord has made a distinguished contribution to the

1899
Bill. I am of course from childhood familiar with the idea that age is no bar to performances of great intellectual distinction. But even by the standards that I have grown up to regard as normal, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has been truly exceptional. I was proud to have his support for most of the time. When I did not have it he made me think again during the passage of the Bill more than any other noble Lord in the House.
I am grateful in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for a profoundly helpful intervention in Committee. It was confined entirely to points of drafting and not of policy. However, the implications of his comments about drafting stretch right through the Bill and well beyond it. I hope that what he said will be listened to in all quarters and in all parties.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is, of course, one of the glories of this House. He is just about a party in himself. Having his support is as great an accession of strength as having the support of a whole party. The noble and learned Lord has a better track record for being right than almost anyone else in this House. It has been a delight to be able to support him and I congratulate him on his performance.
I am also extremely grateful to the Minister who this year has faced an extremely back-breaking burden of work. He has faced a fearsome amount of flack from across the Dispatch Box. We on the Front Benches of both Opposition parties should say that, if at some future time it should fall to any of us to speak from the place where he now is, we can take the flack with half the patience, kindness, courtesy and accuracy that he has shown we should be entitled to be proud of ourselves. Tonight the Minister is entitled to go home and sleep the sleep of the just.
The Bill, of course, is a different matter. It reminds me of the comment of a 17th century cynic who, when asked whether he preferred the Scripture in English or in Latin, said that he would rather have it in Latin for in Latin "as it doth no good so it doth no harm". On the other hand, the Bill is a very big opportunity missed. It gave us the opportunity to revisit the 1991 Act, but that has been largely untaken.
Shortly after the Committee stage I was invited by the Hansard Society to address an audience of Romanians about the position of a third party in British politics. I mentioned the 1991 Act among others and described it—I hope that the Minister will not think inaccurately—as an Act which attempted to assess all child maintenance by means of a mathematical formula. All the Romanians burst out laughing and I believe that their judgment was accurate.
I do not see whom the Bill benefits. It does not benefit women; it does not benefit men; it does not benefit children; and, as I believe we established on Report, it does not benefit the Treasury. So who does benefit? If the Minister believes that absent parents are now not reasonably able to object to their assessment he is, I am afraid, sadly mistaken. I shall not dwell on the reasons for believing that: I think that he knows them. There is unfinished business here and there is a good deal more of it to come.
1900
I must confess that I regret that we have had so little input into the Bill from the Opposition. Its Members tell us that they fully expect to form the next government. Perhaps I may remind them of Mr. Enoch Powell's definition of an amateur in politics—one who predicts the result of the next general election! They talk about being a responsible Opposition. Being a responsible Opposition does not necessarily mean adopting the principles of the Government. They have shown no sense of heeding the remark of Mr. Tony Blair in his Fabian Society lecture, which I was glad to hear, that the party needs to pay more attention to abuses of power. I have heard no sign of any recognition of that from their Benches. I have heard no sign of recognition that there are any remaining injustices to absent parents. When we dealt with Amendment No. 12 I was extremely disappointed to hear no voice raised from the Opposition Benches in support of the major feminist issue in the Bill. Responsibility can be taken too far. I must say to people outside the Chamber who are concerned to procure the repeal of this Act that once the Thatcherite cuckoo is out of the Conservative nest I think it more likely that the Bill will, in the end, be repealed by a Conservative Government than by a Labour Government.
I had intended to cut out all that I wished to say about illegal demonstration. The Minister has heard me say it previously but he tempted me to say it again. I shall say only that we on these Benches are very proud that the poll tax was not killed in Trafalgar Square and that it was killed in Ribble Valley.
I do not believe that it will be long before we have the next Bill on this subject; in fact, I believe that next Session is a good bet. That will not be the last Bill either. How many more we have to go through before the 1991 Act finally disappears I have no idea. Perhaps the position may be similar to the education Bills in the 1980s, or local government Bills before that, but I am certain that sooner or later the 1991 Act will go. In 1991 I said on the Question, That the Bill do now pass that it was unenforceable. I have seen no reason to change my mind.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Earl dealt first with what was obviously a pleasant task to him and is a pleasant task to all of us who have participated in the Bill; namely, to pay a tribute to those who have contributed. However, the noble Earl then went on to examine the Bill, which obviously brings a different atmosphere at once. I propose to take matters the other way round.
We have no real objection to most of this Bill. Indeed, parts of it we must welcome because they embody the suggestions which we made in 1991 and which were brushed aside with contumely. So much is good. But we object to what the Bill does not do; in particular that it does not correct the unconstitutional aspects of the 1991 Act.
A famous fellow countryman of the Minister, Lord Cockburn, a great Scottish judge and also a most delightful author of his Memorials of my Own Time, did

1901
not limit himself to judging and writing. In addition, he invented a cold rum punch, and he described it in this way:
"A steady, mild, well-poised fusion of contrieties, like the British constitution".
That was a very wise summing up of the British constitution. We must face it: it received a dislocation in 1991. Until that time, maintenance for both women and children was taken care of by the magistrates—a body of laymen who carry out and transact a great mass of our criminal jurisdiction, a most important part of our family jurisdiction and, to some extent, some civil jurisdiction, too.
In 1991 their jurisdiction to award maintenance to children was taken away at a sweep and vested in a government agency whose officers were charged with applying a series of fomulae which the noble Earl has just described and which are really perfectly ludicrous if one looks at Schedule 1 of the 1991 Act.
But the matter did not stop there. Having transferred the jurisdiction, and having sanctioned the bureaucratic aggrandisement at the expense of the lower judiciary, the officers of the Child Support Agency and other officials of the department were then armed with extraordinary powers—powers which the ordinary citizen does not have in similar circumstances. There was a power of entry into private premises, denial of which would attract a penalty. There was a power to interrogate a man's employer and his fellow employees. Again, they had to answer on pain of a penalty. There was power to infringe the confidentiality of the Inland Revenue. Only today we have learnt of exceptional powers of distress which we suspected but did not succeed in pinpointing until today.
By taking proceedings under Section 35 of the Child Support Act rather than proceeding under the Magistrates' Courts Act, the department has three advantages: it need not go hack to the magistrates' court, even though a distress warrant would issue automatically; it escapes general damages in the event of an irregular or illegal distress; it limits the liability to special damages, although the ordinary distrainer will have to pay general damages as well if he makes an irregular, illegal or in some cases excessive distraint. We learnt that only today. They complete the picture.
Or perhaps they do not quite complete the picture because one must turn then to the drafting which, again, is a triumph of bureaucracy. I believe that the high point was the provision that x shall have such meaning as shall he prescribed. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, observed of that genially that as he understood the Minister's explanation of it, it will enable a Labour Government to make such changes as they please and he thought that that was a very good idea.
However, at this stage I must say that I was disappointed that the Labour Opposition did not rally behind the noble Earl when it came to constitutional matters. There is no question that the Opposition prefer the Child Support Agency to the courts. That is understandable if one considers their Fabian past, although that has now been brushed into the background. There is no doubt that this series of measures might he regarded as part of the inevitability
1902
of gradualness towards a fully organised, central, bureaucratic state, although the 1991 Act was perhaps a hit more than gradualness.
But at any rate, whatever one might think about the Liberal Democrat leadership in the other place, in your Lordships' House clear green water emerged between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Opposition. That gives great heart to those who count on constitutional procedures.
That is all I wish to say about what we have failed to do in relation to amending the Bill. I now turn to the agreeable part of what I have to say. I endorse entirely what was said about the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness. At one time, we were worried that an enormous legislative load appeared to be placed on the noble Baroness this Session. We were very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Carter, not only for his own sake, which is true, but also because he knew a great deal about the 1991 proceedings.
I believe that I did an injustice at an earlier stage when I said at midnight that there were only two Liberal Democrats on the Front Bench. That was wrong because the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was assiduous throughout and periodically made the most effective interventions. But a heavy burden fell on the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I have been here or hereabouts since 1951, but I cannot remember a more brilliant parliamentary performance than that of the noble Earl on this Bill. He had all the social service details at his fingertips; he was a master of the constitutionality; and, as always, he was more than courteous. The noble Earl was generous in debate and we are very deeply in his debt.
Having said that, I turn to the Minister. The same or, perhaps, an even heavier burden fell on him than that which fell initially on the noble Baroness. The noble Lord has had three Bills going through the House at the same time, each involving a great deal of work; and, indeed, he has carried through this Bill virtually unaided, although we are conscious of and grateful for the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The Minister has been unfailingly courteous, but he has also shown an extraordinary mastery of his brief which has frequently been technical both on the constitutional and on the social security side. Disappointed as I am with the outcome of our deliberations, nevertheless, I count it a very great personal privilege to have taken part in them.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Education (Assisted Places) Regulations 1995
7.42 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft regulations cover England and Wales. Obviously separate arrangements are made for Scotland. But, before I come to the regulations themselves, perhaps I may first remind

1903
the House why we have an assisted places scheme at all. Noble Lords will remember that the scheme was introduced in 1981 to open up the educational opportunities of able children from less well-off families. The Government are firmly committed to encouraging high standards in education, wherever they are to be found. The scheme is an integral part of our policy of enhancing choice and diversity. We believe that parents in every part of the country should have access to the opportunities which the scheme offers. We will continue to support the scheme as an essential part of our policy of expanding educational choice and opportunity. The scheme is here to stay. I only wish that it were possible to make assisted places much more widely available than they arc already.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that we all want parents to he able to choose the education they think best for their children, regardless of income, and we want that choice to be a real one. The scheme provides parents with assistance towards the fees at 303 of our best independent schools—295 in England and eight in Wales. The assistance is on a sliding scale based on parents' income and follows the principle that the lower the income, the greater government assistance should he. The assisted places scheme builds on and extends schools' own contributions by way of bursaries and scholarships. It not only expands opportunities for children from lower-income families, but also helps to widen the social mix and create greater awareness and understanding across communities.
In short, the scheme is an academic success—assisted pupils on average achieve better GCSE and A-level results than their peers in independent and maintained schools, and have high entry rates into further and higher education. It is successful in the wider opportunities and experience that it provides in sport, the arts and other aspects of personal development. It is successful in giving all those opportunities to children who could not otherwise have afforded them.
The regulations governing the scheme were last consolidated in 1989. Amendments have been made in each year since then, chiefly to uprate the parental contribution tables that set out the amounts parents must pay towards their child's assisted place. The House has before it new consolidated regulations, the effects of which I shall explain shortly. Consolidation is essentially good housekeeping to update some detailed aspects of the rules and to hieing all the previous changes into a single document. The consolidated regulations also, of course, include this year's parental contribution uprating. There are no radical changes in the operation of the scheme. If approved, the regulations will come into force on 25th August of this year for the school year 1995–96.
There are three main changes in the regulations which I will deal with in turn and which I hope that the House will find entirely straightforward.
First, there is the uprating of the parental contribution scales. Draft Regulation 15 refers to the scales of fee remission in Schedule 2 which, in turn, sets out the income bands used for assessing parents' contribution to fees for the school year 1995–96. Those bands have
1904
been uprated in line with the 2.4 per cent. movement in the retail prices index over the past 12 months to October of last year. The income threshold, at or below which parents pay nothing towards fees, is raised from £9,352 to £9,572 a year. The threshold for full remission of fees is set deliberately so that the least well-off families benefit most. The scale then rises in a fairly steep curve so that better-off families get progressively less assistance, and eventually none at all at high income levels. That is in keeping with the aim of the scheme, which is to open doors of opportunity to those who would otherwise never be able to contemplate paying fees. The scheme continues to prove highly successful in achieving that aim. Assisted place pupils come from families whose income is well below the national average. In fact, the average income is only a little over half of the national average. Two-fifths of them qualify for a totally free place because their income is below the threshold that I mentioned a moment ago.
Secondly, the definition of "parents" in draft Regulation 2 has been revised to take account of provisions in the Children Act 1989, and subsequent developments. It now clearly limits the definition to the person or persons with whom the child normally lives. There have been no major changes of substance but the wording has been clarified. In the usual case, the "parents" are the natural mother and father and both must make a declaration of their joint incomes to he eligible for assistance under the scheme. The draft regulations also cater for adoptive parents, single parents, those who are guardians or foster-parents and those who, although not the natural parents, may have custody or care and control of the child through informal care or fostering arrangements.
Thirdly. the residence requirements have been revised in the draft regulations to take account of the European Economic Area Agreement. They reflect our legal obligations to provide access to free or subsidised tuition for children of migrant workers on the same basis as for British residents. Draft Regulation 4 sets out the residence conditions. The vast majority of assisted pupils will, of course, satisfy the requirement that they should he ordinarily resident in the British Isles for at least two calendar years before taking up the assisted place. Children of migrant workers who are nationals of a state which has become a contracting party to the European Economic Area Agreement—that is, member states of the European Union, and certain others—are now treated in the same way as children normally resident in the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. That is simply a technical change and entirely straightforward.
In summary. draft Regulations 1 and 2 deal with citation, commencement and application and with the interpretation of expressions used throughout the text. Draft Regulations 3 to 8 deal with eligibility for an assisted place and the updating of the residence requirements. Draft Regulations 9 to 15—together with Schedules I and 2—deal with the remission of fees and the uprated parental contribution scales. Draft Regulations 16 to 24 deal with the administrative arrangements, to which there are no major changes.

1905
The regulations as a whole also include some minor technical amendments and drafting changes, but I do not think that I need trouble your Lordships with such details. However. I shall explain any aspect more fully if any individual noble Lord wishes me to do so.
I hope I have explained the purpose of the draft regulations adequately. They will ensure the continued smooth and fair running of the assisted places scheme. It has long been popular with parents. The rate of take-up in schools, now at its highest level ever, is proof that it is going from strength to strength. The scheme is now in its fourteenth year. Along with many parents throughout the country, the Government are immensely encouraged to see the successes—in music, the arts and sport as well as in academic subjects—which assisted pupils have recorded. Over the years since this excellent scheme was introduced, more than 70,000 children have benefited from education at some 300 of our best independent schools. There are now some 31,000 pupils in the scheme in England and Wales and the Government are committed to supporting them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 26th June be approved. [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for bringing these regulations before your Lordships and introducing them in such a clear and efficient way. We on these Benches are quite clear as to what the regulations imply; and we are left in no doubt that the Minister and the Government firmly believe that the assisted places scheme is an excellent idea, is good value for money, and an assured success.
Because these regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, we have an opportunity from time to time, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, to discuss the merits of the scheme itself, and so it will come as no surprise to the Minister to learn that we on these Benches are, just as we were last year, entirely opposed to the whole scheme in principle. We shall not seek to divide the House on this occasion, since it is the House's custom not to vote on regulations of this kind. But the Labour Party in government will certainly abolish this scheme and will do so by halting the provision of new places under it, but not by damaging in any way the prospects of pupils who are already embarked upon it.
At approximately three minutes past eight on 3rd July the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools, introducing these regulations in another place, said,
"we are committed to choice and diversity and … we wish to encourage high standards in education wherever they are to be found".
So do we. But his next sentence was more enlightening. He said,
"We want parents to he able to choose the education that they think best for their children. regardless of income".—[Official Report, Commons. 3/7/95: col. 91.]
Consider the impact of that phrase on an imaginary character, (we may call him Mr. John Jones, an ex-miner, now unemployed and living on social security in the Rhondda Valley) and his wife (who we may call
1906
Bronwen). They have a small son (whom we shall call Gareth) of some 10 years of age. They discuss his education. Mr. Jones informs his wife that it is the Government's desire that parents should be able to choose the education that they think best for their children, regardless of income.
He says to his wife, "Well, we must take this seriously. I have been down to the library, I have made a number of inquiries; I have consulted my friends at the Dog and Duck; and I hear very good things spoken of Eton College in Berkshire. The College of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Winchester is very well spoken of in the Dog and Duck; and high on the hill at Harrow is an educational establishment (it seems) which produces a very nice class of boy and high academic results in public examinations. Since we may now choose where to send Gareth to his best advantage, regardless of income, to which of these academies, then, shall we entrust the formative years of our offspring's adolescence"? And Bronwen will probably reply "I am sure I don't know anything much about these things and I'm quite content to leave the decision to you, Dad".
It is a fictional scenario in every sense of the word "fiction". It has been said that the assisted places scheme gives children from poor families, deprived areas, and inner cities an opportunity to benefit from private education. But that is only true if their parents know all about the scheme; approve of it; satisfy the criteria for eligibility; and (above all) if the children concerned arc extremely bright academically. These children will he examined and selected by one of the schools which contribute to the scheme, and children who are of average or below-average intelligence are very unlikely to be selected, even though they could benefit greatly from an assisted places scheme.
I will not rehearse the reasons why we oppose the assisted places scheme, since they are on the record, both in the words of my noble friend Lady David in your Lordships' House last year, and in the debate which took place in another place on 3rd July. Suffice it to say, first, that we consider it entirely unjust to penalise the many for the advantage of a selected few, secondly, that we consider it unfair to cream off some of the most academically able children in the maintained sector, place them in independent schools, where they will unarguably do very well, and so distort the picture of the academic achievements of that independent school, to the detriment of the academic results of the schools from which these children are plucked. Thirdly, we oppose the scheme because it seems to us a totally unwarranted subsidy by the state of the private sector. I shall return to that point later.
I would have been quite content to leave it at that, were it not for the fact that, quite unexpectedly, there came into my possession yesterday a copy of the briefing note, prepared for today's debate in your Lordships' House, on this Motion, from the Conservative Central Office. I read it, I confess, with some interest, and found some parts of it quite helpful, and parts of it accurate. There are a few points which might benefit from further research. For example, the brief states that in 1994–5 over 34,100 pupils were able to benefit from assisted places. Other usually reliable

1907
sources say that in April 1994 there were 28,764 pupils on the scheme, and that the shortfall of 5,000 against the estimated figure of 34,139 is due to the Government not being able to meet the costs of the scheme. I do not know whether that is true or not. The brief states that there are 294 schools in this scheme; the DFE figure, which the Minister has quoted, is 295. I would be interested to know whether they have gained one recently, or lost one. But these are details.
What did cause me a little mild surprise was the appendix attached to the briefing, intended presumably for the Minister's edification, which listed a number of members of the Shadow Cabinet, and gave selected details of their education. The list was headed with these words,
"The following Members of the Shadow Cabinet were all educated at schools which would be seriously damaged by Labour's current education policies, such as the abolition of the Assisted Places Scheme. Having benefited from attending these schools Labour politicians now seek to kick away the ladder of opportunity, and deny the rights that they enjoyed to the children of today".
It does seem to me a bit rich to impute vile motives to honourable Members on the basis of what was done to them at the age of 11. So I was greatly relieved and heartened when the Minister, introducing these regulations, clearly depended upon a good factual Civil Service brief and (if indeed he ever read it) eschewed this rather unfortunate and regrettable appendix.
There are just three questions I should like to ask the Minister about the scheme and the regulations. The first concerns the matter of numbers. As I understand it, the scheme involves approximately 0.89 per cent, of secondary school pupils. That means that about 99 per cent, are not on the assisted places scheme. If we assume that something like half of these would not be eligible for the scheme in the first place, that still means that about 48 per cent, of the age cohort do not apply for these nice free or subsidised places. Can the Minister explain why this should be so? Why are they not rushing in huge numbers to compete for this juicy financial and academic advantage?
Can he tell us the results of all the research which must have been done over the past 15 years into those who apply and those who do not? If, as seems likely, a large percentage of those eligible to apply for the scheme do not apply for it, does this not mean that the entire scheme is really no more than yet another ideologically-driven attempt by the Government to introduce division and faction into the education system; and that it has been a failure?
Secondly, I have some worries about the cost of the scheme, although I realise that costs can be computed in a number of different ways (depending on what you want to prove) and that it is very difficult to extrapolate unit costs when there are so many variables in the equation. But is it not a fact that from 1989 to 1995 the cost of the assisted places scheme increased from £50.9 million to £102 million—almost exactly a 100 per cent. increase? Can the Minister tell the House why, in that same period, the number of places increased by only 2.6 per cent., from 33,280 to 34,139? One would like to know where all the extra money went.
1908
Thirdly, is it not a fact that an essential difference between independent schools and local education authority schools is that the former are far less accountable than the latter? Can he tell the House what degree of accountability is required from the 294 or 295 schools in the assisted places scheme, which receive, at present, £102 million of public money?
Indeed, as was pointed out in another place, the taxpayer also contributes more than £130 million to independent schools by virtue of the service boarding scheme. We have no opposition to the service boarding scheme as such, although we would very much like to see more use made of the state boarding schools. But the assisted places scheme and the service boarding scheme together contribute a little more than £0.25 billion of public money to the independent sector. Yet independent schools are nothing like as accountable as local authority schools have been required to be, and only one or two of them have had Ofsted reports. Is it not time that stricter controls were imposed upon this very considerable amount of public money? That is why we welcome the requirement in Part 5 of the regulations for the accounts of schools to be audited by a person who is eligible to audit company accounts. That is one small step in the right direction, but we would encourage the Government to go much further down this track, and much faster.
I would be most grateful for any enlightenment the Minister can give us on these three questions because, as I said, although we are implacably opposed to the assisted places scheme and all its works, we do not oppose the regulations which are before us today. Even when we regard a scheme as unjust and unfair, it is better that it should operate efficiently than inefficiently. These regulations, in our submission, will assist in improving the efficiency of the scheme.
8 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the very clear way in which he introduced the regulations. Unfortunately, the reasons he gave for supporting the scheme in principle are, by and large, exactly the reasons why the Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the scheme since its inception some 14 years ago. Having read the many debates that have taken place on the scheme over the years, and from what I have heard tonight, including the comments of the noble Lord who has just spoken, there is nothing which causes us to consider changing our minds on the subject.
Before I rehearse our reasons for opposition in principle to the scheme I want to make two points clear. First, our opposition is not based in any way on a dislike of independent schools or on any ambivalence in our attitude towards them. They make a valuable and necessary contribution to the educational life of the country.
Secondly, in common with the noble Lord who has just spoken, while we would wish to end the scheme we would certainly continue to support pupils currently receiving assistance under the scheme until they leave school. To do otherwise would be grossly unfair to those pupils, and we would certainly not wish to do that.

1909
As has been said, the aim of the scheme was to provide assisted places at high quality independent schools to bright children from less well-off backgrounds. I cannot follow the example from the Welsh Valleys, but the noble Lord put the case extremely well. That aim is wrong in principle because it fosters elitism. It is wrong in terms of public education policy because it takes brighter children out of the state system, whereas instead they should be encouraged and supported to remain in the state system and to help to improve standards there.
Public money should be used to improve standards in publicly funded schools, and not used to prop up independent schools, some of which would not succeed in a genuinely open market. The assisted places scheme owes far more to ideology than to any sound educational principles.
We believe the scheme to be wrong in principle, but then we must ask whether it achieves what it is intended to achieve. At best that case is not proven. The Government point to the academic achievements of pupils on the assisted places scheme. Indeed, the Minister referred to that in his speech tonight. Given that the children concerned are selected particularly because of their academic ability, it is not remarkable that they achieve good examination results. Indeed, it would be remarkable if they did not have good examination results.
Research shows that in the main places have not gone 10 the kind of children for whom they were intended. It seems that the Government have no data on how many parents benefiting from the assisted places scheme could have afforded the full cost of places at independent schools. However, we do know that some 30 per cent. of those places go to pupils coming from independent primary schools. I would not make the assumption that necessarily all of those parents who can afford a private education at primary level can necessarily do so at secondary level, but one is led to wonder whether at least some of those 30 per cent. could have managed without the state subsidy.
On the other hand, it is a matter of great concern that only 7 per cent. of parents benefiting from the assisted places scheme are of African, Asian or Caribbean origin. Given the multicultural and multi-ethnic nature of our society, we must question whether the scheme is achieving what it is intended to achieve.
The Minister said tonight that the scheme was intended to increase choice and diversity. Fewer than 1 per cent. of eligible children benefit from the assisted places scheme. It is doing nothing at all to widen choice for the other 99 per cent. of children.
I come now to the point which for me, as leader of a local education authority, is the one on which I feel strongest. Is the scheme good value for money? Does it represent the best and proper use of taxpayers' money? Assisted places cost twice as much on average as an LEA place. As has already been said, the cost of the assisted places scheme has risen from £50.9 million in 1989 to £102 million currently. That is a 100 per cent. increase in cost in five years. Yet there has been only a 2.6 per cent. increase in places. That does not sound to
1910
me like good value for money. I look forward with great interest to the Minister's answer to the question which has already been put to him about that.
It is no news to your Lordships' House that this year local education authorities suffered a cut in real terms in funding for secondary schools. We have heard much, not least from the Secretary of State herself, of the damage that is being done to schools—larger class sizes, less money available for equipment and maintenance, and so on. The pressures on our schools in LEAs are well documented and well known and are a cause of great concern, if press reports are to be believed, even to the Prime Minister himself.
Given that, how can I go back to headteachers in my borough and explain to them, as they struggle with desperately tight budgets, that a place in an independent school is worth twice as much taxpayers' money as a place in their schools? I cannot do that. I am not willing to do that. I should be very interested if the Minister were to come to one of my schools and try to justify that.
How can it be justified in those circumstances to put over £100 million a year of public money into independent schools which have themselves chosen not to be in the public sector? Our publicly funded schools are desperately short of resources. That should be the priority for a government using taxpayers' money.
I regret very much, although I am not in the least surprised, that the Government have not used this opportunity to rethink their priorities for the use of taxpayers' money and have not taken this chance to start the wind-down of the scheme. The assisted places scheme is wrong in principle, it is failing in practice, it provides no value for money and it is a misuse of public funds. Above all, it is of no benefit to the 93 per cent. of children in the state sector, who should he our main concern for the investment of taxpayers' money.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for speaking in the gap.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, there is no gap.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I apologise for not having given notice that I wished to speak.
It would be possible to debate at length the value of the principle of schools having a mixed entrance from all sections of the community which they serve. The Government endorsed the principle of the benefit for children with special needs attending where possible their local schools so that they could be educated with their peers in the local community. I find it difficult to understand how the Government can also espouse an argument about children being taken away. The widest, richest school community is that which serves a diverse locality. It is not one where the overwhelming majority of pupils is selected on grounds of parental income and the pupils' potential.
However, that is not the point that I wish to raise. At present in England, Scotland and Wales, Government Ministers, and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment herself, continually state that there is no

1911
relationship between class size and the performance of pupils until—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, speaking in your Lordships' House made this comment—the numbers in classes came down to about 15:1, and there was then some improvement. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he can reconcile that argument. To state that children will study as well in larger classes, flies in the face of the beliefs of all parents, governors and teachers concerned with education.
That leads me to my first question with reference to paragraph 21 on page 26 of the regulations. After a month's notice, the Secretary of State is able to allow an increase in fees paid under the assisted places scheme; and is able to require that that increase does not take place. Can the Minister tell us what the increase in fees has been over the past 12 months? Must there be an increase in class size in the independent sector, or has the independent sector been allowed to recoup the teachers' pay increase, decided by Government, to protect their class sizes by using money that is taken from the 98 per cent. of children in publicly funded schools?
In this country the independent sector can be criticised on many grounds. However, in all its advertisements offering its services the independent sector openly claims that even among a highly selected group of pupils and students the attainments reached are partly due to small class sizes and individual tuition and help. Will the Minister comment on how it is possible to take £102 million of taxpayers' money to a sector in which the classes are already considerably smaller than those in the public sector while exhorting parents in the public sector through the local education authority funded schools and church funded schools to accept larger classes?
It would appear to be a dogma which has gone badly wrong. The scheme is distorting the opportunities available to the overwhelming majority of pupils in schools in England and Wales. The system was born of dogma. Certainly it is not a system designed to help the overwhelming majority of pupils in schools in England and Wales. How can the Government justify that transfer of funds from the public sector to the independent sector in the increased amounts spent per pupil referred to by noble Lords?
8.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have had what I would describe as a fairly predictable debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, put it. It was an opportunity to debate the generality of the assisted places schemes which, not surprisingly, noble Lords opposite do not seem to like for reasons probably best left unsaid.
I am quite pleased that noble Lords have had the opportunity to read the excellent document from Conservative Central Office. It is an absolutely wonderful document. I hope that noble Lords will take the opportunity to read it on other occasions. I shall even make it available to them when necessary, and perhaps
1912
one day—it is a trickle factor—it might have its effect and we might see the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, joining us on these Benches.
I quite understand the noble Lord's views. The noble Lord will understand if I completely and utterly disagree with him and other noble Lords. Sadly, I suspect that it will be unlikely that I can persuade them otherwise, but I live in hope. I note that they will continue to disapprove of the scheme; and I note their commitments to abolish the scheme after an election, in the unlikely event of their gaining power.
I believe that such disapproval—it now extends, it seems, to the concept of selection (I had thought that we had got beyond that) and to allegations of creaming off, which again I dismiss—is not shared by the many parents throughout the length and breadth of the land whose children have benefited from the scheme in the past, who continue to benefit from it now, and who hope to do so in future. When the noble Lord gives his little examples from the Welsh valleys, he should remember that many of those people live in the hope that they can benefit from the scheme. For that reason there are a number of schools in Wales which they can make use of and from which they can benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, referred to the wonderful document from Conservative Central Office and asked about the number of schools benefiting from the scheme in England. Perhaps I may correct him on a possible discrepancy. The number of schools was 295 in England until last year when one school closed. Therefore 294 schools are in the scheme this year. A replacement school will be admitted this autumn, bringing the number back (if my mathematics is as good as that of some of my other noble friends) to 295.
I turn to the noble Lord's question about research into non-applicants or non-entrants to the scheme. No research has been undertaken in the past years on reasons why parents do not apply for places, or how well the pupils do elsewhere if they do not enter the scheme. However, I can tell the noble Lord that with the Independent Schools Joint Council, we are currently funding research into a comparison between entrants to the scheme and similarly qualified pupils going elsewhere. There will be a study of their comparative achievements. The results should he available next year. However, in terms of the remarks made by both noble Lords and the noble Baroness, the evidence at present indicates that children who go to schools under assisted places schemes do a lot better than their peers in the maintained sector, and their peers who have gone to the private sector without the benefit of the scheme.
I turn to the question of the accountability of schools and inspection by Ofsted. I can assure the noble Lord that there will he appropriate inspection. As regards financial accountability, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can call for the school's accounts and other information where appropriate. The department collects information on the performance and achievement of assisted pupils.
The noble Lord also made allegations that the scheme was, I think he said, twice as expensive as the costs of pupils in the maintained sector. I do not believe that that

1913
is the case, in fact there is less difference than the noble Lord, Lord Tope, claimed between the average cost for an assisted place and that for a maintained school place when all factors are taken into account. The average net cost of an assisted pupil in England—and the noble Lord, Lord Morris, will be pleased to know that the position in Wales is broadly similar—in the current financial year of 1995–96 is estimated to be about £3,700. The average education standard spending assessment unit allocation for local education authorities in the same year is over £2,600 for secondary pupils aged 11 to 15 and over £3,600 for the post 16 year-olds. But it is misleading to contrast these figures as they stand because that is not comparing like with like.
First, the assisted places scheme has a greater proportion of sixth form places and these are more expensive to provide. Secondly, the scheme's overall unit costs include elements for certain capital costs and some other independent sector overheads not covered in education SSAs. These factors are technically difficult to quantify and there is a margin of error when making estimates. Allowing for all that, I believe that the difference between average assisted place and maintained school costs is probably no more than just a few hundred pounds and not the figures that were claimed by noble Lords opposite.
This difference is far outweighed by wide variations in unit costs between individual local authorities: for example, over £400 difference between the averages for outer London and the shire counties for secondary pupils aged 11 to 15, and over £2,000 difference between the lowest and highest cost authorities. In some areas, such as inner London, the average unit cost is actually significantly higher than the average assisted place cost, even without making the sixth form and capital adjustments I mentioned earlier.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris, also queried the growth in costs of the scheme over the years. It is true that the cost in England has risen from £57 million in 1989–90 to £101 million in 1994–95—a rise of 77 per cent. But I have to say to the noble Lord that there are several factors behind this. First, over that period the actual take-up of places (as distinct from the number available) has increased by 10 per cent. Secondly, the proportion of totally free places has risen from 32 per cent. to 42 per cent., representing a 45 per cent. increase in actual numbers. That includes a number of factors, not least the recession, the state of the economy generally and the fact that the scheme becomes better targeted on the people at whom it is aimed. Over the period, therefore, the average net cost of an assisted pupil rose by some 56 per cent. This is in fact not much more than the rise in the average unit cost of maintained secondary education of about 50 per cent.
But debating detailed figures risks missing the main point. Above all, the assisted places scheme we believe offers good value for money by producing better GCSE and A-level results than in the maintained sector, as well as enhancing choice and diversity, as I mentioned in my opening remarks and also when I began to wind up.
As I said earlier, I do not believe that it is likely that I shall ever convince noble Lords opposite of the merits of the scheme. I end by saying that I am grateful to the
1914
noble Lord for at least welcoming the regulations as they are and for agreeing that they represent a tidy consolidation of the regulations. For that reason, they are to be welcomed. I hope that one day, when we get further documents from Central Office, we might persuade the noble Lord opposite of the merits of the scheme. However, until that time I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1995
8.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this draft order renews the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1974 under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. In presenting this draft order to the House I wish, as is customary, to give your Lordships a brief account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the past year.
This has unquestionably been a milestone year in Northern Ireland's history, a year in which for the first time in many years the people have begun to savour the fruits of peace. The ceasefires announced by the IRA and the combined Loyalist military command broke the long cycle of violence and have created a new climate of hope and opportunity. The first priority for all of us with an interest in Northern Ireland must be to work to ensure that the peace endures and that this is done in a manner which commands the confidence of all sections of the community. I say that bearing in mind the evidence of the disruptive behaviour in the past few days. I believe that we have seen confirmation that the majority of the people in the Province want peace.
The advent of the ceasefires has allowed the security commanders on the ground to make a number of welcome and significant changes. Over 1,000 soldiers have been withdrawn from the Province. Nearly 100 Border roads have been reopened, and the presence of army patrols in support of the police is very much the exception rather than the rule. Exclusion orders and broadcasting restrictions have also been lifted. The RUC is able to concentrate more closely on the demands of civilian policing, at least outside this month.
The fact that these ceasefires came about reflects the unshakeable fortitude of the Northern Ireland people over the past two decades. They have held fast to the values of our constitutional democracy and they deserve the warmest tribute for having done so. We are also indebted to the professional and steadfast work of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, especially this week, and of the Armed Forces who have supported them. Despite the ceasefires, recent events and continuing paramilitary involvement in drug dealing, racketeering and so-called "punishment beatings" demonstrate that more still needs to be done

1915
before all violence is brought to an end. But I give your Lordships the strongest assurance that the Government will continue to give their full support to the security forces as they go on tackling the serious problems still posed by paramilitary groups.
I hope that recent events will not deflect all those involved in the peace process. Certainly the Government will not be deterred. We will continue to promote inclusive dialogue on a wide agenda, with a view to reaching widespread agreement on a comprehensive political settlement. Dialogue is the only way forward.
For terrorism to be defeated, it has to be tackled not only directly through a resolute security policy, but by other measures too. To this end, the Government continue to pursue a co-ordinated approach in Northern Ireland which recognises that the fundamental political, security and economic and social problems of Northern Ireland are closely interrelated. We are striving to promote a buoyant economy, with increased job opportunities across the whole community and to achieve a sound political settlement to ensure that any attempt to return to orchestrated violence by both Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries becomes increasingly impossible.
I am pleased to say that there is indeed much good news to report on the economic front. The Northern Ireland economy has come through the international recession well and is performing strongly in the recovery. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is now at its lowest for almost 14 years. Seasonally adjusted unemployment in May was 88,100 or 11.7 per cent. of the working population. Employment too has risen significantly: in the year up to March 1995 by 2.1 per cent. Over 560,000 people are now in work. I can also report strong growth in manufacturing output with an increase in 1994 of 6.8 per cent. compared with 5.2 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole for the same period. We can be very proud of Northern Ireland.
I am also glad to report that the latest annual monitoring reports of the Fair Employment Commission show a significant increase of 2.3 per cent. in the Catholic share of the monitored workforce between 1990 and 1994. The Government, I hasten to assure your Lordships, are not complacent about any of those statistics and we are working hard to improve them further.
Strengthening the Northern Ireland economy remains one of the Government's most important objectives, and we are continuing to pursue this in a number of ways. It is, of course, my own particular job, and one that I treasure. In the past year the cessation of violence has brought intense media interest and has put Northern Ireland into the world's spotlight. There has been a threefold increase in the number of investment inquiries since the ceasefires and a marked rise in the number of first-time visits by potential investors to Northern Ireland. The challenge now is to convert this increased interest into new investments and new jobs.
The Industrial Development Board had a successful year, promoting just under 2,000 jobs from inward investment in 1994–95. These investments included Seagate's £60 million expansion in Derry, expected to
1916
create 300 jobs; the £18 million investment by the Korean company Dae Ryung, which is to employ 500 people at Craigavon; and Daewoo's further £11 million investment, which will make electronic tuners for televisions and video cassette recorders and employ 255 people at Carrickfergus. Examples of recent new investment by indigenous companies include a £3.1 million investment by Bass Ireland in a new brew house and packaging equipment in West Belfast; and a £2 million investment by Whites Speedicook at Tandragee in its oat processing factory; while Shorts announced orders of £40 million at the Paris Air Show for two military support contracts from the Middle East, and today can celebrate its involvement in the announcement by the Ministry of Defence on helicopters; and Harland and Wolff, as part of a consortium, has won the initial contract from BP Exploration for a floating production, storage and offloading vessel. We are well served by our companies in Northern Ireland.
The IDB is striving hard to build on the Prime Minister's conference in Belfast last December and the White House conference in May, both of which raised enormously Northern Ireland's profile as an attractive investment location for overseas companies. We are grateful to the American Administration for giving its own and other international markets such a strong lead. The IDB has set itself a challenging target for this year of 20 inward investment projects, attracting over 4,500 jobs. We have ensured that the targets for tourism are similarly stretching; for instance, to increase visitor tourism revenue by 94 per cent. by 1997–98 (from £180 million in 1994 to £350 million in 1997). That will certainly make a significant difference to Northern Ireland's economy.
Turning now to community relations, I can report that the Government are placing an even greater emphasis on the pursuit of policies which directly address existing divisions and differentials within the community. When fighting terrorism can be removed from the top of the agenda, it is certainly possible to accelerate the pace of targeting social need. We have been pleased to do so. Community relations remains an important programme in the rebuilding of inter-communal trust, which is essential for sustainable political development. Targeting social need principles is reflected in the Northern Ireland single programming document, and in the EC special support programme for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. This special programme announced in December is due to run for three years from 1995 to 1997, and funding of £233 million is proposed for the first three years. This is one occasion when a British government Minister can express wholehearted thanks to M. Delors.
I should now like to turn to the political talks. As noble Lords will recall, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Mr. John Bruton, the Taoiscach, launched Frameworks for the Future in Belfast on 22nd February. Those documents outlined what an overall settlement might look like, with the aim of facilitating the resumption of further multilateral talks.
Noble Lords will be well familiar with the contents of these documents. But there remain many doubts and anxieties on both sides of the community in Northern

1917
Ireland as to what the talks process in general, and these documents in particular, might produce. I should therefore like to repeat what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in another place recently about what these documents do not do. First, they are not a blueprint; the ideas they contain are not set in concrete; and they will not be imposed without the consent of both the Northern Ireland parties and the Northern Ireland people. They do not affect Northern Ireland's constitutional guarantee; they do not contain any proposals for joint authority and there is no slippery slope to a united Ireland.
The Government's objective is clear. We wish to restore greater power and responsibility to Northern Ireland's locally elected representatives, within a framework of new political agreements which would attract widespread support and take account of Northern Ireland's wider relationships with the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. The documents were produced with this overall aim in mind as a basis for discussion and negotiation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is currently carrying this process forward with separate bilateral discussions with the main Northern Ireland constitutional parties. These meetings, of which two have already taken place, are aimed at discussing the issues on which agreement is to be based, if there is to be a widely acceptable settlement.
The Northern Ireland Office is also engaged in exploratory dialogue with Sinn Fein and the loyalists. There have now been 13 meetings with the Progressive Unionist Party and the Ulster Democratic Party and seven with Sinn Fein. The purpose of these dialogues has been set out publicly; I will not go into detail here. But I must reiterate the crucial point that if any party closely associated with paramilitaries wishes to move on to inclusive all-party talks, there must first be substantial progress on the decommissioning of illegal arms.
In conclusion, the Government will continue to pursue a co-ordinated and coherent approach to all aspects of Government policy in Northern Ireland which recognises that the basic security, economic, social and political problems of Northern Ireland are inextricably intertwined. It will steadfastly seek peace, stability, reconciliation and prosperity for the people of Northern Ireland within a framework of harmonious relations with the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Such an approach acknowledges that a final solution to the problems of Northern Ireland will come only through discussion and negotiation. We need collectively to establish institutions which have widespread support across the whole community and remove all incentives from those who might seek once again to achieve political change by violence. Such change can come only through the political dialogue engendered by the talks process. But until the time comes when we can put in place workable and durable political structures to that end, it is essential that direct rule continues. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
8.39 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, it was a pleasure to listen to the noble Baroness the Minister review the situation in Northern Ireland during the past year. There has been a quite dramatic change following the ceasefire last August. The Minister accurately and properly described the great advances that have been made; the increasingly developing economy; and the steps forward that have been taken. It is very good news, and we hope that it will continue.
This order is an opportunity to review direct rule during the past year, and also perhaps to be rash enough to offer advice for the coming year. I would not question or alter very much the noble Baroness's review, and I shall not spend time on that. I can certainly confirm that the atmosphere has so changed. I want to acknowledge the Minister's part in the development of the economy. As Minister for the economy, as well as agriculture, she has two very substantial jobs. She works very hard. She gets out and listens to what is going on and what people want to do. I shall comment on that later. She has played a large part in the way in which the economy is moving forward.
One must acknowledge what all the Ministers involved in direct rule give up in terms of time, together with inconvenience and travel. Not only do they have to attend to duties in Northern Ireland but they also have duties in Parliament and perhaps their constituencies. It is only right to acknowledge that they give up a good deal to work with us in Northern Ireland. Perhaps we are unduly critical, but we look very closely at the performance of Ministers and how they are getting on. We are anxious that their departments carry out what we regard as a good job.
Certainly I support this order to extend direct rule in Northern Ireland for another year; but I have a few reservations. Of course, there is no alternative and that has been the case for many years. But I must say that with each passing year the defects in direct rule become more apparent. They are seen mostly in the absence of democracy, which is becoming increasingly obvious. For instance, there has suddenly been an announcement from the Department of the Environment that the roads division and planning are to be converted to agencies. That came out of the blue. It is certainly not what people want. It will remove further from democratic input both those departments, which are of great interest to many people. The Department of Education has made changes in the education boards, changes which are not welcome and not thought necessary. Changes have been made also in the syllabus which have upset the churches. That kind of thing need not happen. We simply do not have a mechanism for feeding in what people think.
I do not believe that there is any other part of the European Union where people have less input to government. We have the feeling that in Northern Ireland the views of the electorate are neither sought nor listened to. There is a grand plan, as the Minister said; namely, that all this will change when there is an agreed settlement of all the important issues by all parties and with agreed arrangements between the parties in

1919
Northern Ireland and with Dublin. That has been the position for 10 years or so, but we are still not near to a settlement.
The plan now is to include Sinn Fein in the all-party talks as soon as a little problem about intentions to decommission arms has been resolved. But it is fairly obvious that no agreement can be reached so long as the objective of Sinn Fein remains unchanged. That is quite simple. It is to get the Brits out and force the Unionists either to leave or submit to Dublin's rule. It is difficult to see how including Sinn Fein will lead to a settlement.
Why do the Government insist on working from the top down when everything must be agreed before anything is done? Why do they not start from the bottom and work up, as has so often been suggested? One could develop democracy first and start off by giving district councils greater powers. Generally, they are acting responsibly and working together. The nomination of an SDLP councillor to be Deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast is an example. Why do the Government not move in that direction? That question is often asked. Why not, my Lords? The reason appears to be because Dublin says no. Therein lies the problem with direct rule. A foreign government has greater say in the arrangements for Northern Ireland than have the citizens of the Province.
I am sorry to say that the majority—by that I mean the substantial majority who support the union with the United Kingdom—have little confidence that the Government will respect their wish to remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. That is not good. It leads to tension and resentment. It is time that the Government faced up to that. I am sorry to say that that resentment has been growing in the past year. The framework document published in February is widely seen as the highway to a United Ireland. The obscure language is seen as an attempt to deceive.
Turning to another matter, people wonder how the Government can be so insensitive as to hand to Sinn Fein the perfect excuse to organise street protests and riots immediately before the July commemorations. It has been Sinn Fein's published intention to hear the sound of their marching feet and their angry voices in the coming months. I refer to the timing of the release of Private Clegg. It will cost the taxpayer between £8 million and £10 million to repair property destroyed or damaged by the Republican riots that followed his release.
The stand-off in Portadown earlier this week was the result of Unionist lack of faith in British intentions. Credit is due to the police and many on both sides for working out a compromise and avoiding a potentially nasty situation. But it was not so much the stand-off that was significant. What was remarkable was the feeling of support for the Lodge which spread like lightning across the Province, with support from all classes and people who would not normally be thought to vote Unionist. The temperature of feeling in the majority is much warmer than it should be.
I say to the Government: Wake up! Come out of the smoke-filled rooms; look and see what is happening with the people. It is unthinkable that further thoughtless decisions or devious words could build up more
1920
resentment and tension to an extent which might make peace more difficult. Talk plainly and openly to the Ulster Unionists, which is the largest party. Talk plainly and openly to the other constitutional parties; and, please, trim the framework document so that it can be a basis for reasonable discussion.
Political thinking has moved forward in Northern Ireland. It is one of the many benefits arising from the months free from paramilitary attacks. All but a tiny minority want the communities to come together. We are fed up hearing about divided communities. We want to be able to work together. I ask the Government please to govern us openly and fairly in the coming year. Listen to what we say and help us to come together.
8.48 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I welcome this order, presented as always most constructively by my noble friend the Minister. It is only a month since we last discussed in this House the affairs of Northern Ireland. I argued then that we urgently needed to put our own very positive record before the world to forestall the old, old IRA tactic of disinformation.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State did so in the other place last week. But it is the world forum, and above all United States' opinion which concerns me. According to the Sunday Times we are to be taken to the United Nations Sub-Commission for Human Rights in Geneva in the context of the release of Private Clegg. According to today's Times, "dramatic concessions" to Sinn Fein and the Loyalists are to he made, evidently with the effect of releasing early a number of convicted terrorists. The paper adds:
"Mr. Gerry Adams said he was expecting an announcement".
I do not know whether the decision, if it has been taken, is a wise one. But I do know that Gerry Adams has been allowed virtually to claim the credit for exacting yet another major concession from the British Government a hare week after Sinn Fein deliberately orchestrated a campaign of destruction on the streets of Belfast which will cost up to £10 million to the British taxpayer.
The Washington Post of 4th July, reporting on this, wrote,
"Angry marchers paraded along Falls Road—the main street of the city's Catholic working class section—accusing the Government of double standards in the treatment of prisoners in Northern Ireland, and of demeaning the Catholic community, a 40 per cent. kid minority here".
The article also reported that the British Government refused to acquaint his case, as a serving soldier doing his duty, with convicted terrorists. How is it that we do not seem to have been successful in publicising the fact that Private Clegg was only one of quite a large number of prisoners released on the same review?
In the context of Geneva, we should long ago have gone on the offensive by taking evidence in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland both from the families of the disappeared, whom the IRA have treated with such utter and callous contempt, and from Families against Intimidation and Terror. Had such a report, based on the depositions of the victims and perhaps evidence from the hospitals which have, in the past year, treated some truly appalling injuries, rather than official

1921
statements been available now it could have had a real impact. I urge my noble friend the Minister to raise this matter so that, at the least, such a report may be available for publication on the eve of President Clinton's planned visit in December. If the difficulty lies in expecting vulnerable and poor victims of the IRA and, indeed, of the Protestant paramilitaries, to come to London—That may be both politically and practically impossible—then a way can surely be found for a small commission to sit in Belfast, possibly reinforced by a Scandinavian judge. If the victims are too frightened to testify, then that in itself is a telling commentary on the continuing threat to the citizens from the IRA and a demonstration of why Sinn Fein is determined both to preserve Republican no-go areas in a free society and to abolish or exclude the RUC.
Incidentally, it is a great pity that little effort seems to have been made to take up the practical proposals to enable illegal arms to be handed in which the loyalist paramilitaries made in February and which distinguishes them from Sinn Fein and the IRA, who now openly state that they will give up no arms before a political settlement. It is interesting that Gerry Adams, Albert Reynolds, and John Hume, speaking separately, as the Irish Times said, remarkably coincide in saying that decommissioning weapons was not feasible at this stage and should not be a prerequisite of inclusive dialogue.
The IRA leaders should he forced to say to President Clinton's face in December that they will give up no arms, as they never did publicly in May in Philadelphia. It is, however, sadly only too probable that once they win the battle for the release of IRA prisoners there will be left only two major objectives which would make it worth their while to maintain the ceasefire and political phase of the struggle, as they call it: that is, the abolition of the RUC and the total withdrawal of the British Army; though not, of course, British financed public services for Northern Ireland.
The steady stream of concessions from us, never matched by any response from the IRA and the triumphalist mood encouraged in its supporters by Sinn Fein, goes far to explain, though not excuse, the need for the Protestant community to assert itself and its traditions even to the point of the threat to law and order which we saw this week. I add my own heartfelt tribute to the wisdom, the professionalism and the absolute non-partisan behaviour of the RUC in the Portadown confrontation. Nothing could have more clearly demonstrated their qualities and their value to the Northern Ireland community. I hope that that too will be well publicised in the world at large.
Finally, I am glad that no decision is to made on the issue of decommissioning and that a way has been found to enable those who are prepared to give the necessary commitment among the constitutional parties to get on throughout the summer with discussion of the alternatives to those parts of the framework document which have indeed been judged unnecessary and unacceptable by many.
I was reassured to hear from my noble friend the Minister that they are no more than a basis for discussion. It will be reassuring for many to see whether
1922
the two governments can accept that the existing mechanisms for increasing cross border co-operation rather than fixed joint mechanisms are working quite well enough to make such formal structures unnecessary. I am glad that we have not forgotten that it is at least as important to reassure the peaceful majority as to placate the violent minority.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it will be the unanimous view of your Lordships' House this evening to support the order. To do otherwise would be to bring absolute chaos to Northern Ireland. Without the order, all the other legislation and orders that come before your Lordships' House would prove to be of no avail. I had intended to make only a few brief remarks this evening and previous speakers have made my decision much easier.
We must renew this order. The noble Baroness gave us a review of this past year since the onset of the ceasefire. I am sure that she will agree that this past month has been a very dangerous time for Northern Ireland. There were times when I saw the street rioting in my own constituency of West Belfast, again in Portadown and again yesterday, that I began to despair that the ceasefire was going to break down. I am delighted that it has not. But I can only repeat what I said here less than one month ago on 15th June: the Government must be extremely careful to let the people in Northern Ireland see that it is they, and their wishes, which are paramount and not the wishes and demands of paramilitary organisations, be they Loyalist or Sinn Fein. Unfortunately, that does not seem to he the perception of some of the decisions which the Government have taken over a period of months, but let us take just one month.
I know that the decision to release Private Clegg will have its emotive aspects both for people in England and certainly for people in Northern Ireland. I mentioned during the course of the debate on emergency provisions that there were many aspects of the Clegg trial which were supported by all the judges in Northern Ireland, by the judges in the Appeal Court and by the judges in the House of Lords. They found that he was guilty of the capital offence of murder. A young girl lost her life because of his actions. Circumstances existed of which I am certain the vast majority of people in England, Wales and Scotland, have not been made aware. I do not want to go into that in great detail. But since the onset of this order in 1973–74—the direct rule order—there must have been nine Secretaries of State and, with the Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries of State, around 40 British Ministers must have dealt with affairs in Northern Ireland since 1972 and the abolition of Stormont. One would have thought that all those Ministers would have gained an insight into the passions, fears and suspicions that are endemic to Northern Ireland in both communities. But it seems to me that they have not learnt of the terrible passions that run riot in Northern Ireland.
I have to say—and I am certainly no supporter of the IRA or Catholic extremism—that it was a disastrous decision to release Private Clegg at that time, in the run-up to the 12th July processions. It was perceived

1923
by the Nationalists, and indeed some people outside the Nationalist community, that here was a decision that could not be treated in isolation. During the course of my remarks on the emergency provisions I said that I hoped that the release of Private Clegg could not be used as linkage with the IRA demands for the release of their prisoners.
If that decision had not been taken at that time; if it had been taken today in conformity with the other reports that we have heard about the increased remissions that are going to be given to paramilitary prisoners, then we would not have had £5 million, £6 million or £7 million worth of damage done on the streets of Belfast. From a purely economic point of view, it would have been in the Government's interest to delay that decision. Northern Ireland cannot afford millions of pounds worth of damage in relation to this.
It has been said quite recently that the Government appear to make a decision and say that they are standing steadfastly by it but that within two or three weeks they change their mind. The leaked report in the Daily Telegraph today about increased remission for prisoners will be seen in Northern Ireland as a payback for the release of Private Clegg. It should not be seen that way because the IRA and its supporters will say, "Look, we have got something out of it". There is a linkage. When the Government make a stand they should not back away, however strong the opposition may be.
People may not realise why there is so much trouble at these Orange Order marches. I think it is true to say that the Catholic population in Northern Ireland never had any great feeling for the Orange marches, particularly when they were told time after time that the marches were to commemorate the defeat by the Protestant King William of the Catholic King James. There is no reason in that regard for the Catholics to love the victory of William. In 1969 and 1970 Northern Ireland had its own Srebrenica. There was ethnic cleansing during those tumultuous years at the outset of the present troubles. The Catholics were all put out of the Rathcoole estate. The Protestants were all put out of the Cavehill Road estate. The left hand side of the Ormeau Road, where the trouble took place yesterday, was a totally Protestant estate. But when the ethnic cleansing came about the Protestants left that estate—they were forced out of it—and it was taken over by the Catholics. They have taken the decision that it is their territory now. There has been a change in the ownership of the territory. But the Orange Order says, "We have marched this territory for hundreds of years", and so there one sees all the seeds of conflict.
One thing annoyed me yesterday, although I was not present. I had lots of telephone calls from people in Belfast about something that did not appear on national television here. A lot of convicted murderers are now having ongoing discussions with the Northern Ireland Office. I feel bitterly resentful about that because one of them murdered my closest friend and he can be seen frequently at the 12 meetings that have been held with the Loyalists. It appears that yesterday, at the Orange demonstrations taking place in Belfast, a gang of people had a banner saying "Release Loyalist Prisoners". The
1924
gang was led by a man called John White, who murdered my closest friend. He took up his place within the ranks of the Orange Order demonstration yesterday and said that he had been given permission by Martin Smyth, the Grand Master of the Orange Lodge, to march in that demonstration. All I can say is that it does not redound to the credit of the Orange Order that it is prepared to let convicted murderers take part in demonstrations which it says are to commemorate the stand of King William for justice to all men.
Is it right that there is to be remission? If there is to be remission it could mean, as the papers predict, that 100 men will be released immediately. Among those 100 men there will be people who have been serving life sentences for murder. I know that it is the intention of the Government to do everything they can to ensure the continuation of the peace process. That is why they are having these exploratory talks with the Loyalists and with Sinn Fein and the Republicans. When the Secretary of State announced it in Parliament he said that he had been having talks with the Popular Unionist Party. I think he meant the Progressive Unionist Party because the Popular Unionist Party unfortunately died with Jim Kilfedder, the former representative of the North Down seat.
I know it is the Government's intention to try to prevent these extreme organisations—Loyalist and Republican—from going back to the gun but I would advise and warn them that when these prisoners are released—if they are released—they should not take them on board so that we can see them, every time we switch on our television sets, marching up and down to the Northern Ireland Office to give their opinion on what the future of Northern Ireland should be. In his maiden speech only last week, the newly elected Member for the North Down constituency said:
"If there is one allegation or complaint made by the ordinary and decent people of Northern Ireland, it is an expression of disgust at seeing men and women, their hands still stained with the blood of innocents, being given an honoured place in discussions with representatives of Her Majesty's Government".— [Official Report, Commons, 5/7/95; col. 484.]
That is very, very true. I would urge the Government, in whatever political discussions they may have, to make certain that they are not seen to be paying little regard to the bereaved relatives of those who were so appallingly murdered over a period of 25 years and that their murderers are not given an honoured place in discussions about the future of Northern Ireland.
9.5 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the way in which she introduced the renewal order and for the very upbeat report we have had on the economics of Northern Ireland. That has saved me from saying quite a lot.
I have a question on the straightforward government of Northern Ireland. In the light of the amalgamation of the Department for Education and the Department of Employment in Great Britain, will that happen in Northern Ireland? If there are good reasons for doing it in Great Britain and if it is not happening in Northern Ireland, why not?

1925
Annually in this debate we have addressed the problem of the democratic deficit, especially in local government. Luckily for me, the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, in particular, addressed that subject very well. I heartily agree with the noble Lord and also with the questions he asked. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer them.
I make one specific comment on the economic side. I personally congratulate the Minister on the amount of energy, enthusiasm and effort, and a certain sense of humour as well, that she has put into the recovery of industry in Northern Ireland. An example of her attention to detail was recently, speaking to the tourist board, when she highlighted cleanliness and the opening times of shops and tourist attractions. I am sure that we shall see an improvement.
However, it has not yet had quite the effect she might have hoped for. Perhaps I may bring to her notice an example of what she was talking about which occurred today. The 12th holiday, which was basically yesterday, continued today, with no post, many shops closed and, in addition, even by lunchtime today the main street of our local village, Fivemiletown, was still strewn with the most unbelievable amount of rubbish: cans, bottles, chip bags and half-eaten food. As one of the main tourist routes, is this not an absolute disgrace? I ask my noble friend to make the appropriate noises in the right direction—and perhaps not let them know who told him about it!
Obviously, the ceasefire is crucial in terms of the overall political progress and the future of this Act we are discussing tonight. The immediate question for any change in what we might be discussing next year is this: will the ceasefire hold and if not, why not? Assuming that it does, where does it get us in six months' or one year's time? There is no point in looking any further ahead since it would all be purely speculation and we would probably be here all night.
There is a feeling at present that the ceasefire is on a knife edge and that every event such as Orange Order marches, or a nationalist riot in West Belfast, is taking us over the edge and back to violence. I do not believe that this is true: it is not on a knife edge. It may be true to say that the ceasefire might be slightly fragile, but not on a knife edge. This is a media-led impression and they should reflect the true facts and stop talking the situation down and stop giving maximum attention to those who inflame the situation at present.
The first point is this: the Orangemen and the nationalist rioters are not the gunmen, nor are they the people who control them. The second point is that the Portadown and Ormeau Road problems, although orchestrated to some extent by Sinn Fein, were not the disaster that the media portrayed. At the most significant tlashpoints, at the most crucial time of the whole year, sectarian violence on a large scale was avoided by cross-community negotiation. This is a highly significant advance and should be talked up by the media, not down. The situation was also very largely helped by the RUC. I spoke to them today and they said that the credit goes to the two communities. The RUC merely kept the situation stable while the negotiations went on.
1926
It is worth saying that there were hundreds of other Orange Order marches throughout the Province and, please note, in the Irish Republic, where there was no trouble at all. It is rather like football rioters in England—small criminal bands who choose the places where they think that they have the greatest chance of getting away with their criminal deeds of stirring up trouble.
In my opinion, the IRA itself holds the key to the ceasefire. It is working to its own agenda and timetable. Logically, there can be only two real reasons for a resumption of violence. Either the conditions have changed since it called the ceasefire, or it is failing to achieve what it wished to. If the first reason is true, it must mean that the conditions prevailing 10 months ago, which dictated that it went for a ceasefire, have changed. We have to understand, however, how it occurred.
Without going into detail, the reasons were, first, that the IRA was not winning. Secondly, with the arrest of the "agent Nelson" and the resulting lack of information on Protestant paramilitaries, there was an enormous increase in sectarian murders by that group. The net result was that tit-for-tat murders ran to an all-time high and the urban population affected most by them increased the pressure for a ceasefire. Lastly, the Downing Street Declaration left the IRA without a leg to stand on in the United Kingdom, Ireland and, thankfully, in the United States of America. Since none of those conditions has changed, there would be no foundation for calling off the ceasefire.
The second reason for a return to violence would be that the IRA is failing to achieve anything through peace. However, one has only to listen and watch Sinn Fein and IRA spokesmen to see that although they are pretending that they are getting very little, there is a certain smugness and satisfaction. Remember that they represent real killers and murderers—not the vast majority of nationalist voters; that is SDLP ground. For no sacrifice at all—except, meanwhile, they have said that they will not shoot anyone—Sinn Fein and the IRA believe that they have achieved quite a lot. They get more attention from the Government and the media than all the constitutional parties put together.
The Government issued a framework document that far exceeded nationalist expectations as a starting point and was well over to its side in the view of many people. The IRA is not going to hand in its weapons at the moment. If it eventually does, the quantity which will be deemed as substantial, in Government and USA terms, will not significantly affect the ability of the IRA to go back to violence in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. I would counter those people who say, "Why should it hand them in when it can go and buy more?" with the comment, "Why on earth does it not hand them in if it can buy more because that would show that the IRA means something even in the shortest term?"
To the benefit of the IRA, Army patrols have virtually disappeared so there is an almost total lack of the high quality, low level intelligence which can monitor its activities and which has saved so many lives in the past. I am not objecting to that. I am merely stating what the IRA has had and what it has not given. As a result, the IRA is at present targeting like mad. That has been

1927
proved by the police and the military. That is going on. It is not a figment of my imagination. The IRA is also updating its files.
The remission of sentence for prisoners with scheduled offences will be increased, but before the Government decide the dates I ask them to think of us and not to do so in such an ill-timed manner as happened with the release of Private Clegg. That was incredibly badly timed. It was then capped with such bad taste with the organisation of photocalls for the media that I simply could not believe it. It was amazing. I say that, although I am on the side of the security forces. However, I live in Northern Ireland—perhaps that is the difference—unlike half the media which produced all those photographs.
The Government have already told us their answer to that. They have said that it was the "due process of law" that Private Clegg was released. However, after that due process had taken place and when people were wondering when the release would happen we were told quite clearly that the Secretary of State had the papers in his hand and that he would decide when to release him. Therefore, the decision on the timing of the release was taken personally by the Secretary of State. We have heard about the damage caused, and I do not think that anyone in Northern Ireland or elsewhere can expect anything other than an apology for making the release at that time. My question is: why do we keep on doing that sort of thing?
To sum up: stop treating the IRA and Sinn Fein with kid gloves. The ceasefire will cease when the IRA decides. It is being given far too much freedom at present. If the Government do not demand more, if they do not take the initiative and keep the IRA and Sinn Fein under much more pressure, we shall cease to keep track of what they are really up to, which is following their own agenda and quietly achieving it.
My message to the Government is this: patience is running out on both sides of the law-abiding community in Northern Ireland. The price is too high. Many feel insulted and let down by what Sinn Fein and the IRA are achieving while giving up absolutely nothing.
9.16 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I start by saying how pleased I am that the noble Baroness, Lady Denton of Wakefield, is still with us as the representative of the Northern Ireland Office in this House. The Minister has done a great deal of hard work in Northern Ireland. She has done a great deal for the economy and she has gained a great deal of respect. I join other noble Lords in expressing our delight that she is still with us as Minister. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, there have been far too many changes in the personnel of the Northern Ireland Office over the past 21 years or however long it has been. The principle that used to he enunciated was that when a Minister had learnt the job, he or she should be moved to another Ministry to start over again. I am glad that the experience of the noble Baroness is to be retained for us at the Northern Ireland Office.
1928
As noble Lords have said, we have no alternative but to approve the order. However, I look back to the election manifesto of 1979 on which the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, won that election. Section 22 states:
"In the absence of devolved Government, we shall seek to establish one or more elected regional councils with a wide range of powers over local services".
Unfortunately, the foul murder of Airey Neave appeared to make the Government change their course and to abandon the common sense which came from him before being included in that manifesto. Not only was a local assembly removed from us, but also most of the powers of our local authorities were removed. That is something that would not be tolerated in any other part of the United Kingdom.
We are now left in the hands of bureaucracy; a paradise for bureaucrats. It has been said that 96 quangos are unelected and are merely appointed. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say whether that is correct. It is certainly a dismal way in which to try to govern any part of this country.
We must look to the future with optimism. We must move away from the sterile proposals of the framework document which were put in as a sop to the Republican government of another country. The idea that there should be joint bodies between Northern Ireland and the Republic is repugnant to most of us. There is co-operation between the two tourist boards. There is co-operation on agriculture in many different aspects. To say that that should be institutionalised is a departure from common sense, or rather just a sop to the Republican government in the south.
Noble Lords have mentioned the talk of agencies for planning roads and eventually water. That is a further move from democracy. Those duties should he given back to local authorities as a first step forward. If we are to have a workable means of government in Northern Ireland, we must take gradual moves such as that. I suggest that that move could be made pretty quickly. I agree with other noble Lords that the views of the ordinary people in Northern Ireland are important. Far too much attention is given to the views of terrorists.
Finally, perhaps I may suggest one proposal: the establishment of a committee of both Houses of Parliament to advise and assist the Secretary of State in carrying out his functions in Northern Ireland. I support the continuance of the order and repeat the fact that we are pleased to see that the noble Baroness is still with us.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the way in which she introduced the order and pay tribute for the work that she is doing in Northern Ireland. She has put so much into inward investment and economic development in the Province. I can only imagine how dismayed she must have been when having discussions with the delegation from Fujitsu the violence broke out in West Belfast at that time. It is not easy and we know that a background of peace is essential to the inward investment that the Province so badly needs.

1929
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, in his interesting speech said as regards the renewal of the order that, of course, there is no alternative. The point of the peace process and of the juncture that we have now reached in the affairs of Northern Ireland is that for the first time in a long time it seems that there could be an alternative, and an alternative which Northern Ireland so desperately needs. I refer to the proposition that the two communities of Northern Ireland who share the Province should co-operate together in government; should be deciding their own policies for their roads, hospitals, health and economic development; and that they should take a greater level of responsibility for their own government. instead of us sitting here late in the evening pontificating—some with greater knowledge than others—upon the affairs of Northern Ireland. It is right that we should aim to have effective, devolved and shared power in Northern Ireland so that people have a much greater degree of responsibility for their own affairs. We must retreat from the politics of rhetoric, fantasy and tribalism into the real politics of decisions which affect people's welfare and the health of the economy and society of Northern Ireland. Therefore, there is a very precious prize. There is a potential alternative within our grasp.
The question that I should like to address this evening is: what is standing in the way of grasping that prize? One problem is the running together of two twin-tracks: first, the track of the ceasefire, making it permanent and consolidating it; and secondly, the political progress which is necessary to produce secure institutions in Northern Ireland of the kind which I have described. Those two questions become entangled together.
The danger is that it is seen that the negotiation that matters is between the Government of this country and Sinn Fein. That is not the negotiation that matters. It is not the point of the exercise. Perhaps I may say to some noble Lords who come from the Unionist tradition that there is only one negotiation which matters, and that is the negotiation between the Unionist and Nationalist people of Northern Ireland. That is the negotiation which matters. Everything else is what psychologists call displacement activity. That is the negotiation which must be faced up to.
How can we promote that? Perhaps I may say that I was extremely struck by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. I sometimes wish that the elected Unionist politicians of Northern Ireland would share the same clarity of leadership as he has just shown this evening. It was an example to us all of how to approach some of the problems. It was a most impressive speech. It was particularly impressive in relation to what he said about the durability of the ceasefire. Like the noble Viscount, I do not believe that the ceasefire has a week-by-week or month-by-month prospect of breaking down. That is not the case. In the longer term, it is related to political progress but in the short term, it will not break down.
Therefore, the British media have most onerous responsibility not to treat that sensitive issue of peace and progress in Northern Ireland as yet another piece of sensation fodder on which to base headlines—to go from the heady rhetoric of "Peace eternal" to "Peace is
1930
fragile" to "Northern Ireland is in flames again". We do not need that. We need a much greater degree of deep understanding and everyone involved in the process needs to show patience. A great deal of patience will be needed.
If we move from the ceasefire and the key necessity for the British Government not to be seen as having as their primary preoccupation Mr. Adams and his colleagues but rather political progress, there are a few things which must be said. First, I ask the noble Baroness, who has played such a positive role in this, whether we are now absolutely clear that the doctrine that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed has been abandoned. Are we absolutely clear about that? That must be a recipe for deadlock. It is essential that progress is incremental rather than looking for a big bang.
The second matter is one about which I have had occasion to question the noble Baroness previously. Are we absolutely clear—because something that she said in her introductory remarks worried me a great deal—that we are not saying that all parties in Northern Ireland must agree to the resolution? If we are saying that all parties must agree, on the basis that the former paramilitary-associated parties will come into the talks at some point, I must tell the noble Baroness that that is a recipe for never being able to put to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum a settlement which commands the support of the great majority. It is an intrinsic recipe for deadlock.
I am not at all opposed—indeed, far from it—to having Sinn Fein and the former Loyalist paramilitary associated parties involved in the talks if they show some real commitment towards the decommissioning of weapons. I have no problem with that. But if the Government are saying that, at the end of the day, the successor to the framework document (the settlement that will be put to a referendum) has to be agreed by all parties, then we will not get there. We must have something that the main Unionist and Nationalist leadership can agree on. The British Government must play a positive and enabling role in that process.
Perhaps I may briefly raise one other issue which concerns the economy. I have two specific questions to ask the Minister. First, can the noble Baroness confirm that there are proposed changes in the way that the Government calculate the subvention to Northern Ireland? I am afraid that I have not given the Minister notice of that question. However, if that is the case, can the noble Baroness let me know how that will he effected?
My second question is one that I asked on a previous occasion, but I should like to widen it slightly. I know that the Treasury is very opposed to giving only Northern Ireland a 10 per cent. corporation tax rate. I can understand why, although I believe that the Minister would concede that, relative to the Republic of Ireland, it would make the prospects of inward investment significantly more attractive. If that is the case and the Treasury oppose it for Northern Ireland. would the Government consider extending such a tax incentive to all Objective I areas of the United Kingdom which

1931
would, therefore, include Merseyside, the Highlands and Islands and Northern Ireland? There would then be some logic and consistency about it.
I believe that the Minister has shown—and we all agree—that we must do more about inward investment. The noble Baroness gave us the unemployment figures. Of course, there is progress in that respect, but we must remind ourselves that the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland account for 57 per cent. of the unemployment total, whereas in the United Kingdom the average is 38 per cent. Therefore, we have a problem of chronic, endemic long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland. We need to do everything that we can to revitalise the economy. That requires peace, on the one hand, but, on the other, it requires as much positive government action as possible.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the introduction that she gave to the House. In particular, I am happy from my own personal knowledge to endorse all the words of congratulation about the work that she does. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will forgive me if I do not repeat his phrase; namely, "we are glad that you are still with us". I am afraid that that has inevitable echoes of a funeral tea in North Wales. I think, perhaps, that I would rather put it somewhat differently.
It is lamentable that 21 years on we are in the position of renewing legislation which, by definition, treats over 1.5 million people on the basis that they are not to rule themselves. I believe that all noble Lords who have spoken look forward to a time when this annual round will be no more than history and memory. As the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, rightly said, the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland is very serious indeed. Local authorities have so little effective power that there is a very strong disincentive to the talented and the able as regards offering themselves for election to local government. That is very bad for government, and it is extremely dangerous for democracy. I well recognise that the order must be past tonight for the reasons mentioned by my noble friend Lord Fitt.
If government are neither accountable nor transparent, they lose respect; and, having lost respect, they lose the moral authority and component which ought to be their basis. I believe that the figure given by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, is correct in that there are 96 quangos, the work of which is directly related to what ought to be within the province of local authorities—such matters as health, education and so on. As a matter of principle, I believe that that is wrong. It is extremely wasteful of the potential contribution of many hundreds of committed and devoted public servants—that is, those who ought to be locally-elected representatives.
Perhaps I can deal shortly with some specific questions, notice of which I have given to the Minister. The first is the question of water. It is, I believe, the position that the overwhelming majority of those who live in Northern Ireland are opposed to water privatisation. Will the Minister absolutely rule out water privatisation during the lifetime of this Parliament?
1932
I wish to deal with prisoners, if I may. I shall not refer to the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, mentioned as regards economic progress and other matters as that would be repetitive. However, on the question of prisoners, it seems to me to be of fundamental importance that there should be a known, a publicly-explained and a long-term approach to the question of those who are serving in many cases very long sentences. I respectfully endorse what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said. It has to be looked at on a single, simple basis which is equitable—equal treatment for all under the rule of law. Short-term expedients, as he demonstrated quite clearly, will not do. They are not even expedient.
The first question which I would invite the Minister to deal with is the question of prisoners who are from Northern Ireland but who are serving their sentences in mainland prisons. I have found general unanimity in talking to many people with different views from different sections of communities in Northern Ireland that there is a strong case on humanitarian grounds, basically in line with the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that prisoners should, where possible, serve their sentences close to home and family, bearing in mind that they will all be out one day. I suggest there should be a presumption that custody should be served close to home. It should not be required that relatives should travel long distances, sometimes at crippling expense, to visit relatives in prison far away.
I suggest that this matter is important. I understand that there are fewer than 40 such prisoners in gaol in England and Wales. Is it true that six of those prisoners have been notified of early transfer in August of this year? If it is true, who are they? What is the position as regards the remaining 32? What is the general justification at this time for further delay in transfer of prisoners? I stress that I am dealing with transfer and not release. We are obliged, in our duty to this House, to press the Minister as regards what truth there is in the widespread press publicity this morning that the remission rate for scheduled offenders is to be reduced from one-third to one-half. I am not myself a great proponent of the conspiracy theory of life history and civilisation, but it is extraordinary that every newspaper this morning carried the same reports. How many will be affected by this change? What is the Government's thinking on it? I suggest that we must have a definitive answer before Parliament rises for the Summer Recess. It will be extremely foolish to dribble it out when it is not capable of debate or question in this House or in another place.
Where did these press stories come from? It is said that they were initiated at a very senior level in the Northern Ireland Office. For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that I do not point the finger at any official; I am speaking of political seniority in the Northern Ireland Office. I am sorry to repeat this, but I find it quite impossible to accept that all these stories in all these different newspapers on the very same morning arose by chance or coincidence. Is it right that the Prime Minister has overruled such a scheme for the present time? I am asking these questions on behalf of those

1933
who have no opportunity to have the questions put except by an assembly hundreds of miles from where they live.
It is of great importance that any release of any prisoner, whatever the claimed motive for the offence and whatever the particular nature of the scheduled offence, must be on the basis of a quasi-judicial—I think it is much preferable that it should be judicial—act. It must not be or seem to be the product of expediency or bargaining. If we go down the route of bargaining and expediency that will do the rule of law, and ultimately everyone who lives in Northern Ireland, very serious harm indeed.
I should welcome from the Minister the Government's present definitive view on the question of compassionate leave. What is the Government's view about the remarks attributed to Mr. Molyneaux and Mr. Ken Maginnis that the IRA has decided that the ceasefire is at an end? I revert to our discussions of 5th June. Are we to have a prompt, wide-ranging and informed review of all terrorist legislation?
The Government will recognise that our general position on these Benches has been one of non-partisan support for their general policy. However, on occasion—and I echo what has been said by everyone who has spoken this evening - one has the impression that that policy is stumbling and is not based on an overall long-term strategic, considered approach.
I know that the Minister will accept from me that we fully recognise the difficulties and the dangers. But there are difficulties and dangers in short-termism. Sometimes recently the Government seem to have stumbled.
Otherwise, I congratulate the Minister on her sterling work. It is not most Ministers of whom one can say that everyone who deals with her gives her affection as well as support.
9.42 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their significant contributions this evening. Northern Ireland can be grateful for the support, interest and commitment it receives from your Lordships in this House. Some of us were not born in the Province, but that does not by any means exclude us from feeling a depth of concern and hope for the future of the Province. Tonight's contributions were of particular value because at this moment there is hope for the Province and it is a crucial time for the Province. So I thank your Lordships. I always learn so much from listening to these debates and I am grateful.
I am also grateful for the many kind remarks. Perhaps it is because I love the job and enjoy it so much. For the most part the job is in Northern Ireland. The one thing it does is to make one appreciate meals that do not come on plastic trays!
There is a big learning curve on joining the Northern Ireland Office. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked whether British Ministers understand Northern Ireland. I assure your Lordships that on occasion understanding comes with some difficulty. One begins to add value after a while. I am delighted to say to the noble Lord, Lord
1934
McConnell, that it is my determination to try to beat Richard Needham's record for the length of stay in the Northern Ireland Office.
We have had an in-depth debate and I cannot possibly hope to answer every single point that your Lordships have put to me and, through me, to my colleagues. I shall endeavour to cover most areas and I promise that I shall read the Official Report extremely carefully to ensure that noble Lords receive answers to the points that I miss.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, opened with a comprehensive speech. I can assure him that we intend to work up the economic strategy and to build. However, I stress what I said in opening the debate. We are indeed well served by our companies in Northern Ireland, and upskilling and increasing the number of employees will see us through future economic growth.
A particularly important remark was made. It is indeed valuable and satisfying to see that the Lord Mayor of Belfast is a member of the DUP, and the Deputy Mayor is a member of the SDLP. To see decisions being made at that level—with some crisis, but fortunately that would appear temporary—is tremendously valuable for the future.
I suggest with some hesitation that the noble Lord overestimates the influence of Dublin. Of course Dublin comments on everything. It comments frequently on its own internal discussions. However, I assure the noble Lord that we take our responsibilities extremely seriously and we make our own decisions.
In the same way I stress, too, that we try to talk plainly—sometimes, I fear, in repetition. However, we try to stress time and again that it is this Government's desire—and nowhere has it been shown in greater detail than by the commitment of the Prime Minister—to work constantly and totally towards peace in the Province.
I share with the noble Lord his nervousness about "boxing" people and measuring one community against the other. I treasure Martin Luther King's request that his children be measured by their character not by their colour. I should like to see the people of the Province measured by their abilities, skills and warmth, and not by their religion. I hope that one day that will be possible.
Several noble Lords regard the establishment of agencies as a move from democracy. It is not an exclusive Northern Ireland activity. "Agentisation" is a process which is taking place across the Civil Service in the whole of Great Britain as well as Northern Ireland. That process is an attempt to ensure that civil servants are responsible, that there can be more flexibility, and that they can take decisions for which they can be held accountable. However, I assure noble Lords that that is only a different way of administering and managing functions within departments. Ministers remain totally politically accountable for the function.
We hope—there is evidence from some of the agencies—that that process achieves better value for money, improves service for customers, and provides better motivation for the people involved. That is very important in the Civil Service.

1935
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. The Government have been consulting on a number of proposals to change present arrangements for educational administration in Northern Ireland. We are considering all the comments that we received on the educational and political implications of the proposals before we reach any final decision.
We always welcome the very straightforward advice that we receive from my noble friend Lady Park. She is absolutely right that the images which go across the world forum are not the true images of Northern Ireland as it now is. Those perceptions have not caught up with the facts. I believe that we can all be well criticised on that point. If Gerry Adams manages to attract the media and the cameras, could that be because many of us are not going out there equally aggressively to tell our side of the story? I would ask the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to have high on their agenda that they go out and share the news of what is happening. It is important for us to do that. I wish the noble Baroness well with her aim of involving the Select Committee in areas of great anxiety and of relevance to what is happening at this time in Northern Ireland, with the focus of outside views on punishment beatings and the return of bodies. It must be possible to achieve that without difficulty and with great comfort to the people involved.
I also stress to my noble friend that cross-Border activity must be of mutual benefit. It must bring value to the Province and better value for our spend. If by sharing a budget, as we do in tourism, we can get better value for Northern Ireland, then let us do it. I like doing it most of all because on the whole the South puts in more money than we do and we get increased value. That is important.
I was pleased this morning at Aldergrove Airport in Belfast to launch the first Aer Lingus flight from Belfast to Shannon and New York. We need direct access to the United States for our leisure travel inward and for our business travel outward. That is a great step forward, it is a pilot service and I hope that it will be made permanent.
As always, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, goes right to the point. What we have seen in the past week could have been terrible. It could have escalated into a major tragedy yet again in Northern Ireland, but the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Brookeborough brought to the debate tonight a positive input. I was delighted to hear how upbeat my noble friend was about the future. People have stood on the brink of the abyss, looked in and moved away again. I firmly believe that we saw evidence of absolutely stupid and unacceptable violence but we also saw the majority of people making it quite clear that it was not acceptable to them. That was important.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that we do not back away from decisions, but we do recognise change. He himself said that there was change: change in residents and in the nature of areas. We must recognise that there is change and measure all the time the strength of the paramilitary threat and the acceptance by other parties of what is happening. Above all, I assure the noble Lord
1936
that we recognise the pain of people in Northern Ireland and that such pain can only be eased at a speed which the victim is prepared to allow. Forgiveness must come from the person involved and it can take a long time. We accept and understand that.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, quoted the Conservative manifesto. It seems to be an evening for Opposition spokesmen in the House to read Central Office missives and for our Conservative manifesto to be in other hands. Regional councils require agreement. There are a number of models of government which might be applied to Northern Ireland but there must be agreement. I would issue a small word of warning. It is important that we recognise the size of Northern Ireland. There are some areas of activity—infrastructure in particular—where breaking up into 26 parts will not be to the benefit of Northern Ireland. We must recognise that we are altogether 1.6 million people and we must not divide too much.
However, great progress is being made and I pay an enormous tribute to the work that the councils are now doing in the economic field. It started when the Prime Minister increased the amount of the rate that could be committed, which was then matched with European funds. I have launched several economic strategies which are excellent. The councils have shown enormous commitment and consulted widely in drawing up these strategies. I think that we can satisfy noble Lords that much that is happening is coming from the grass roots. The award of the single programme money from Europe was made in rocognising the benefit to the community that these strategies would bring. I believe that we are seeing much progress. It is progress that needs to be made.
I understand, and I hear very strongly, your Lordships' attitude to quangos. But there have been times when leaving the control in the council would have been very much to the detriment of one section or other of the community. I hope that that is now changing. Certainly it is my intention that public appointments to bodies that are involved should he to allow people in Northern Ireland to get experience in what these responsibilities mean and what the problems are. It is important to get the point through in Northern Ireland that there is not a bottomless pit of financial support for Northern Ireland. We have seen, and continue to see, enormous support for Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom Government. But we have to ensure that people recognise that they have to become self-sufficient and have to make things happen for themselves. I hope that we arc giving people experience of that. In particular, I am trying to ensure that we give young people that experience. There is a great need, in expanding the economy in Northern Ireland, to let more young people take responsibility.
As to the question of prisoners, as reported in many newspapers this morning, I perhaps share the views of the noble Lord. Lord Williams, that it is amazingly coincidental that all those reports appeared at the same time. I assure noble Lords that the speculation in today's press that a change is about to he announced is inaccurate. However, we have to keep under review the remission rates that were introduced in Northern Ireland

1937
in 1989, when the terrorist campaign was at its height. The rates were introduced because of the circumstances at the time. We have not reached any decision on that question. I also confirm to the noble Lord that any changes in remission rates would require legislation, and therefore the approval of this House. They would not be brought forward; nor would they be regarded as a bargaining card. Prison issues must be considered in their own right and on their merits. We recognise that the issue of prisoners is of concern to both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. I would endorse—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the Minister turns from the question of newspaper stories, it was not my view that it was an amazing coincidence. I do not believe in amazing coincidences. My specific question was: did that material get into all those newspapers in virtually identical form as the result of briefing at a senior level in the Northern Ireland Office?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I do not know how that story got into the newspapers, and there is much variation in the reporting of it. I am afraid that I am unable to answer the noble Lord. I wanted to say that we share the noble Lord's concern that when prisoners are located at some distance from home, those who suffer are their families. The situation at the moment on transfer is that the Home Secretary has jurisdiction over 43 prisoners under terrorist crime: eight have been granted temporary transfer and six have been granted permanent transfer, to be moved as soon as possible; five have varying reasons for being refused; but 24 have insufficient links with Northern Ireland. We are fully aware of the issues in that area.
I turn to the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. On subvention, I will write to the noble Lord. I thank him for recognising what a difficult task I had in persuading Fujitsu to continue with its investment in West Belfast while we were finding it difficult to get the man who was bringing us 100 jobs onto his site. We have to be very grateful to the people of Antrim, with whom he had worked for six years, who had shown the value of Northern Ireland. I found myself talking about terrorist attacks on Tokyo tubes for quite a long time that evening. Someone said that I had a great sense of humour. It was wearing thin when I saw that those people whom we were most trying to help were the people who were bringing this damage to the Province and not only damage to themselves but to the future of other families' children. I hope that people will realise that if they are looking to us for help, they also have to help themselves. It is very important that that goes home.
The noble Lord is looking to the Treasury to help Northern Ireland on the matter of 10 per cent. corporation tax. I know how strong that card is when played by the South. We talk the whole time about how we can bring strength to the economic package that we offer. There is a lot of strength in it. The fact that we have attracted investment to Northern Ireland when the images are of pavement slabs flying through the air and people suffering greatly shows how strong are the people.
1938
But there is much to be done. We have been asked about the Objective 1 solution, which the noble Lord brought forward, and are discussing it. We are looking at other ways of ensuring that our package is attractive and we constantly keep things under review. It depends very much on the nature of the company looking to invest as to whether that particular one is a strength. We work continually and recognise that we need to do so on the question of the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland. That is now our major unemployment issue.
The noble Lord asked whether I would comment on the argument that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". As he well knows, the Government are committed to the search for an agreed outcome and seek a resumption of multilateral talks on the basis of the statement made in 1991. But the maxim that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed was, we believe, a sensible one at that time. But whether it will apply to further talks will be a matter for those who participate in them. I can assure him that we do not believe that progress will be made in any area by setting anything in absolute concrete and not recognising changing circumstances and changing values.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked me specifically whether we were planning to amalgamate employment and education in Northern Ireland. I can assure him that this is not a change that is on the horizon in Northern Ireland for many reasons, one of which is that change for change's sake is not the best value. We must do what we do better and bringing change into that does not always allow us to do that. Also, we have a very high standard of education, and the training needs are for adult long-term adult unemployed people. We have a different scenario from that in England and Wales.
I hear what the noble Lord said about the state of Fivemiletown after the 12th July and the situation on opening hours. There is a lot of work to do and I thank him in particular for his involvement in tourism.
Noble Lords brought many points to the table today. I shall read carefully all the issues. I emphasise that we should like to see substantial power devolved to locally elected representatives. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, I stress that new institutions will only work if they command the widespread support of the people of Northern Ireland and much can he achieved by just pragmatically doing it.
What is clear is that political momentum means that we must move forward; that the status quo is not acceptable. I can assure your Lordships that the Government will do their utmost to find a way to achieve the peace, stability, reconciliation and prosperity that is needed in Northern Ireland and look for the durable political accommodation which will enable the ending of direct rule and the return of substantial powers to locally elected representatives of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, until that happens I regret to say that direct rule must continue and I therefore commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995
10.6 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships on 20th June 1995 be approved. The purpose of the order is to bring Northern Ireland trade union law into line, and up to date, with that existing in Great Britain.
The draft order represents the second stage in the Government's step-by-step approach to aligning all Northern Ireland industrial relations legislation with that in Great Britain. In October 1993, the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 brought the law on individual employee rights (unfair dismissal, maternity, redundancy and so forth) completely into line with that in Great Britain. The order before your Lordships today completes that programme by replicating for Northern Ireland, trade union law enacted in the rest of Great Britain since 1990, thereby providing a uniform system throughout the United Kingdom.
Your Lordships will appreciate that the legal and administrative framework for industrial relations in Northern Ireland is separate from that in Great Britain, but generally the legislation follows that in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, Northern Ireland trade union law currently reflects only the position in Great Britain prior to the enactment of the Employment Act 1990. Simple amendment of the existing Northern Ireland law within the confines of the 1992 order would have made it extremely difficult to ensure that the Northern Ireland legislation had achieved the same legal effect as in Great Britain.
It has therefore been decided to repeal and re-enact, with amendment, the greater part of the 1992 order in the order now before your Lordships. At the same time the opportunity has been taken to adopt the Great Britain structure and terminology in the draft order to make it more user friendly and, by aligning it directly with the 1992 Act, facilitate the use of Great Britain text books, journals and commentaries to the benefit of practitioners, industrial tribunals and other users, including employees. The close correlation between the law in the two jurisdictions will make for easier future amendment or consolidation.
The proposal for this order was published in December 1994 and a wide range of interested parties were invited to comment. Some 130 individuals and organisations received copies of the order and the explanatory document. Of the 12 who commented, five welcomed the order, four objected and three raised only minor technical points. Having considered the various representations made, the Government re-affirm their policy that there should be parity between the law in Northern Ireland and Great Britain unless there are compelling local reasons for a departure from the Great Britain position. The draft order, with one particular difference to which I shall return later, has that effect.
The key new provisions in the order before your Lordships extend democracy and accountability in trade union affairs and give union members new rights in relation to ballots, including independent scrutiny. Unions are made more accountable for their financial affairs and held responsible in law for the acts of their officials. Employers are given protection against precipitate industrial action and a new citizen's right is introduced to enable individuals to bring proceedings to halt unlawful organisation of industrial action.
The main aim of these provisions is to increase the rights of individual trade union members, so that they have a proper and effective voice in the affairs of their union, and of individuals who might fall victim of unlawful industrial action. All of these provisions already operate in the rest of the United Kingdom.
But I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the one significant difference from the law in Great Britain. The Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993 gave individuals in Great Britain a new statutory right not to be unreasonably expelled or excluded from a union of their choice. Following representations from the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, it was decided that, in the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, the statutory right for individuals in Great Britain to belong to the union of their choice should not be enacted in Northern Ireland. Ministers found the arguments persuasive and were prepared to make this change in view of the committee's experience of 25 years of sustained and courageous effort by the unions to combat discrimination and sectarianism and maintain peace in the workplace. That is a role the unions in Northern Ireland have played so tremendously well.
The establishment of a local appeals tribunal was the subject of much correspondence during the consultation. However, the present order is not a suitable vehicle for such a change and it would be inappropriate to deal in isolation with the arguments for and against an employment appeal tribunal at a time when the whole industrial tribunal system is under review. The review will present opportunities for further consideration of the subject.
This is a long and complex order, but, as I have indicated, some two-thirds of the order consists of re-enactment and modernisation of existing law and only one-third consists of new provisions. All the provisions apply in the rest of the United Kingdom and are familiar to employers and trade unions in Northern Ireland, particularly since almost 80 per cent. of Northern Ireland trade union members belong to Great Britain unions. This order will give Northern Ireland workers the rights and privileges already enjoyed by their counterparts in Great Britain. The fact that it will bring uniformity to trade union law throughout the United Kingdom is of benefit to unions and employers operating in Northern Ireland and will help in encouraging inward investment. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th June be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Baroness has answered many of the questions that I had intended to ask. The most important concerns the difference between trade unions in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom because of the existence of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. Was there any difficulty in finding agreement? Many of the trade unions in Northern Ireland cross the Border.
Before I sit down I want to congratulate the Minister. Many new phrases and words have been brought into being and coined because of the circumstances in Northern Ireland. I see that she has found another one and she can take credit for it. This is the first time I have ever heard of "agentisation". She can take credit for introducing that word into the Northern Ireland vocabulary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction of the order and for the opportunity to reiterate what she said—so many people who have contributed to trade unions in Northern Ireland have done so much in the struggle against sectarianism.
Some of the articles are curious. They may well be part of general law in this country but that does not excuse their oddity. Why is a direct debit equivalent for the payment of union subscriptions limited to three years only? My subscription to my trade union—the Bar Council—goes on forever, or until death, whichever comes first. On an occasion as solemn as this I must not intrude into private grief, but I believe that even the dwindling number of Conservative Party supporters who pay subscriptions by direct debit are able to subscribe, if they wish, however misguided they may be, for a period of longer than three years. Why does the protection of the law after a strike ballot last for only four weeks? Many people who are concerned with union negotiations feel that that is rather too tight a timetable.
I entirely agree with the Minister when she said that one wants to develop, assist and support democracy in unions with every possible mechanism available. Therefore, why does Article 140 take away financial state assistance for unions to have ballots and even the obligation on an employer to make premises available for such a ballot? It seems to me quite nonsensical to want internal union democracy and to take away two of the means for bringing that about. The Minister has dealt with the question of VAT. Is it not the case that the CBI and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions both support an employment appeal tribunal in Northern Ireland?
1942
My final question to the Minister is this: why is it that the right to belong to the union of one's choice is not allowed in this legislative scheme? I am conscious of the fact that I have bowled a fair number of questions and that I have not had my usual opportunity to give full notice of them to the Minister. At this time of night and in the spirit of harmony in which we always operate, I am perfectly content if the noble Baroness feels it to be more useful and efficient to write to me rather than to reply to the questions of which I did not give her full notice.
I should have said that my noble friend Lord Fitt and the noble Lord, Lord Holme, in one case were short and in the other, silent, because they both have serious difficulties about transport owing, I believe, to an incident of government policy to do with the conduct of the railways.
10.16 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I take the message about it being appropriate this evening to respond promptly, although British Rail and the unions negotiate their own settlements or problems. I say quickly to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that the problems resulting from cross-Border activities were discussed with the Northern Ireland Committee. As I have said, the one area where there may have been a problem has been taken out.
I also disclaim credit for the word "agentisation": I simply read it out. I had never expected to sit here and hear the Bar Council put forward as the leading trade union in the country—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is very effective.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I suspect that it is indeed very effective. I also suspect that there are many of my gender who would argue with that. I shall write to the noble Lord. Most of the questions he raised were raised by the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen in the other place. There are answers. I fully appreciate the difficulties that may affect people in getting home. I also appreciate the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has. Lady Fitt is not in the best of health and I wish her a speedy recovery. With the great affection which this House has for Northern Ireland, I commend this order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  Iran: UN Special Rapporteur's Resignation
  Iran: UN Special Rapporteur's Resignation
  Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972: Receipts from Local Authorities
  Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972: Receipts from Local Authorities
  Author's Copyright: Extension
  Author's Copyright: Extension
  Social Fund Home Start-up Grant Proposal
  Social Fund Home Start-up Grant Proposal
  European Space Satellite System Discussions
  European Space Satellite System Discussions
  Guinness plc
  Guinness plc
  Land Registry: Triennial Review
  Land Registry: Triennial Review
  Peat: Planning Guidance
  Peat: Planning Guidance
  State of the Construction Industry
  State of the Construction Industry
  Sheep Dipping Effects: Study
  Sheep Dipping Effects: Study
  Organophosphates: Use with Other Materials
  Organophosphates: Use with Other Materials
  Crown Court Pre-Trial Hearings
  Crown Court Pre-Trial Hearings
  Firearms Consultative Committee Report
  Firearms Consultative Committee Report
  Burglary: Cautioning Guidance
  Burglary: Cautioning Guidance
  Category A Prisoners: Escapes
  Category A Prisoners: Escapes