Sitting of 17 July 1995

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

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Rooney: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has for monitoring the introduction of incapacity benefit. [32763]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): A variety of arrangements are in place. They include the collection of statistical information on claims, disallowances, appeals and qualitative assessments of adjudication and the operation of the medical test.
    Mr. Rooney: The Minister will appreciate that if the new benefit is to work properly, the quality of medical assessments is vital. Can he give an idea of progress with recruiting medical advisers and their training?
    Mr. Burt: So far, 669 sessional doctors have been recruited. It is estimated that the full complement of 800 doctors will be recruited by the end of this month, as well as full-time staff required to evaluate the process. We are well up to date with the recruitment and training of doctors, which builds to some degree on information and work that they previously possessed and undertook. It is clearly vital to keep the benefit under close scrutiny and control. The work has been built up to ensure that that will happen. I will keep a careful eye on matters relating to the medical test.
    Mr. Garnier: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion to Minister of State. Can he confirm that people who cannot work and who have been receiving invalidity benefit will continue to receive exactly the same under the new system? How many of the applicants who have been refused incapacity benefit have failed to turn up for interviews?
    Mr. Burt: The test's purpose is to focus attention on people who are incapable of work, to make sure that they receive the appropriate benefit, and on those who are unemployed for other reasons, who will also receive the appropriate benefit. We expect that about half the people currently on benefit will be exempt from the new test because of age or the nature of their impairment. Although few cases have come through the system so far, my hon. and learned Friend is right that a number of persons required to attend for the test have not bothered to do so. It is important to keep an eye on that, to make sure that
    1294
    people are not missing appointments for reasons which should be taken into account. The fact that some persons have not come forward is quite significant.
    Mr. Bradley: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his promotion, which I am sure he feels is long overdue. Recently I visited the Manchester medical centre which is taking the lead with the introduction of the medical test. I was impressed by the sensitive way in which the staff at that centre are dealing with the introduction of the test. Of more concern is the number of disability organisations that have contacted me regarding press reports of the apparent hiring of Dr. John Le Cascio, second vice-president of the Unum Corporation, which is a multinational private insurance company. Dr. Cascio's job, at a reputed salary of £40,000 a year, is apparently to help train doctors in the techniques of the new medical test. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case, and that £40,000 is the salary being paid? Will he state Dr. Le Cascio's role and comment on whether he feels that there is any conflict of interest between that duty and being vice-president of a private insurance company?
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's initial remarks—and for those of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—on my elevation; it is for others to decide whether or not it was overdue—I certainly do not feel that way, but I am none the less grateful.
    I am pleased that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) appreciated what he saw at first hand in Manchester and the manner in which the test is being conducted. I urge the hon. Gentleman to continue to rely on the evidence of his own eyes, rather than following magazine reports about people who may be employed by the Department to give help and advice.
    Off the top of my head, I do not have straightforward answers to all the hon. Gentleman's questions. I undertake, however, to write to supply the information that he requests. I urge him to continue to use his eyes. I am sure that he will find that his experience in Manchester is replicated throughout the country.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I, too, offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his promotion.
    Does my hon. Friend agree that having extensively piloted the changes in assessment, and having widely consulted, it is right that we should now have independent assessment to ensure that we arrive at correct assessments on behalf of those who are claiming the benefit?
    May I make one suggestion, which arises from constituency cases? There seems to be a feeling that assessment is too short and that there is a failure to listen to questions asked of the doctor. Will my hon. Friend make it clear to those who attend the assessment that a considerable amount of information has been obtained before the assessment is made? Therefore, simple questions often do not need to be asked. Does my hon. Friend agree that the assessments should be perceived as fair if the changes are to be widely accepted?
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks.
    At this early stage we are keeping a close eye on the medical tests and the questions asked. I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments. It would seem important to give the procedure that we have in place—it has been there for

    1295
    only two or three months—a chance to work. We shall be evaluating it with the doctors to ascertain how the assessments are going, how long they are taking and how people are responding to them.
    My hon. Friend is correct in saying that the test has been extensively trawled. It was well trawled in committee. A panel of 80 independent experts consulted to determine how the test should be put together. There were then two evaluation studies. The test was further refined after that. Real effort has been made to ensure that the test will suit the purpose for which it was designed. It will always be capable of further refinement. My hon. Friend and others will find me open to refinements that will improve the system and assist those who need the benefit.

    Child Maintenance
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much child maintenance was paid as a result of assessments by the Child Support Agency, excluding maintenance paid as a result of orders under the liable relative system, in the latest period for which figures are available. [32764]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The amount of maintenance paid direct to the Child Support Agency as a result of assessments by the agency for the period April 1993 to the end of May 1995 was nearly £105 million. In addition, the agency assesses maintenance which is then paid direct between the absent parent and the parent with care. In 1994–95 such assessments amounted to £111 million and from April 1995 to the end of May 1995 the amount paid directly between parents was £21,160,000.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Minister realise that that figure is well below the forecast target of £525 million and that the CSA has lost the confidence and trust of those involved? About 40 to 50 per cent. of applications are not dealt with properly or are dealt with incorrectly. Is it not time that the Minister did something about that? We heard in January what the Government intended to do, but the reality is that the CSA is falling further and further behind in its work. The impact that it is having on people's lives is dramatic.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman's question relates specifically to comparisons with the liable relative system. Such comparisons are not especially relevant as that system was inconsistent, haphazard and often very unfair to the parent with care. It tended to cherry-pick and to do individual deals. On the hon. Gentleman's general point, I hope that he will recognise the considerably improved performance of the agency over the past year, although I accept that there is still a long way to go before the service can be regarded as satisfactory.
    Mr. Evennett: First, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved promotion.
    How many parents were traced by the CSA last year in circumstances in which their whereabouts were unknown by the parent with care of the child? Will my hon. Friend confirm that although the CSA has had some problems it has done much good work for parents with care, who can now discover where the absent and feckless parent is?
    Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Last year, in 77 per cent. of all cases taken on
    1296
    by the CSA the absent parent was paying nothing. Every week 1,000 absent parents are found, and 50,000 were found during the whole of last year. Their whereabouts were unknown before the agency tried to find them. There is still a long way to go, but the CSA's performance is improving.
    Mr. Ingram: I welcome the Minister to his new portfolio—only time will tell whether it constitutes a punishment or a promotion, as I am sure his hon. Friend the Minister of State will inform him on the basis of his own experience in the Department.
    We have heard much from the Government in recent weeks about the need to tackle benefit fraud, but are not the Government guilty of fraud on a grand scale by having continued to peddle the myth that the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support Agency are providing long-overdue help for children and parents with care? Who does the Minister think is to blame for the fact that by the end of March 1995 some £87 million was owed to parents with care and to children? Is that the fault of absent parents, civil servants or the Ministers who introduced the whole shambolic system?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the kind remarks with which he opened his question.
    The debt accumulated by the agency is not classic bank debt in the normally understood sense; it relates significantly to interim maintenance settlements, which account for some 70 per cent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wish to continue the bipartisan approach which ensures that the principles behind the policy are fully accepted, while emphasising the importance of continuing to make the improvements that have already been made—which, I hope, will be evident tomorrow from the CSA's annual report.

    Expenditure Growth
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much planned social security spending for the year 2000–01 will be reduced compared with plans published in "The Growth of Social Security". [32765]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Since publication of "The Growth of Social Security" in 1993, projected expenditure in 2000–01 has been reduced by nearly £8 billion. More than half that amount is due to policy changes announced since 1993; the rest is largely due to improved economic and social performance over the last two years. In the longer term, total savings so far announced will be £14 billion a year.
    Mr. Whittingdale: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, and congratulate him on his efforts to contain the growth in social security spending.
    How much of the social security budget is currently spent on asylum seekers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that part of his budget should be subjected to particularly rigorous scrutiny?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the changes that we have introduced. As I recall, the total cost of benefits going to asylum seekers is some £200 million a year. Fewer than 10 per cent. of those people are ultimately granted refugee status,

    1297
    although an additional number are granted exceptional leave to remain. They are the subject of considerable interest in my Department.
    Mr. Frank Field: As everyone is congratulating everyone else this afternoon, would it be in order to congratulate the Secretary of State on not moving?
    Does the right hon. Gentleman recall saying, in his Mais lecture, that it cost every person in work an average of £13 a day to pay the social security bill? In his Social Market Foundation lecture, he said that that amount had risen to £15 a day. The right hon. Gentleman is supposed to be a cost-cutting Secretary of State; what is his estimate per day for those in work at the millennium?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming my continued presence at the Dispatch Box. To echo the earlier observation of his hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), I do not know whether it is a promotion or a punishment but I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman remains opposite me as Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned the rise in the cost of the social security bill per working person per working day from, in round numbers, £13 to £15 over a three-year period. That is a growth of 2.7 per cent. per annum in real terms—slightly below the long-term trend of 3.3 per cent. The figure in real terms at the millennium will be about £16 per working person per day as a result of the changes that I have introduced. It would be considerably higher if we had not made those changes, and I remind the House that the Opposition opposed nearly all of them.

    Single Parents
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the cost of benefits to single parents in 1995–96. [32767]
    Mr. Lilley: It is estimated that total benefit expenditure on lone parents in 1995–96 will reach some £9.5 billion.
    Mr. Marshall: My right hon. Friend is known as a supporter of the Institute of Economic Affairs. Would he like to comment on the pamphlet produced by that organisation in which Dr. Morgan says that the tax system penalises those mothers who stay at home while the benefit system helps lone parents? Does he agree that the single parent's premium, which costs taxpayers some £250 million, must be re-examined?
    Mr. Lilley: We keep all benefits under review as part of our long-term review of public expenditure. Although we must recognise that some of the £9 billion would go to those parents even if they were not lone parents, the cost of lone parenthood adds about £1,500 a year to the taxes of married couples who are supporting their own children in addition to paying to support others. That is why we have to look rigorously at those benefits. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the £10 per week family credit premium that we have announced today for those working more than 30 hours a week. That will be particularly beneficial to married couples, who will constitute some three quarters of the 350,000 receiving that extra help, thus encouraging self-supporting families.
    Mr. Wicks: As many lone parents would love to have the independence that a proper job brings, why in the last 16 years has a growing proportion of lone parents had to
    1298
    depend on income support? Why have the Government not taken action through education, training and child care to move people away from dependency, which they do not want, to independence, which they do want?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman, who has always taken an informed and intelligent interest in this subject, is right to say that there was a rather disturbing disparity in the trend, with married women going out to work in increasing proportions while lone mothers were increasingly staying at home. That trend reversed about two or three years ago, partly as a result of the measures that we have taken—the introduction of the child care disregard in family credit and increasing efforts to get maintenance from absent parents. Both those measures have helped lone parents to go out to work and an increasing proportion are doing so. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that as much as I do.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: We hear much about plans for a crackdown on social security fraud—and no doubt it is right to do that—while the appetites of the affluent are being whetted for future tax cuts. Would it not be at least as attractive for the Government to emphasise their plans for the relief of the unemployment and poverty traps? As my right hon. Friend wishes to see honest work rewarded, will he state his plans to improve the position of lone parents on income support who have benefit deducted pound for pound on earnings above £15 a week? I do not think that that disregard has been uprated for seven years, and there is no allowance for the cost of child care or other work-related expenses.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have to crack down on fraud, but he is wrong to suggest that the primary support for that comes from the affluent. In my experience, the greatest support for these measures comes from what might be called the hard-working class—people who take home very modest sums as a result of working hard 40 hours a week and who see other people manipulating the system to obtain full benefit while not declaring some earnings. That is greatly resented by the hard-working class. My hon. Friend asks what we are doing to improve incentives to work: I point out to him the new £10 family credit supplement which is being introduced this very day.

    Non-uprated Benefits
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to uprate those benefits that have not been uprated since they were introduced. [32768]
    Mr. Lilley: The next uprating is due to take effect in April 1996. I shall be announcing my proposals at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Flynn: Why are the widow's payment and 23 other important benefits still frozen? That payment replaced a benefit—the widow's allowance—which was increased by the rate of inflation every year. The Government have refused to increase it. If they had increased it by the level of earnings, it would now be worth not £1,000, which was the amount when it was first announced, but £1,881. To fund an election bribe to 5,000 of the richest people in

    1299
    Britain, the Government are cheating the widows, the sick, the elderly and the recently bereaved. Is that not mean and despicable?
    Mr. Lilley: No, it is absolute nonsense. We keep all benefits, including the widow's benefit, under review. There is an increasing proportion of people with life insurance and other provision to protect their widows in the event of their early demise. Uprating all the benefits to which the hon. Gentleman referred would have cost more than £1 billion a year. He should ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who gaily declares that a radical. reform from a socialist perspective will somehow save money, where he will get the money to meet the promises that the hon. Gentleman is willing to throw out.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have been able to uprate benefits in the social security system because we have developed a dynamic enterprise economy? Would not a less punitive regime of capital gains tax improve the dynamism of the economy and make us more able to uprate social security benefits?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. The best counterpart to a good welfare state system is a dynamic and vibrant free enterprise economy generating the wealth to pay for it, which is what we have, and creating opportunities for people to work and to make provision for their own retirement. Lower taxes of all kinds help that; that is why the Labour party's approach of raising taxes across the board would hit the growth of our economy on the head and ultimately undermine our ability to help those most in need.

    Further Education Students
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many further education students have had their benefits suspended in each of the last two years. [32769]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): This information is not available.
    Mr. Ainger: As the Minister knows, because I have written to him on a number of occasions—as, I am sure, have many other hon. Members—part-time further education students have had their benefits suspended. Does he agree that that is a scandal, bearing in mind the fact that both his party and the Opposition want to see a highly skilled and highly educated work force? We are actually encouraging people to give up their studies in an effort to make ends meet by living on benefit. Are the Government not truly encouraging people to be totally dependent on benefit?
    Mr. Evans: No. The 21-hour rule in income support is a concession to the normal requirement that people should be available for work as a condition for benefit. It allows unemployed people to occupy their time in part with useful study while being available for and actively seeking work. It was never intended to provide financial support for people who are primarily concerned with continuing their education. The rule has applied to income support and its predecessor, supplementary benefit, since 1971.
    Mr. Hawkins: Can my hon. Friend confirm that unemployed people will continue to be able to study part
    1300
    time provided that they remain available for and actively seeking work, and that those arrangements will continue under the jobseeker's allowance?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The arrangements will continue under the jobseeker's allowance with the exception that instead of the 21-hour rule, which includes time for homework, there will in due course be provision for 16 guided learning hours, to reflect the changes in Further Education Funding Council-funded courses. It is estimated that the same number of people will benefit under the new rules as under the old.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many payments of compensation on the grounds of error, maladministration or delay have been made by the Child Support Agency at the latest date for which figures are available. [32770]
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: A special payment may be considered where, for example, a clear and unambiguous error or unreasonable delay by the Child Support Agency has resulted in a measurable financial loss. To date, 44 special payments have been made as a result of error or delay on the part of the agency.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does that reply not indicate that the criteria for giving special payments are extremely narrow? Every hon. Member must have written to the Minister's predecessor about cases of delay in administration. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has commented on a number of those cases. What exactly are the criteria for making special payments? Is it not time that the criteria were widened? Is it not time that the £44—or whatever the exact sum is—that people pay for the administration of the Child Support Agency was remitted to those who find that the administration causes them endless grief?
    Mr. Mitchell: The compensation is made for measurable financial loss. It is clear, however, that the Department's scheme needs to be reassessed in the light of the unique nature of the Child Support Agency's business. I have therefore asked officials to speed up the process and to report to me urgently on the options available.
    On the two specific cases that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman with my Department, the administrative improvements will help his constituents greatly, in terms of both better information systems and better help lines. The Child Support Agency can make special payments so long as a clear and unambiguous error by the agency, resulting in actual financial loss, has been made.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome my hon. Friend to his post. Does he agree that if anything proves the necessity to have the Child Support Agency, it is precisely the fact that 77 per cent. of lone parents contacted by the Child Support Agency last year were receiving no help whatever from the absent parents? Does he also agree that hon. Members are receiving more and more correspondence from parents with responsibility, who now want the agency to act on their behalf? Will he do all that he can to ensure that it acts much more competently and professionally than it has hitherto?
    Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. Correspondence with Members of Parliament is

    1301
    much improved. Work on hand today is 60 per cent. down on last year and I am determined that there should be further improvements. On my hon. Friend's general comment, the administration is clearly improving. There are now much better information systems and a welcome emphasis on accuracy. Staff training has improved and there are better links with outside bodies. I shall visit all six of the Child Support Agency centres in the next few weeks to see for myself what is happening on the ground.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that my constituents and many others throughout the country still have horrendous problems with the Child Support Agency? It is not just a question of bad administration; the Child Support Act 1991 is flawed and should be scrapped. Does he agree that, had it not been for the shameful collusion of Labour Front-Bench Members, we might have had a fair and workable maintenance system in place?
    Mr. Mitchell: Far be it from me to defend Labour Front-Bench Members on this issue, but it is a great pity that at a time when those difficult principles were widely supported both within and outside the House, while the Labour and Conservative parties have stood firm by those principles and the changes announced this year, the Liberal party turned turtle and fled the field.
    Mr. Tredinnick: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his promotion. Although I accept that the administration of the Child Support Agency has improved, does my hon. Friend agree that problems exist when it comes to reassessing people's claims of changed circumstances? Will he keep a critical eye on that aspect?
    Mr. Mitchell: Yes, my hon. Friend is right to flag up that aspect of the Child Support Agency's work. Clearly, the second tier of appeals and appeal tribunals has been sharply speeded up, and a centralised unit is being set up. I am conscious of the importance of what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Dewar: I, too, add my congratulations to the new Minister and I am impressed that he got all his friends in the parliamentary Conservative party here to cheer his first appearance at the Dispatch Box.
    May I remind the Minister that, although we stand by the principle that parents should contribute to the upkeep of their children, we are not satisfied with the present system and will press for further change? I genuinely welcome his announcement that the compensation system is to be reviewed as 44 payments is a shaming total in view of the widespread public concern about how the agency has been operating and the scarifying criticism that has come, for example, from the National Audit Office and from Select Committees.
    May I ask the Minister about one other aspect? Does he remember that the White Paper "Improving Child Support" contained a pledge that, from last April, in cases where delay was clearly the fault of the agency, consideration would be given to waiving all but six months of accrued arrears? Has that power been used and what sort of guidance has been given to define the situations in which consideration could lead to payment?
    Mr. Mitchell: On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I understand that that is now in process and, following what he has said, I shall follow developments all the more closely. This year's changes are of immense importance.
    1302
    My hon. Friend the Minister of State, who took them through the House of Commons, has shown that, by listening carefully to what hon. Members on both sides of House say, improvements to the formula could be made. We have managed to knock off some of the rough edges from the formula, which all hon. Members agreed was necessary, and in some cases we have gone further than the Select Committee on Social Security urged us to go.
    We have also ensured that, for the rump of hard cases, the departure system will be introduced as soon as is practical. All that makes the Child Support Agency's work and the targets that we all want it to attain, that much more readily attainable.

    Pensioner Earnings
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by how much the real earnings of pensioners have changed since 1979. [32771]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): Pensioners' average incomes have increased by 50 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Earnings represent a small proportion of the total.
    Mr. Spring: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his thoroughly deserved promotion. Will he confirm, not only that pensioners' average incomes have risen faster than those of the population as a whole, but that three quarters of pensioners under a Conservative Government now have an income flowing from their own investments and savings?
    Mr. Heald: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. The Government's policy of providing a sound basic pension, of encouraging private provision, and of targeting through the benefit system the poorest pensioners has been working well, but it has been underpinned by the Government's economic policies, especially the policy of low inflation. What pension members will have to consider is, having bought into the disreputable Labour old banger—the vehicle of state that it produced in the 1970s—whether they now want to buy the same vehicle just because the salesman smiles more sweetly and there are "go faster" stripes on the side.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that the increased level for older pensioners is less than that for younger pensioners? Is it not derisory and an insult to those people that when they reach the age of 80, they still receive only 25p extra a week? Is it not time that that sum was increased?
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman is making what, in a way, is an obvious point: as time has gone on, the position on pensions has improved, but he should know that the poorest pensioners are still better off. They are 15 per cent. better off in real terms than in 1979 and that is under a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Forman: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new duties and pay tribute to this Government's record in price-protecting the value of pensions. Does it none the less remain the case that a small and declining group of pensioners is solely dependent on the state pension, that they often have to rely on income support as well, and

    1303
    that the Government should think of being more generous to them in a targeted way? Will my hon. Friend give his considered support to that proposal?
    Mr. Heald: It is right, of course, always to review these issues, but the fact is that, as from next April, the poorest pensioner couples will receive £100 a week in benefits through the system. It is also right at this point to mention the campaign by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security against benefit fraud. In targeting benefits on the poorest pensioners, every pound counts and it is right that we should use every penny that we can for proper purposes. We should welcome the response that the fraud campaign has had, not just from the general public, but from newspapers such as The Sun, which, through its hotline, will provide valuable information to the Government.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have lost family credit in the last 12 months on the basis of money awarded by the Child Support Agency and have not yet received the award. [32774]
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: None. Family credit is assessed on the basis of income actually received before the claim. If maintenance is not being paid, it will not be taken into account in assessing family credit.
    Where maintenance has reduced as a result of the recent child support changes, recipients will receive compensation for the remainder of their family credit award.
    Mr. Bennett: When does the Minister expect the Child Support Agency to work efficiently and effectively?
    Mr. Mitchell: I have already answered that question this afternoon. On the hon. Gentleman's specific point about family credit, the CSA is the solver of the specific problem which he mentioned, not the reverse, because it adds to the amount due, but not paid to the bill, and chases it up. That did not happen under the old system.
    Mrs. Roe: May I also add my congratulations to my hon. Friend on his promotion and wish him every success in his new role? Can he confirm that the 30-hour premium on family credit has been launched today, which will give an extra £10 a week to those new claimants for family credit who are working full time? I understand that that could benefit up to 345,000 claimants.
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. That welcome news, which has been received today, will affect 345,000 claimants. It will give extra encouragement to those on low pay, who are working full time. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that three quarters of those affected are married couples.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Roger Levitt Case
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee by the director of the Serious Fraud Office that he did not authorise plea bargaining in the Roger Levitt case. [32753]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The director of the Serious Fraud Office gave oral evidence to the Select Committee on 12 June and again on 11 July. The extent of his involvement in the discussion of possible pleas in the Levitt case has now been fully explained by him to the Committee.
    Mr. O'Brien: Surely the Attorney-General cannot expect to get away with that reply. The Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, of which I am a member, has received damaging evidence from senior QCs that the Serious Fraud Office and its counsel misled the Attorney-General; that, in turn, he inadvertently misled the House; that the prosecution of Levitt was bungled and that a cover-up was instituted, which involved attacks upon the judge in that case. They are serious allegations, which cannot be left unheard, and we need an independent inquiry into the facts. If confidence is to be restored in the Serious Fraud Office, I believe that the director of it, George Staple, must go.
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is being at all just to the director of the Serious Fraud Office. I do not believe that an independent inquiry of that type is called for, as I shall explain. First of all, the hearing in the case was in public and the matters which took place before the judge were all recorded by a shorthand writer.
    The hon. Gentleman, and other members of the Select Committee will know that there is an unhappy background to the case in that it gave rise to a complaint by leading counsel for the Crown against leading counsel for the defence. It is the subject of disciplinary hearings that are still to take place before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council, which will comprehend, in one form or another, most of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has raised in his question today.
    Finally, the Select Committee has its own proper interest in questions such as the interplay between the Serious Fraud Office and the regulators and the wider question of plea bargaining in the American sense, if that were ever to be appropriate here. I believe that we have quite enough public inquiries as it is.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that in his answers of December 1993 he quite unwittingly misled the House? Can he tell the House who saw those draft answers before he put his signature to them? Does he also agree that the head of the Serious Fraud Office should resign because of the botched nature of the prosecution of Roger Levitt and the fact that, subsequently, he appeared not to be in command of his brief?
    The Attorney-General: With respect, I do not agree with my hon. Friend, but I shall answer his question. I think that I have given the fullest series of answers on any criminal case about the detailed history in relation to this case, including answers to my hon. Friend. I shall be perfectly clear with the House. I know a great deal more about the case today than I knew about it when I was first answering in December 1993. The substance of my answer, and one point in particular which I think that my hon. Friend has in mind, is correct. But if I had known everything that I know today, I would have phrased it

    1305
    somewhat differently. I have made that perfectly clear in answers which I have hitherto given and which I am giving to the House today.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: The Attorney-General must surely realise that there is a sense of public outrage. When bank clerks and postal workers misappropriate trivial sums of money, they immediately go to prison, yet when Mr. Levitt decided that he did not want to go to prison, the system seemed to conspire to meet his wish. Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel a similar sense of outrage that he clearly, personally was misled by his own advisers and that, as a result, inadvertently—we totally concede—he misled the House? What he has said today will not end this matter. It will not go away as he would want. Unless and until an independent inquiry looks into the conflict between the several counsel in this case and the background of the misleading of the Attorney-General, it will go on and on.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman raised two points. The first was about the sense of public disquiet as to the outcome of the Levitt case. The later stages of the case were not happy. What went on is very much in the public domain and I do not think that anyone is particularly happy about that. In part, that has given rise, rightly or wrongly, to the disciplinary proceedings which are to be heard before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council, at which—I repeat this to the hon. Gentleman—these matters will no doubt be fully explored by a tribunal which will have to decide very difficult issues. Frankly, those issues are not for this House. I have given very full and candid answers to the House. I have corrected my earliest answer on one particular, which should not, I respectfully say, be exaggerated.
    The nub of the question suggested that the Crown was trying to throw in the towel from an early stage. That is not correct, I am satisfied of that. But I have expanded my answer to make it clear that there was a to-ing and fro-ing between counsel. This could have been described as a "suggestion", so long as it was not understood in the way that I have explained and made clear since.

    Public Interest Immunity Certificates
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to reform the system of public interest immunity certificates. [32755]
    The Attorney-General: The law on public interest immunity has been developed primarily by the courts. Public interest immunity certificates are one of the subjects under consideration by Sir Richard Scott. The Government will take careful note of any conclusions and recommendations in his report.
    Mr. Prentice: Can the Attorney-General tell the House why Customs and Excise has refused on three occasions to hand over copies of public interest immunity certificates to Sir Richard Scott, which he considers necessary for the completion of his inquiry? Is not it as plain as a pikestaff that the Government are strewing with obstacles the path that Sir Richard Scott is treading in trying to get some truth from the arms to Iraq inquiry?
    The Attorney-General: I am sure that the answer to the latter question is a flat no. I confess that I do not know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is referring to in the question about certificates going to Sir Richard Scott. If he
    1306
    is referring to the three public interest immunity certificates which are before the Court of Appeal today, I am given to understand that the court has indicated that it has no objection to those certificates going to Sir Richard, and they will go to Sir Richard. May I just add this: a big lie, a wholly false notion, that the signing by Ministers of public interest immunity certificates somehow involves sleaze or impropriety, has been spinning around the globe for three years.
    Mr. MacShane: I wonder why.
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman says that he wonders why. It is because people like him have not bothered to look into the system. The hon. Gentleman and the House should know that, in a criminal case, when there is a public interest immunity certificate, every document covered by that certificate is shown to the judge before he makes a decision. That happened in the Matrix Churchill case and it is happening in the Ordtech case which is before the Court of Appeal today. The big lie should be laid to rest now.
    Mr. Garnier: Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law, that the public interest immunity certificate system cannot, under any circumstances, operate as a gagging order? As my right hon. and learned Friend has just said, does not the criminal trial judge look at every document covered by the certificate?
    The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. The expression "gagging order" is part of that big lie. The system is created by the courts, and has been approved and modified by the courts. I can confirm what my hon. and learned Friend said: in a criminal case every document covered by a PII certificate is shown to the judge so that he or she can decide whether or not the document should be disclosed to the defence for use in the trial.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Nigeria
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will review aid provision to Nigeria. [32793]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We have no plans to review our aid programme to Nigeria. Since the annulment of democratic elections in 1993 new projects have been confined to those bringing direct benefits to poor Nigerians.
    Mr. Hain: I congratulate the Minister on his new job and hope that it will be gaff free.
    I urge the Minister to stop all aid to Nigeria. Surely, that country is now behaving like a banana republic—it refused to recognise the free and fair 1993 elections, imprisoned the victor, Moshood Abiola and prosecuted, on a fraudulent basis, with the promise of a death penalty, Ken Saro-Wiwa and other representatives of the Ogoni people. The Government are not fit to be recognised by the rest of the world and a tough stand must be taken against them to ensure that human rights abuses end and democracy is restored as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hanley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for some of his opening remarks. I am absolutely thrilled to be taking

    1307
    on these responsibilities. It is a great honour to be a Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; it is one of the most fascinating and absorbing of offices. My slightly less than conventional direction of approach to the Department makes no difference to my delight at serving in it.
    To turn to the matter at hand, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) knows Nigeria well and has taken on responsibilities there on our behalf. He will know that, if we stopped aid to Nigeria, the people who would suffer would not be the military Government, but the poorest people. We take great care to ensure that aid goes directly to the poor. We avoid using the Government; we use non-governmental organisations wherever possible. Exactly those people for whom the hon. Gentleman cares would suffer if we followed his policy.
    Mr. Lester: Will my right hon. Friend look into the case of General Obasanjo, whom many of us know and have worked with. He has been charged and convicted by a military court and we are concerned that somebody of his age and experience should be kept under house arrest or in prison.
    Does my right hon. Friend have any knowledge about whether General Abacha is going to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Auckland? If the general is not going, will my right hon. Friend try to persuade him to go so that he can receive the full weight of the views of the Commonwealth leaders on the way that he is running his country?
    Mr. Hanley: We noticed, of course, the announcement on 14 July that 40 people have been found guilty, by a military tribunal, in connection with an alleged coup plot. We understand that the verdicts have been submitted to the Provisional Ruling Council for approval and we strongly urge the PRC to display clemency when considering the verdicts against all the accused.
    To answer my hon. Friend's second question, there is widespread concern in the Commonwealth about continued military government in west Africa. It is contrary to the principles of the 1991 Harare declaration. It is difficult to see how Nigeria can play a full role in Commonwealth affairs until it puts its house in order.
    Mr. Foulkes: I also welcome the Minister to his new responsibilities—I am sure that he will find them more satisfying than his previous incarnation.
    Has the Minister had time to discover that one of the criteria for awarding British aid is good governance? Has he seen the comment by his colleague the right hon. and noble Baroness Chalker that, unless there are changes in Nigeria, its membership of the Commonwealth must be reconsidered? I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not merely rhetoric because the imprisonment of a democratically elected leader is quite intolerable. It is not something that could be described—to use one of his previous phrases—as "mere exuberance".
    Mr. Hanley: It is a particular honour and a pleasure to answer in this place for my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Chalker. I look forward to working with her on this portfolio for many months to come. [Interruption.] For many, many months to come. We are talking about very serious matters, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to lift his game a little.
    1308
    We share the considerable Commonwealth and African concern about Nigeria. However, sanctions or other such measures could be decided only by the Commonwealth collectively if we chose to embark on that course of action. I agree with my right hon. and noble Friend that Nigeria should have taken very clear steps forward before the Auckland Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, including announcing a credible timetable for a return to civilian democratic rule. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman's final comments about the imprisonment of any democratically elected person.

    Saharawi Refugees
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is available for the Saharawi people within Morocco and in refugee camps in Algeria. [32794]
    Mr. Hanley: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is operating a care and maintenance programme for Saharawi refugees in southern Algeria. As a leading donor to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the Overseas Development Administration contributed more than £20 million in 1994 to the general programme budget from which those contributions were made.
    Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that the Saharawi people have been dealt a dreadful blow by the actions of Morocco in occupying the western Sahara for many years? Is not it very important to increase pressure to complete the registration programme so that a referendum can be held to allow the Saharawi people to decide their own future?
    Despite the aid that is being given, 200,000 people are living in exile and 10,000 people have been homeless and bereft of almost any support since the very serious floods last year. Can the Minister see his way clear to increase the amount of aid that Britain gives—particularly for health, education, housing and food—to ensure that those people can at least live decently until they have the opportunity for a free and democratic vote and can return to their homes?
    Mr. Hanley: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. We do not recognise Moroccan sovereignty or jurisdiction over the western Sahara. We do recognise the UNHCR's figures, which show a current annual aid programme of about $3.5 million, and, as I said earlier, the United Kingdom assistance flows through the UNHCR.
    Morocco and Algeria also receive substantial multilateral aid, particularly through the European Union. Morocco received about £369 million in the fourth European Community-Morocco financial protocol and Algeria received nearly £300 million. So substantial aid is going to the people to whom the hon. Gentleman has correctly drawn the attention of the House. We will make sure that that aid is used effectively. We will examine the matter of the October floods but I note that it was not judged necessary to launch an international appeal, although there has been aid in that regard.
    Sir David Steel: I also warmly welcome the Minister to his new post and I hope that he has an enjoyable and fruitful few months in it, as he said.

    1309
    Will the right hon. Gentleman use his time as a new Minister in the Foreign Office to look afresh at this scandalous issue? The little- known conflict has been going on ever since Spain withdrew from her former colonies. The United Nations peacekeeping mandate lasts only until the end of September, so it is urgent that Britain uses its influence in the Security Council and elsewhere to persuade the Moroccans to agree to hold a referendum on fair terms and allow those people their post-colonial rights to self-determination.
    Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome, and I look forward not only to working with the Department but to working with him. My first challenge will be an Adjournment debate on Wednesday, for which I thank the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are doing everything we can to encourage a referendum, and to discourage—for exactly the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman gave—anything that delays the holding of such a referendum.

    Agricultural Expertise
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what countries receive aid from Her Majesty's Government in the form of agricultural expertise. [32797]
    Mr. Hanley: We provide agricultural expertise through the bilateral aid programme to some 38 countries. I shall place a list of those countries in the Library of the House for the hon. Gentleman's assistance.
    Mr. Pike: Is not it important for agricultural expertise to be given on every occasion possible? Does the Minister recognise the importance of the problems which have existed in Pakistan for the past few years caused by the pest that is doing so much damage to the cotton crop, and thereby to the whole economy, of that country?
    Mr. Hanley: Yes, I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. We spent some £58 million on all aspects of technical co-operation—including expertise in agriculture, livestock and fisheries—in 1993–94, and the equivalent figure for forestry and agri-forestry is some £28 million. The ODA, through the Natural Resources Institute in Chatham, has supported research into the control of cotton pests in Pakistan since 1985, with current research focusing on the use of pheromones in controlling cotton pests and on ways of combating the resistance of pests to chemical sprays. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter.

Greenbury Report
3.31 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the report of the study group on directors' remuneration, chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury, which was published today.
The group was set up in January this year, on the initiative of the Confederation of British Industry, in the wake of public concern about executive remuneration in some public limited companies. The Government supported the setting up of the group and we now welcome the publication of Its report. We congratulate the group on a thorough, speedy and authoritative review of the issues. We welcome its recommendations in principle, and strongly support the emphasis that the group places on the need for pay to be justified by performance.
The group's report follows shortly after the report by the Select Committee on Employment on the remuneration of directors and chief executives of privatised utilities. While the Government will give a considered response to both reports when Parliament resumes after the recess, the House will expect me to make some preliminary comments now, and I willingly do so.
Pay in the private sector is a matter for companies and their shareholders. The Greenbury initiative demonstrates that companies and institutional investors recognise the level of concern on the issue and are determined to act. There is no doubting the authority of the group's recommendations. The group's report vindicates the self-regulatory approach. It will deliver more effective, speedier results than legislation could achieve. Indeed, there has already been a perceptible change in some companies' attitudes to those matters.
The Greenbury report will be underpinned by action by the stock exchange. Its recommendations are addressed primarily to listed companies. It is appropriate therefore that the stock exchange should enforce them through the listing rules. The Government welcome the stock exchange's announcement this morning that it will do so.
The Government have no intention of introducing a top people's pay policy. We do not begrudge top salaries for top performance. Our companies must compete at world level if our nation is to prosper. We must pay the rate for the job. Greenbury points out that although comparisons are difficult, total remuneration levels in the United Kingdom are well below American levels and broadly comparable with other European countries. The fastest way to drive our best talent abroad—in any field, not just business—would be to impose restrictions on earnings.
There has been particular concern about windfall gains arising from share option schemes in the privatised utilities. The Government accept the group's recommendation that for newly privatised companies, no share options should be made available until at least six months, and preferably a year or more, after privatisation.
The great success of virtually all the privatisations of recent years has been a feature of the strengthening of Britain's economy. Consequently, some share options have yielded substantial benefits to those who guided that success. But the huge achievements of the privatisation programme have also brought dramatic benefits for
1312
consumers in terms of lower prices, more choice, better consumer-focused service and more investment, as well as a large and growing flow of revenue to the Exchequer through taxation.
There are three recommendations for legislative action addressed to Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced this morning that the Government will introduce legislation in the next Finance Bill to withdraw the income tax reliefs at present available to directors and employees participating in executive share option schemes that have been approved by the Inland Revenue. The withdrawal of the reliefs will take effect in relation to grants or the exercising of options on or after today.
The second and third recommendations are for minor amendments to the Companies Act, to remove overlap with the group's proposals for comprehensive disclosure and to amend the Companies Act rules on the disclosure of the value of pensions benefits, when they have been drawn up by the actuarial professional bodies. The Government will consider both recommendations carefully and quickly. We remain willing to consider other legislative back-up if experience shows that it is needed.
In summary, the Government welcome the publication of the Greenbury group's report. It is comprehensive and well judged. It will help to ensure that pay is based on performance. It tackles specific problem areas with firm, fair and practical proposals. It is a package that meets today's needs, and I believe that it should be supported.
Dr. John Cunningham: I begin by taking this first opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as President of the Board of Trade. Of course, he took over from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who has become a kind of Prime Minister-in-waiting. He is not here today, we notice; no doubt he is staking out No. 10 Downing street, the great panjandrum of this decrepit Government. If the right hon. Member for Henley had been half as successful in creating jobs for the British people as he has been with his personal job creation schemes, unemployment in Britain would be much lower than it is today.
We are, however, delighted to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. After all, it was he who, over many months, dismissed our calls for share options to be taxed as income. On 8 December last, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
"The hon. Gentleman's proposals"—
referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown)—
"on loopholes are undesirable changes in taxation on legitimate business. I have considered his proposal on executive share options many times".—[Official Report, 8 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 474.]
But he rejected it. It is little wonder that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was seen practising somersaults in the garden of No. 11 Downing street early this morning. He has opposed these proposals for many months, but we are now led to believe that he is anxious and willing to introduce them.
Does not the President of the Board of Trade recognise that, had Labour not demanded action and had Labour not reflected the understandable anger of repeatedly exploited consumers, the Government would have done nothing, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman intended?

1313
Incidentally, that is also what the former President of the Board of Trade intended, as a leaked memo in March from his office to the Prime Minister made clear. It stated that the President was loth to take action. That was the true position of the Government until the Greenbury report appeared. They have in no sense reflected the public anger or the outcry that followed the many abuses.
Before the right hon. Gentleman tries to fabricate Labour policy, let me say that we have always recognised that high performance merits high reward—[Laughter.] But the reality is, and Conservative Members know it, that the rewards given by their friends and themselves to the directors of privatised monopolies bear no relation to their individual performance or merits, or the performance of the organisations. Indeed, as everyone knows, the gap between executive pay and lower pay is as wide as it has ever been. The Government have a curious philosophy that directors must be given much higher rewards to motivate them, but people on low and middle incomes must have their wages controlled to motivate them.
The Greenbury report has some welcome proposals. I believe that Sir Richard would have gone further, but members of the committee stopped him. The draft report was offered in traditional Marks and Spencer fashion—those who did not like it could take it back and change it, and they did repeatedly.
Complete transparency on salaries and pensions is welcome, as is the relation of bonuses to performance criteria. It is right that the stock exchange must be obliged to enforce the code of practice, and its decision to do so is welcome.
However, does not the Minister recognise that the report ducks the crucial issue—the issue of abuses of private monopoly power, of the need for a truly independent member on each remuneration committee, the need for shareholders to have a legal right to vote on remuneration packages at annual meetings, the need for the abolition of all share options in privatised utility companies and the need for self-regulation to be changed, as it has clearly failed and not protected consumers from those many abuses in those privatised industries?
The Greenbury report ducks the crucial issue of share option rip-offs and huge salary hikes in exactly the industries where they have been the most outrageous. Greenbury recommends a voluntary review, which the Minister has welcomed; a voluntary review by those who made themselves millionaires at our expense in the first place. Does the right hon. Gentleman—does anyone in the House—believe that those guilty of those abuses of private monopoly power will confess? Are they likely to reduce their salaries and their share options? It beggars belief that they will do so, so, frankly, the idea that self-regulation will end those abuses does not bear examination.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that privatisation has left consumers wide open to abuse, exposed to the exploitation of private monopoly power; that the weak regulatory regime has manifestly failed to protect consumers? Does not he recognise that those abuses are set to continue and that those massive personal gains will continue, as the memorandum from his predecessor to No. 10 Downing street, from which I quoted earlier, confirms? It also confirms, in case he has not read it, that
"none of the options is related to performance (either of the company or the individual)."
1314
What more evidence do we need than his predecessor's own confession to the Prime Minister that none of that can be justified?
No notice has been taken at all by people in PowerGen, National Power or water companies of the public outrage that followed those abuses. The evidence is there—they do not intend to change their practices, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Indeed, in the case of British Gas, total factor productivity has been stagnant for several years, but that did not prevent the chief executive officer from giving himself a 75 per cent. pay rise, bearing no relation to the performance of the organisation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the conclusion that he has reached—that the report is welcome—will not be welcomed outside the House by consumers, who are fed up with being exploited and fed up with the Government's failure to act? Those issues will continue to infuriate consumers until the next general election. The Government's failure to end those abuses, like their broken promises on tax, will be neither forgiven nor forgotten.
Mr. Lang: I thank the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for his welcome to me in my new position.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the handling of share option schemes and why my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor resisted any change in taxation in the past. The answer is perfectly simple. Share option schemes were introduced in 1984 for senior executives, with the tax arrangements that have just been changed, to provide a long-term incentive for senior executives to become involved in privatisation exercises and make them a success. What is more, those schemes were introduced at a time when we had not completed the process of reducing the income tax levels that we inherited from Labour. We have now made considerable progress in that regard, and the privatisations are now mature and successful. The value that attaches to share option schemes is a direct consequence of the substantial contribution made by senior executives to the successful operation of privatised companies.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he believes that pay should reward performance. I remind him that it is hardly credible for him to say that, when his party is committed to a windfall tax on excess profits of privatised utilities, a training tax on employers and the introduction of a minimum wage. The right hon. Gentleman would clearly also introduce a maximum wage. Labour is going step by step towards the introduction of a full wage policy at all levels. Conservative Members know perfectly well that that is Labour's true aspiration.
Only today, the Full Employment Forum, as it calls itself—a body of 60 Labour Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament—called for a higher tax rate of 50p in the pound on all individuals earning £50,000 and more.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about monopoly. He does not seem to realise that since the gas industry was privatised, it has moved from being a monopoly to an industry of 42 companies, and 44 companies are engaged in supplying electricity. That competitive element in the provision of utilities has led to substantial advantages for the consumer—whom the right hon. Gentleman says we are not protecting. He might have forgotten that BT's

1315
main prices have fallen by 35 per cent. after inflation since privatisation, and that domestic gas prices have fallen by around 23 per cent. since privatisation.
Perhaps the right hon. Member for Copeland is not aware that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) travelled to the far ends of the world to make a speech to the News Corporation leadership conference in Hayman Island, Australia, when he said:
"Our parliamentary system is hopelessly outdated. There is, believe it or not, still prejudice against success in trade and business."
What a pity that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, in e-mailing himself down the, Internet to Australia, forgot to fax a copy of his speech to members of his Front Bench at home. The fact is that Labour does not admire success, but is interested only in state control. That is not in the interests of consumers or shareholders.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the tax changes proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will not impact on the secretaries, office workers and shop floor workers in my constituency who have taken share options? Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that many shares go to ordinary employees on average wages?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend. Labour does not like and does not choose to recognise that there are 10 million shareholders, and 6 million shareholders in privatised industries. If Labour's alleged recognition of enterprise were to be believed, one would think that it would welcome those figures.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The package is acceptable as far as it goes and disclosure will be helpful, but does the Secretary of State acknowledge that small shareholders will still be powerless? Will he introduce a new charter, to give them the authority to approve directors' packages? Will he confirm that, even after the Chancellor's new initiative in changing the tax regime that applies to such packages, the fat cats will have to pay only an extra £2,400? Surely that is small beer in terms of the losses and gains seen in the recent past.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman calls for a charter. If he reads Sir Richard Greenbury's report, he will see that it clearly sets out a code of best practice and makes a number of substantial recommendations—the majority of which are being taken up by the stock exchange and made obligatory under the listing rules. That not only greatly strengthens shareholders large and small, but sets down a code of practice that all companies will be expected to operate.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Were any requests received from the Opposition parties to widen the scope of the Greenbury inquiry to include the pay and perks of journalists, television personalities, pop stars and professional sportsmen?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. It is wrong for the Labour party to abuse and describe as fat cats those in the City whose skills and professionalism are admired throughout the world and which generate so much enterprise, revenue and employment in this country.
Mr. Greville Janner: In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his post, may I welcome the
1316
parts of the Greenbury report that reflect the views of the Labour minority and reject those of the Tory majority? Has the right hon. Gentleman read the Employment Select Committee report? Has he any comments to make now on that report? As I presume that he has read the Richard Greenbury report, does he unequivocally agree with all the recommendations and remarks contained within it?
Mr. Lang: The hon. and learned Gentleman is familiar with these matters because he is a long-standing member of the Ladbroke Group plc board's remuneration committee, which recently approved the chairman's salary of £583,000 and a share option package for directors worth £2.3 million. I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's participation in the discussion.
I have read the Employment Select Committee report. I shall ensure that we reply to it, as I said in my statement, in the autumn. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether I agreed with every detail and point in the Greenbury report. I have said that we welcome the report in principle, agree with most of its recommendations and will respond fully in the autumn.
Mr. Spencer Batiste: May I ask my right hon. Friend to take the opportunity to reject utterly the concept of a statutory wages policy, which would be the inevitable outcome of the comments of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)? Is not the real issue the need to encourage the representatives of large institutions to take a much more active role in companies, and to find ways of enabling them to do that, which will not lead them into running foul of the necessary rules against insider trading?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Institutional shareholders are investors who seek to make a profit, just as small individual shareholders do. The fact remains that they have substantially more voting power. They tend to hold their shares for longer and they are in a position to exert greater influence. It behoves them to use that power responsibly, as many of them do. It is a matter that I shall be considering further.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the President of the Board of Trade give a clear answer on the voluntary code and the role that is being barred to shareholders? Will he introduce some checks and balances into the system? Those outside this place consider that to be important.
Have the Government any plans to examine the corporate government of companies, especially in regard to institutional shareholders? Will they take all stakeholders into account, especially when it comes to competitiveness? That issue has been raised on several occasions by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) about institutional shareholders. As for the code of best practice, I urge the hon. Gentleman to read the recommendations in detail to understand how they interrelate. He will then appreciate that the importance of the remuneration committee is considerably enhanced. There is a far greater requirement for disclosure, accountability and transparency. I think that that will be of considerable advantage to all shareholders.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many people will be delighted at the

1317
Government's quick action? There was genuine concern and it will be welcomed especially that the remuneration committee, under the code of practice, will not contain people who will step up one another's salaries to suit one another. That is important, because it gives confidence. May I be the only consumer in this place who is delighted with British Gas and the service that it has given me in my new house?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I welcome his support for British Gas. Board pay at British Gas accounts for about 15p per consumer per annum. The savings that British Gas has achieved for consumers are equivalent to £77 per annum. Those figures alone justify the level of remuneration that a company the size of British Gas has chosen to set.
Mr. Ken Eastham: Has not the President of the Board of Trade omitted to mention the mistakes and mismanagement that Greenbury found on investigating some of the carryings-on in certain utilities? Is it not a fact that some of the top cats currently under investigation were members of the 11-member committee? Has it not been said that small shareholders should have more of a say at annual general meetings before massive increases are paid? Sir Iain Vallance—a top man—was paid £50,000 to do a little job for 18 days a year, along with another £665,000; another director of a utility was paid £465,000 a year, plus £500,000 worth of share options and £38,000 to do three little jobs for three days a year. Should not the right hon. Gentleman be considering those issues?
Mr. Lang: Perhaps the difference between the Opposition and the Government is that we believe that committees should be manned by people who know something about the subject, rather than just by those with prejudices about it. As for the hon. Gentleman's point about the position of small shareholders, I have noted the point made in the Select Committee's report about the circulation of motions for the annual general meeting, and we shall of course consider it.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the context of performance, one aspect of a director's responsibilities is the ability to exercise self-discipline and restraint, and to understand what is acceptable to employees as well as shareholders? Is it not important for Her Majesty's Government, in all dealings with the utilities, to encourage directors to exercise that responsibility?
In the context of international relativity, is it not also essential for Her Majesty's Government to continue to reduce direct taxes on income, so that international entrepreneurs and directors will want to make a living in this country?
Mr. Lang: I agree with both those points. When making international comparisons, however, it is important to recognise that many top managers have skills that could easily be transported to other countries. In Germany, France, Belgium and Italy, pay levels are slightly higher than in this country; in companies of comparable size in the United States, pay is twice as high as it is here. Our directors must also take that into account.
Dr. John Marek: Has it occurred to the President of the Board of Trade that, following the fiscal changes, a chairman of a privatised utility who was taking
1318
home £300,000—perhaps in the form of share options—will take home £297,000? Less than 1 per cent. of his salary will have been taken away. The employees at the bottom of the scale, to whom the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) referred, however, may lose as much as 25 per cent.
If the right hon. Gentleman has reflected on that, will he also reflect that all the huge, unjustified payouts by chairmen of former nationalised industries to themselves and their directors are just a little like what happened in "Animal Farm"—the bit where the pigs have taken control?
Mr. Lang: Obviously, the circumstances of individual directors will vary according to their salary levels, the size of their share option schemes and their circumstances in relation to both income tax and capital gains tax. The hon. Gentleman's figures are meaningless. If he feels that the change that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has made to the tax system is inadequate, however, why on earth have his hon. Friends bayed for it over recent months?
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Will my right hon. Friend pass on my congratulations to our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor on reacting so quickly this morning by altering Companies Act legislation? Is it not typical of Labour Members that, if my right hon. and learned Friend had not made his statement, they would have criticised him for doing nothing; but, now that he has responded quickly to the Greenbury committee—as he said that he would—they say that he has performed a somersault? Is not that ridiculous?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I can reassure him that we shall also urgently consider the other two matters for which legislation is recommended, on the disclosure of salaries in company accounts and the disclosure of pension benefit levels.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is not it true that a small number of directors and executives of privatised utilities are now carrying stock share options that are worth more than £100 million—I repeat, £100 million? Will they simply be free to exercise those options, which none of them has earned? What about last week's events? We understand that some directors were able to exercise options in advance of the announcement, on the basis that they were given insider knowledge. What does the Secretary of State have to say about that as well?
Mr. Lang: I have no knowledge of any insider knowledge having existed. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of that, I hope that he will send it to me. The share options are valuable because the value of the companies rose as a result of the efficiency with which they were run after they were able to cast off the yoke of nationalisation. Privatisation, in almost every company that has had the benefit of it, has been a triumphant success. I was asked about the issue of existing share option commitments. If the Labour party is recommending that contracts and contractual arrangements that are already entered into should be ridden over roughshod and broken, I disagree.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if Greenbury's recommendations and the Employment Select Committee's majority report

1319
are implemented, remuneration, especially of executives of privatised industries, will be transformed? I note my right hon. Friend's important point that those industries have delivered substantial price reductions. Will he keep an eye on the situation and be prepared to act again if that is needed? Will he ignore the Labour party's constant efforts simply to encourage spite and envy, which is dangerous, damaging and very silly?
Mr. Lang: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Of course I shall continue to keep an eye on the situation. However, I think that the implementation of the Greenbury recommendations will bring about a substantial improvement.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Secretary of State now acknowledge that the public outcry about these excesses is genuine and is based not on envy but on anger, and that the Greenbury proposals will do almost nothing to assuage that anger, because they will not deal with the problem? What will he do to end the absurdity of the block vote system at annual general meetings? Mr. Giordano exercised 3 million block votes to give himself a huge increase and override the wishes of everybody at one such meeting.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Lady obviously knows all about block votes. There is a principle of one share, one vote, and that seems extremely fair. On the issue of voting, perhaps the hon. Lady should reflect on the outcome of the Labour party's Scottish conference in March, which on one day voted to abolish clause IV and on the next voted to renationalise every public utility.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend will, of course, bear it in mind that tens of thousands of ordinary employees have share options and will know that when they exercise them, their gains fall well within the £6,000 capital gains tax threshold. Will he avoid the trap into which the Labour party has clearly fallen and which would hit ordinary employees? Will he ensure that if there is any switch to income tax, that allowance will be kept intact for ordinary people?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I am sure that the public will notice Labour's commitment to abolish share option schemes. So much for Labour's commitment to enterprise. Some 6 million shareholders have secured their shares as a result of privatisation. The vast majority of those people are small shareholders who have a stake in their company and in the future of their enterprises. Conservatives are determined that they will have the benefit of that.
Mr. Tony Banks: Who chose the members of this remuneration study group committee? Why were there no women on it and no representatives of the consumer's interest? Why did it not have an employees' representative? Why was it made up entirely of big nobs from big business, people who earn millions from salaries and options every single year? How can the public have any faith in this? All that has happened is that the fat cats have been put in charge of the creamery.
Mr. Lang: The members of the committee will note what the hon. Gentleman thinks of their skills. The chairman of the committee, Sir Richard Greenbury, runs
1320
one of the most efficient companies in the country, which is a considerable advantage to consumers. He took a cut in his salary last year, reflecting the circumstances of his company. Indeed, the entire board of Marks and Spencer pays itself less than it gives to charity every year. The qualities and experience of the men on the committee formed the right mix to bring to bear the knowledge that was needed to get a worthwhile and sensible report, which is what we have.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Greenbury report will have no bearing on the Government's policy of reducing income and capital taxation as soon as it is prudent to do so?
Mr. Lang: My hon. and learned Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor have said on that matter on many occasions.
Mr. Ernie Ross: The President of the Board of Trade said that he had read the report by the Select Committee on Employment. Will he confirm that the main recommendations that Greenbury came out with over the weekend are not to be found in the majority report, which was supported by his hon. Friends, but are contained in the minority report produced by me and my colleagues, the Labour members of the Employment Select Committee? As people are watching our discussions, will he correct the statement that he made earlier, which was that Labour was out to abolish share options? The Labour party has said that it is opposed to executive share options and that if executives have share options, they should be taxed as income.
Mr. Lang: In other words, the hon. Gentleman is narrowing down the qualification to say that Labour is opposed to share option schemes only for some people, preferably those who are most efficient and most senior in their companies and who have most to offer to the management of those companies. I doubt whether that will impress executives or employees.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the proposal that service contracts should not last for as long as they have historically? Does he agree that the real scandal in the City is the compensation paid to the incompetent rather than the salaries paid to the successful? Does he also agree that the politics of envy, the proposals for a minimum wage and the proposals for a maximum salary demonstrate which party is not the heir to Thatcherism, is not a believer in the market economy and hankers after the controls that hindered this country so much in the 1970s?
Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend's latter points; he has also hit on a good point about compensation. One of the reasons why shorter contracts are now in contemplation is to avoid the excessive compensation payments made to people who have turned out not to be up to the job.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the 11 members of the Greenbury committee have a total salary, excluding share options, of well over £4 million? Does he agree that nobody should take seriously anything that this group says, because it is merely trying to protect the interests of

1321
the already very rich? If it is good enough for the very rich in industry to be paid the going rate for the job, why is the Secretary of State so opposed to the train drivers getting a decent increase for the responsible job that they do in ensuring the safety of the public and the efficiency of our railway network?
Mr. Lang: People should be rewarded according to their performance. There is no doubt that the quality of the members of the Greenbury committee justifies their level of salary. One needs only to look at the success of their various companies to see that.
Mr. Peter Hain: Is not this report simply a charter for the fat cats to keep purring contentedly? Is not the self-regulatory ethos deeply flawed and has it not failed in the past? Does not it contrast extremely starkly with the ruthless regulation of the remuneration of teachers, nurses, train drivers and others who really make this country work?
Mr. Lang: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should look at the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), whom I see in his place. He said in February this year:
"We believe that people should be rewarded for improved performance whether in the form of increased salary or the granting of options."
What a pity it is that that enlightened view does not stretch to the hon. Gentleman's Back Benches.
Mr. Richard Burden: Surely when the President of the Board of Trade seeks to equate the scandal of executive share options with the share offers that have been made available at various times to ordinary employees of privatised utilities, he is aware that there is little comparison between the two, either in terms of the nature of the schemes or in terms of their value. Some of the greatest outrage about executive share options has come from those self-same employees. If he believes that senior executives must have their loyalty to their companies won by being paid millions of pounds, why does he not take the same view about ordinary employees?
Mr. Lang: The Greenbury committee makes a number of recommendations about future share option schemes. I welcome the fact that it is keen to encourage long-term shareholdings. It is also keen that all long-term incentive schemes should be approved by shareholders, that the discounting of share options should be stopped, and that share option schemes on new privatisations should not be introduced for six months, or preferably a year. All those measures will improve the relevance and efficiency of share option schemes and remove some of the excesses that have caused so much concern.
Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Will the President of the Board of Trade explain the precise legal means that the Government have employed to ensure that share options are taxed as income rather than capital with immediate effect? Will he also explain whether the benefit to the individual taxpayer will be taxed in the financial
1322
year in which the option is exercised or whether the taxpayer will be allowed to spread the benefit over the period from when the option was originally granted?
Mr. Lang: The change will be made in the forthcoming Finance Bill and the hon. Gentleman must wait for its publication to have his question answered.
Mr. David Evans rose—
Madam Speaker: I watch very carefully to see which hon. Members come into the Chamber after a statement has been made. May I ask the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) whether he heard the entire statement?
Mr. Evans: I did, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: In that case, I will hear the hon. Member.
Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, during the recent Labour leadership election, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) received £79,000 from three London Weekend Television directors who earned their money from share option schemes? Does not he think it a bit rich that the lot opposite should criticise us when their own leader was elected on the back of share option schemes?
Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We keep hearing about new Labour, but what we have seen and heard today is old Labour, which is full of envy and spite towards success and enterprise, and cannot resist interfering, regulating, legislating and controlling. Old Labour would reduce this country, as it did before, to impoverishment and high unemployment.
Dr. John Cunningham: Is it not revealing that from neither the Government Front Bench nor Back Benches have we heard one word of condemnation of the manifest and widespread abuses of salary hikes and share options in the privatised utilities? Is it not the same story in respect of their attitude to Lloyd's, for example? Once again, they have refused to take action to end abuses in Lloyd's, even though Lloyd's management has asked them to do so.
Before the right hon. Gentleman continues to misrepresent what we have been saying, will he acknowledge that I said that share options for directors of privatised utilities should be ended, not all share options, as he inadvertently claimed a few moments ago? If he reads our published statement to Greenbury and elsewhere, he will see that it is clear that we recognise that remuneration should be related to performance and that people who perform well are entitled to be well remunerated.
Mr. Lang: I shall study Hansard with great care. As for action to end abuses, that is exactly what the Greenbury committee was set up to do and what its report and recommendations should do.
On the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to enterprise, the Labour party talks in its new clause IV about the rigour of competition and a thriving private sector, but its every word and action today shows that it means the opposite.

Privacy and Media Intrusion
4.12 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the press and privacy.
I am today publishing the Government's response to the report of the National Heritage Select Committee on privacy and media intrusion. Copies are available in the Library and Vote Office.
I pay tribute to the Select Committee for its report. The Government very much appreciate the Committee's patience in its long wait for this response. The issues in this area go to the heart of our democracy and the Government have thought about them long and hard. In every democracy a balance must be struck between the rights of individuals to personal privacy and the freedom of the press. As the Select Committee recognises, that is not always easy to achieve.
It is a proud feature of our free society that for 300 years, other than as a necessity in times of war, the United Kingdom press has been at liberty to write whatever it chooses, subject to the constraints of the law as it applies equally to all citizens. Such freedoms are jealously guarded, by the press itself and by this House. The surest means of protecting those freedoms is to ensure that they are used responsibly. Overall, the quality and standards of our local, regional and national press are high. Some newspapers, however, have ridden roughshod over people's privacy when there was no possible justification for doing so. Cases concern not just those in public life, but private citizens who become the subject of media scrutiny through circumstances not of their choosing. People are entitled to privacy for themselves and their families.
In response to those concerns, the industry has taken a number of steps. An independent, non-statutory Press Complaints Commission was set up at the beginning of 1991. My noble Friend Lord Wakeham was appointed as the commission's chairman at the beginning of this year. He has considerably strengthened it. The majority of its members are now independent of the press and bring robust common sense to the cases before them. Lord Wakeham set out the steps that he has taken in a recent letter to my predecessor. It is published today as an annex to the Government's response.
The development of a national code of practice for the press is a significant improvement on what has gone before. The code, and how it is applied, is being shown to have effect. The House will be aware, for example, of a recent instance where the editor of a Sunday tabloid was publicly reprimanded by the newspaper's proprietor for breaching the code. More needs to be done and I am glad to note that, as the Select Committee on National Heritage recommended, increasingly compliance with the code is being written into the employment contracts of editors and journalists.
My noble Friend Lord Wakeham is bringing forward proposals for discussion on how both the public and the PCC can contribute to revising and further toughening the code of practice. That is welcome, as are his proposals for performance targets against which to measure the commission's efficiency and responsiveness.
It is essential that self-regulation is both effective and seen to be effective. There have been improvements to the PCC. Lord Wakeham is committed to doing more. I have
1324
written to him setting out further improvements that the Government wish to see both in the procedures of the PCC and in the code of practice itself. My letter is published as an annex to the Government's response to the Select Committee.
We recommend that the PCC pays out compensation to those whom it judges have had their privacy violated by the press. Such awards would be paid from a fund set up by the industry. That would be a collective recognition from the industry that one of its members had wronged a member of the public.
We have proposed several ways in which the code of practice might be further tightened up. In particular, there are several points where the language of the code should be more precise, or the emphasis changed, to place greater weight on the protection of individual privacy.
We support the Select Committee's call for a direct and rapid line of communication between the chairman of the PCC and newspaper editors. That would be used to warn them where, in the chairman's judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted to him, the code was about to be breached. That could be used to head off abuses. It is also important that the public have rapid and direct access to the PCC. That facility should be well publicised in the press so that the public are aware of it.
The Government have considered carefully whether legislative options should be pursued, rather than the self-regulatory alternative. We have decided for the present to allow Lord Wakeham's commission, and the press, to demonstrate that self-regulation can be made to work. Let me say something, however, about each of those legislative alternatives.
The Select Committee on National Heritage and Sir David Calcutt's 1993 report before it both took the view that legislation was needed to prevent abuses by the press. There is disagreement, however, about the best remedies to apply. Sir David Calcutt recommended a statutory press complaints tribunal, but that was rejected by the Select Committee.
The Government agree with the Select Committee that a statutory press complaints tribunal would not be right. We believe in a free press. Like the Committee, we are reluctant to see statutory controls. A statutory tribunal would be a very significant step on a path that we have no wish to travel. For the same reason, we cannot accept the Committee's recommendation for a statutory ombudsman.
I come next to the Select Committee's recommendation for a protection of privacy Bill with both civil and criminal elements. The criminal elements would be similar to the intrusion offences proposed in the Calcutt report. The Select Committee, however, unlike Calcutt, would extend the offences to cover intrusion for any purpose and not just for publication.
The Government have made it clear that they see attractions in principle in the use of the criminal law to prevent and penalise blatant and unjustified intrusions into the privacy of individuals; nor could the owners or editors of most newspapers, we believe, legitimately object to sensible laws in that area.
The Government have therefore given the most painstaking consideration to how the necessary legislation might be drawn up. In particular, we examined from every angle how the Calcutt offences might work in practice. That work is described in detail in chapter 3 of the Government's response.

1325
We have been guided by the principle that the law must be both clear and enforceable. It must have a good chance of catching those who are abusing their powers while not inhibiting legitimate journalistic investigation. Any legislation would have to establish a balance that protected privacy while allowing responsible journalism, and without creating defences that were so wide as to render the offences meaningless.
We have been forced to conclude that the difficulties of scope and definition of the proposed offences, and the necessary defences, are formidable. The Government would prefer to see a self-regulatory process than to introduce a law that could create more problems than it is designed to solve. The Government therefore have no immediate plans to legislate in that respect.
The Select Committee also recommended a civil remedy for infringement of privacy. That would give victims of infringements of privacy a right to damages and to seek injunctions. In 1993, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and the then Secretary of State for Scotland consulted on a new civil remedy. That consultation did not generate the clear support which the Government look for when considering major measures of law reform. The Government are not yet persuaded that there is sufficient consensus on which to base statutory intervention in this area. Moreover, the Government strongly prefer the principle of self-regulation.
On balance, therefore, the Government have decided not to legislate for a new civil remedy, at least for the present. We believe, however, that the right to privacy should be more explicitly spelt out in the industry's code of practice. For that reason we are publishing, as an annex to our response, what a civil remedy might look like, with the recommendation that elements of it should be incorporated into the code.
The House will look to the industry to respond positively to the recommendations set out in my letter to Lord Wakeham. Self-regulation still has a case to prove. Despite the serious practical difficulties, legislative measures should not be ruled out. The fact is, however, that self-regulation is the most practical way forward. The appointment of Lord Wakeham and the approach he is taking offer the best opportunity for some time that self-regulation will be made to work in a way which commands public confidence.
There are signs of a growing recognition among editors, including past miscreants, that the right of individual privacy is not to be casually cast aside. The industry now has to back the PCC and to make self-regulation fully effective. This is an issue which the Government and the House will and should continue to monitor and debate.
Mr. Chris Smith: May I welcome the Secretary of State to her new role and responsibilities? I congratulate her on her promotion and I hope that she has brought her assiduousness, but not her philosophy, with her from the Department of Health.
In the statement, the Government have clearly recognised the need for and the difficulty of balancing the right of free expression with the right to individual privacy for ordinary citizens. Any new provisions must be aimed above all at protecting the ordinary citizen, not the rich and famous, and protecting the right of the media to expose and counter injustice wherever it happens. I am not convinced, however, that the Government have got that balance right in their statement.
1326
May I begin by expressing severe disappointment that the Calcutt committee's recommendations from 1990 on an offence of specific physical intrusion have not been adopted? It proposed a very limited set of provisions in criminal law to prevent intrusion from bugging devices and invasion of private property. In the then Home Secretary's response on 21 June, he said:
"We accept them in principle."—[Official Report, 21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 1125.]
The then Secretary of State for National Heritage said in January 1993:
"The Government accept the case for new criminal offences to deal with specified types of physical intrusion and covert surveillance."—[Official Report, 14 January 1993; Vol. 216, c. 1068.]
On 29 January 1993, the then Under-Secretary of State said:
"the Government will therefore bring forward legislation in due course to give effect to those proposals".—[Official Report, 29 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1344.]
Not only have Ministers promised to implement those Calcutt recommendations, but Conservative Back Benchers have advocated them on several occasions, including, on 14 January 1993, the hon. Members for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and for Pudsey (Sir G. Shaw), both of whom I see in their places today.
Such a provision against physical intrusion would at least cope with some of the worst excesses of press intrusion. When the hospital bedrooms of Gorden Kaye or Russell Harty are invaded to get a cheap story, all hon. Members wish to deal with the issue, yet the Government's statement does not do anything whatever to deal with it. Those who do not seek public limelight should surely be protected, as the very specific and limited proposals that Calcutt came forward with in 1990 would have done. The Secretary of State's excuse that it is difficult to frame legislation really does not wash. It is possible, Calcutt set out how, and the courts could, under the normal common law principles, interpret on a case-by-case basis.
May I however welcome the Government's rejection of Calcutt's 1993 recommendation for a statutory press regulatory body? It seems that the "last chance saloon" has been granted a substantial extension to its drinking hours. It is important, except in the very specific circumstances to which I have already referred, that self-regulation rather than censorship ought to be the rule. But for self-regulation to work, it must be seen to work. We note with interest the Government's sympathy for the establishment of a compensation fund for victims of press error. Is there not a danger, however, that if the fund were established with contributions across the board from all members of the press, the good papers would end up subsidising the misdeeds of the bad? Is that not a foolish way of going about ensuring that miscreants are given an incentive to behave better?
Will the Secretary of State consider one further specific change to the Press Complaints Commission: that it establishes a research capacity so that it looks not simply at individual complaints but more widely at general areas of concern about media behaviour? May I turn her attention also to the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper in 1993 and note that she has ruled out for the present the introduction of a civil offence of infringement of privacy? Without legal aid, any such civil remedy would of course be available only to those with deep pockets. May I warn her against instituting a law that would protect only the well-heeled and not the ordinary people of Britain?

1327
Surely a much better approach would be to incorporate properly into British law the European convention on human rights, together with its article 8, with a right to the protection of personal privacy, and article 10, with a right to freedom of expression. It should include a specific definition of acting in the public interest where privacy is infringed and couple it with the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act to open up the workings of government. That would have been a sensible approach; it would have been a far-reaching approach; it would have got the balance right. The Government have today yet again missed a fundamental opportunity.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my new office, which I am delighted to take on. I look forward to debating with the hon. Gentleman many subjects on a wide range of issues.
The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about the balance needed between the right of free speech and the right of privacy—the Select Committee report contained precisely those comments. The report stated:
"The Committee does not believe that this balance can or should be achieved by legislation which imprisons the press in a cage of legal restraint".
The Government have been looking carefully at exactly that issue for the past two years.
On the criminal remedies, the hon. Gentleman and the House will see that chapter 3 of our response details at some length the intractable difficulties that beset the issue. On the subject of intrusion, issues such as listening devices, privacy and hospitals are all set out in greater detail in the code of practice, which has been substantially enhanced since the debate on the subject began. As I set out in my letter to Lord Wakeham, I expect to see further clarification and strengthening of those precise points.
As has been said:
"It's how you define the 'public interest' that is so difficult. It's impossible to lay down an absolute definition."
Those are not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) in an article in the News of the World. That is precisely the dilemma: we must achieve a public interest defence that does not run a coach and horses through the issue.
Finally, there is the danger of developing show trials, whereby someone whose privacy has already been breached finds him or herself able to seek redress only in a criminal court, where any vestiges of privacy that he or she had will be thoroughly lost. He or she might well be subject to further allegations and further intrusions into his or her privacy.
The hon. Gentleman is right when he speaks of the need to ensure that self-regulation carries public confidence. Lord Wakeham has set out a number of measures and we will expect them to be delivered. Above all, the House must be satisfied that the interests of our constituents are being properly served.
On the subject of a civil offence, the issues are set out in chapter 4. We also published annex B to the document which shows those civil offences, with the commendation that they should be incorporated in the code of practice.
I know that the Labour party feels that the European convention on human rights is the be all and end all, but it does not remove the tension that we are discussing
1328
between freedom of speech and the importance of privacy. The convention means that instead of such matters being decided by a sovereign Parliament, they are increasingly being handed over to judges, and judges in Europe at that.
As for a Freedom of Information Act, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the White Paper on open government and the detailed and practical steps that the Government have taken to deliver that. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health comes to the relevant element of his briefing, he will discover detailed commitments on availability and freedom of information in the health service.
Sir Giles Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend accept that I am considerably disappointed that, after so long a period—going back to the 1993 Select Committee report—she has decided that inaction is the order of the day? Will she please tell the House why she believes that the voluntary system, as embodied in the Press Complaints Commission, will have some kind of force behind its recommendations? Why should we believe that editors and newspaper proprietors will behave more rationally now than they have in the past?
As to intrusion, my right hon. Friend cannot accept that a piece of legislation is too difficult to frame in relation to mechanical devices that are provable in court or that can be obtained from under the floorboards of some unfortunate person's premises. It is surely the Government's duty to try to respond to widespread public concern that the fourth estate is using methods—let us leave aside opinions—that transgress heavily upon those who are least able to protect themselves.
Mrs. Bottomley: I understand my hon. Friend's strength of feeling about the matter, which I think is shared by most hon. Members. I think that he is on solid ground when he speaks of the past and of the lack of confidence in the Press Complaints Commission. The letter that I received from my noble Friend Lord Wakeham states:
"It seems to me that the manner in which the Commission dealt early in its life with several issues arousing great controversy came very close to undermining fatally that reservoir of authority—and in turn the standing of self regulation".
I think that many hon. Members will appreciate his recognition that all was far from well in the past.
On the other hand, we have already seen improvements in a number of ways. We have seen a strengthening of lay representation. The appointments committee comprises a majority of lay members, as does the Press Complaints Commission. As I set out in my letter, I wish to see lay representation on the code of practice committee. I want to see the code of practice incorporated in contracts of employment and I want to see pre-emptive action developed further through the use of the hotline.
When my hon. Friend has time to study the papers in detail, I think that he will find a number of specific measures that we wish to see incorporated and acted upon, as well as some of the detailed reservations and difficulties that my right hon. Friends have considered carefully for the past two years.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is with some regret that I have to say that the Secretary of State, in her first outing in her new portfolio, has made a bad case that will convince very few people who are concerned about freedom of the press and the protection of privacy.

1329
By suggesting that the European convention on human rights—with its careful balance between article 8, which guarantees privacy, and article 10, which guarantees freedom of expression—is only for the courts in Strasbourg to consider and is not applicable to judges in this country, the Secretary of State abandons one of the most helpful possible remedies to the dilemma that has certainly baffled her.
Can the right hon. Lady explain why she has rejected—indeed, she has done a sharp U-turn—the acceptance by the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the proposals about physical intrusion? If she believes that it is not practical to devise legislation for the courts, why should we rely or place any weight upon the prospects of the Press Complaints Commission's drafting effective legislation to operate in a voluntary manner in that sphere?
Finally, as to the right hon. Lady's proposed remedy of having the Press Complaints Commission make payments from a fund to the victims of violation of privacy, will she at least consider whether it would be better to derive that money from bonds that are put up by media proprietors and that are forfeitable, in whole or in part, if they fall foul of the code of practice to which they have subscribed?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will know that we are bound by the European convention on human rights, but to put such a measure into our law would politicise our judges. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a compensation fund and while the route that he outlined is certainly one option, there will need to be discussions between Lord Wakeham and the members of the commission as to what is the most practical way forward. It is clear from the comments of the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that they will not be satisfied until they see in practice, as well as in commitment, proper protection for the men and women of this country and their privacy. I feel as strongly about the matter—as do the Government—as the hon. Members who have commented today. The issue is how we can achieve a practical solution. We believe that we have set out a way forward that will get the balance right without the adverse consequences inherent in many other options.
Mr. Roger Gale: There is some reason to believe that the press acquired details of the death of our late colleague Stephen Milligan by eavesdropping on conversations of members of the Metropolitan police by using laser-directional microphones. I have in my possession a private telephone bill submitted to me by a journalist working for the Daily Mirror, which is the kind of material supplied by private investigation agencies on a regular basis. I also have in my possession a tape made of a News of the World journalist in which he says clearly that he has total contempt for the effect of the libel laws in this country, as he knows perfectly well—as does his newspaper and presumably its proprietor—that the ordinary person cannot afford to have recourse to the laws of libel.
Most hon. Members respect entirely my right hon. Friend's assessment that a free society requires a free press. But as our press is now dabbling in excesses solely to meet the demands of a circulation war, the time has
1330
come to act. If she is to suggest to Lord Wakeham that the Press Complaints Commission set up a fund to provide redress, let it be a very large fund indeed.
Mrs. Bottomley: I accept the points made by hon. Friend, and I recognise his authoritative position as someone involved in this field in the House for a long time. The precise examples that he gives do not address the dilemma of how we achieve legislation with precise definitions that tackles cases without adverse consequences. The questions of definitions and the public interest would time and again vex the matter. The other point about the code of practice is that it is a more flexible and less cumbersome route. I shall state to Lord Wakeham that there is a sense of anger and impatience, and that commitments and changes which have been set in hand—there have been some encouraging signs—must not only be carried through, but accelerated.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: The right hon. Lady mentioned nothing about the invading army of picket-line doorsteppers who have besieged rape victims' houses and the homes of widows of people killed in Northern Ireland, a matter which the Committee investigated, and she said very little about phone bugging. The sanctions of the Press Complaints Commission do not exist. Unlike the General Medical Council, the Law Society and even the Football Association—which fine and punish members—the PCC never does, even if newspapers break embargoes. Despite what the right hon. Lady said, the press can carry on putting hidden cameras into gymnasiums and showing women with their legs up in the air. Even Princess Di did not have the money to stop that sort of thing. The right hon. Lady's own son had his privacy grossly invaded by the press, as the Prime Minister's son did last week, simply because he was related to a politician. He committed no crime or offence at all.
That is the sort of press invasion being carried out by a group of people who are now acting like the KGB and the Stasi in every aspect of British life which they think might sell a newspaper. There is no need to bring in the judges and lawyers. We can insist on proper sanctions and a proper tribunal that is run independently, and which is not controlled by the press or in the pockets of the press.
Madam Speaker: I know that passions in this matter are running high. I am listening carefully to what Back-Bench Members are saying, but I am not hearing questions. I am hearing statements from people who feel passionately about the matter, but we must have questions to the Secretary of State.
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman said that we should not bring the judges and lawyers into the matter, but the approach that many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members are pursuing would bring endless numbers of judges and lawyers into the matter. It is extremely complex to frame legislation because whenever one area of concern emerges, a new one develops. The strength of the code of practice is that it covers a great number of areas—some of which were mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—including intrusion into grief and shock, inaccuracy and distortion, the opportunity to reply and the use of listening devices. The hon. Gentleman also made the point that the code should have some bite. I expect not only that the code will be written into contracts of employment, but that dismissal will be considered in areas where the code has been seriously breached.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Should not the proprietors and the boards of directors of newspapers be made legally liable along with their editors for excesses, so that they can be held accountable for them? Is not it significant that when Mr. Michael Foot started proceedings in respect of the disgraceful allegations made against him in The Sunday Times, he got a speedy and satisfactory response as soon as he sought to associate the owner of that newspaper with the proceedings, which otherwise could have dragged on for years and cost Mr. Foot a fortune in legal fees?
Mrs. Bottomley: I accept my hon. Friend's comments about Mr. Michael Foot, who was able to seek redress. But once again it is a question of the extent to which we introduce the law into press control. To introduce statute into a free press after 300 years would be an extremely serious step with great constitutional implications.
Mr. David Trimble: The Secretary of State referred to a compensation fund. Does she expect her recommendation to be accepted? If so, what will be the time scale for payments to be made out of that compensation fund? Will payments be made for every breach of the code, or will further discretion be exercised by the PCC? What can an aggrieved individual do if the latter is the case?
Mrs. Bottomley: It is clear from the response to my statement following the Select Committee report that hon. Members feel extremely strongly on behalf of their constituents whose privacy has been invaded. There is no doubt that the Press Complaints Commission under Lord Wakeham needs to make urgent progress in taking forward the details of a compensation fund. It is too early for me to go into detail on how the fund would work, but it will undoubtedly be the subject of close scrutiny. I take the view that dismissal could be used against those who breach the code of practice, and that may be one of the most powerful effects to make sure that the spirit, as well as the letter, of that code is followed.
Sir Edward Heath: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on her new appointment? Is she aware that I find that I cannot agree with much of what she has said, even though some of her proposals will be useful? Is she also aware that she has shown no recognition of the fact that measures such as she has proposed have been tried time and time again in the past and have proved constantly to be unsuccessful? The time has come to deal with the matter.
I do not agree with my right hon. Friend's remark that we have a responsible British press. We have nothing of the sort. She also said that we have some of the finest press in the world. We have nothing of the sort. That used to be the case, but large parts of our press are now the worst in the world. Those of us who see a great deal of the world in our travels recognise that full well.
One essential in every sphere of life is that freedom involves responsibility and that if we abandon responsibility, we will find that our freedom is attacked. I do not wish to attack the freedom of the press, but I want us to deal with the problems that it faces.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the biggest revelation of the disastrous state of the present British press was that, during the election of the Conservative leader, only one newspaper was prepared to say who it supported while the rest plainly wished to kill him off?
1332
They thought that they ran the Conservative party, that they ran Parliament and that they ran the country. The question is, are they now going to take notice of the fact that they do not?
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that yesterday morning when people bought their heavies—let us ignore the lights—66 per cent. were owned by foreigners who have no interest in our welfare, our people or our future? Their only interests are selfish ones. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Tony Blair?"] I was somewhat surprised about that, but perhaps members of the Opposition Front Bench can explain how the Leader of the Opposition came to spend time in Sydney, consorting with Mr. Murdoch and all his minions. I know that he declared that he wants to be the second Mrs. Thatcher, but I am not sure that that is the way to do it.
Will my right hon. Friend consider introducing a Bill with two simple clauses? If not, I hope that some Back Bencher will do so. The first clause would provide that no item of the media could be owned by more than one individual, corporation or trust. The second would provide that where an offence is proved—I have no doubt that Lord Wakeham will do his utmost in this respect—the apology by the newspaper involved must be printed in the same place as the original offending article and must be printed in the same sized type. There is nothing difficult in that. Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to introduce such a Bill?
Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the White Paper on multi-media ownership produced by my predecessor. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will table an amendment when we debate the subsequent legislation in order to pursue the course that he has outlined.
My right hon. Friend spoke about the deplorable behaviour of the press in relation to the recent leadership election involving my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am pleased that the British people have more sense than to believe everything that they read in the newspapers which, I hope, are all eating a healthy diet of humble pie.
I know not what the Leader of the Opposition is doing in the southern hemisphere or what good or ill fortune it will bring him, but I know that these are extremely serious matters. The debate will continue, and hon. Members will require further and stronger action.
As for my right hon. Friend's specific point about apologies, substantial progress has already been made on that front, but one of the other matters on which I am seeking further progress from Lord Wakeham is that the adjudication shall be produced in some detail so that, in a sense, the equivalent of case law can build up. It is important that members of the press know and understand not only the letter of the code of practice but the spirit of it. They should be aware of the consequences if they disregard the principles that are so important to all of us.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister is not short of suggestions this afternoon, but may I add another to the long list given by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)? I believe that the right to reply to inaccurate reporting—the right to have a correction printed in the newspaper without having to go to court—would help ordinary people more than anything else. Very few people can afford to go to court, but inaccurate reporting has destroyed many people's

1333
lives or made them miserable without those people having the opportunity to correct the original inaccuracy. Those who do have that opportunity often have it only at the whim of an individual editor, not as a right. I believe that the right to reply should be considered.
Mrs. Bottomley: This is an area that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) has explored at some length and on which he made considerable progress. Item 2 of the code of practice identifies in detail the opportunity to reply. Some progress has been made: in recent months, there has been an increase in the number of complaints reported to the Press Complaints Commission, many of them relating to accuracy or, in a sense, the right to reply. As I said, some progress has been made, but it is undoubtedly an aspect where further advances are needed.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend recall the observation which, on being translated from Latin, reads:
"Whom God would destroy He first sends mad"?
an observation which applies to some of us in public life just as it applies to some of the press? Does she accept that if that madness were to continue in some parts of the press, the British people would cut the press off at the ankles just as they cut off the king, the barons, the Church and the trade unions, even if that moment has not yet arrived in the British people's mind?
Mrs. Bottomley: I wholly share the view expressed by my right hon. Friend and my predecessor but one. There is an impatience among the British public and in the House for action to be delivered. The final sentence from Lord Wakeham's report states:
"My central aim is … to ensure proper redress for ordinary people against abuses by the press, while preserving the essential freedoms of the press—without which any democracy will surely founder."
The importance of the freedom of the press in a democracy cannot be overstated. At the same time, the impatience of the House to see further action, as evidenced today, also needs to be firmly underlined. I hope that this does not first make me or my right hon. Friend mad.
Mr. David Winnick: Is not the truth of the matter that there is a never-ending circulation war among the tabloids and that the invasion of privacy, which we all deplore, makes very good stories? Why does the Secretary of State believe that what she has said today will make the slightest difference? In view of the fact that there seems to be little or no support from any party for what she is suggesting—indeed, to many of us it is a total cop-out—why does she not reconsider?
Mrs. Bottomley: The Government have been considering this matter for about two years and have examined all the options very carefully. When the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the response to the Select Committee's report in detail, I think that he will see why the intractable problems of pursuing a statutory route are so great. I wish to see further progress on the privacy front and agree that we need greater detail, greater clarity and greater enforcement.
Mr. David Mellor: May I wish my right hon. Friend well in the tenure of her new office? Is she aware that she has the sympathy of many of us in that, after two years in which the Government have been wrestling with
1334
this matter, we appreciate how difficult it must be for her to show the smack of firm government at the Dispatch Box? May I suggest that the best defence of what she is proposing—incidentally, we should not have to apologise for not rushing to legislation—are the six pages of correspondence from Lord Wakeham in which he expresses his regrets at the way in which the PCC has sometimes conducted itself and makes suggestions for the future, and the further four pages of requirements, which all of us hope that the PCC will take seriously? The Government have willed that the press have a further round of drinks in the last chance saloon—let us hope that it is not business as usual in all parts of the bar.
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for welcoming me to a post that he held with such distinction and, indeed, to a post that he was the first to hold. He well understands the tension created by this issue. The freedom of the press is vital to our democracy, but the needs of the public to have their privacy protected are also urgent. The correspondence set out in the document gives strong grounds for encouragement. I remind the House, however, that I do not rule out legislation for all time; I am simply saying that it is the Government's view that this is the right way forward in the present circumstances.
Mr. Barry Jones: What sums of money have been considered for compensation? Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that large sums of money will be needed for deterrence, and does she understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House are disappointed with the measures that she proposes?
Mrs. Bottomley: I cannot go into detail about the sums of money, but I have to say that I believe that the real deterrent will be the threat of dismissal for those journalists or editors who flout the code of practice.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Today may not be the best time to have a dispassionate debate about privacy and the freedom of the press, but does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that, although a breach of privacy is easy to recognise, it is difficult at law to define what privacy is, should not prevent us from seeking to do so?
Would my right hon. Friend therefore reconsider Calcutt I and ensure that that comes into force, as recommended by the Calcutt committee, as soon as possible? If she is not minded to do that, would she, when considering the powers of the Press Complaints Commission, allow it not simply the power to award damages out of some fund, but the power to award damages against the newspapers and to make those awards enforceable at law?
Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his suggestions. When he has time to read the document in detail, he will see set out the intractable and complex issues involved. I want progress on the compensation fund, and I shall pass on his comments to Lord Wakeham for further consideration.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Would not the moral basis of the House for dealing with that section of the press that obviously represents the worst of journalism be immeasurably increased if a Freedom of Information Act were on the statute book? Will that not require the election of a different

1335
Administration from the present one—one who also will be able to direct attention to the abuses that our constituents suffer as a result of the malpractices by sections of the press at present?
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman refers to a Freedom of Information Act. He knows full well that we applaud the ends but not the means. That is why there has been such substantial progress on the White Paper on open government, which has been developed throughout Government Departments—not least, as I said earlier, in the Department for which I previously had responsibility.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment and on at least giving some dentures to what has previously been a toothless bulldog—the Press Complaints Commission.
I do not understand, however, why my right hon. Friend speaks about intractable difficulties in introducing legislation. Most of the states of the United States have managed it, and they operate under English law. The French have it; the Germans have it; the Italians have it; so why cannot we have it too?
Is not something wrong when in this country members of the press are unable to look into the Robert Maxwell situation—journalist friends of mine knew what Robert Maxwell was up to but were unable to do genuine investigative journalism because of the fear of gagging writs—but they are able to look into the gym of the Princess of Wales?
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend talks about watchdogs. To quote Lord Wakeham again, he says:
"We are a watchdog with sharp enough teeth to bite the hand that feeds us, or we are nothing."
I quote frequently from him because of the clear determination that we now have to improve the service provided to protect the public.
My hon. Friend referred to the circumstances in France. I believe that, if people examined in detail the laws in France, few would believe that they were appropriate in this country. I believe that there are serious deficiencies in those, which would not be acceptable in our system of parliamentary democracy.
What my hon. Friend said about Robert Maxwell was related to the law of libel, and it identified once again the fact that, even where there is an existing law, it is extremely difficult to ensure that in practice that law tackles every abuse or misuse.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Both in her letter to Lord Wakeham and her statement, the Secretary of State spoke rightly about the need to head off potential abuses by way of, presumably, the so-called hotline, which would be available both within and outwith so-called business hours. What kind of measure is that—how practicable and how efficient? How can an ordinary person who is being besieged by so-called journalists from the tabloids prevent an upcoming story from appearing in, for example, a newspaper, in 24 or 48 hours? Surely the right of reply, the apology and the compensation are much more effective deterrents than that hotline.
Mrs. Bottomley: I am not altogether in agreement with the hon. Gentleman because I believe that most people
1336
want above all to prevent the material from being published in the first place. Any redress that takes place afterwards is on the basis that the damage has already been done.
The hotline, which would be widely advertised, would ensure that the Press Complaints Commission could indeed make contact urgently with the editors of the newspapers concerned. A help line is already available so that the public may go straight to the editors. We are talking about one in which the Press Complaints Commission would be involved.
There are other examples of progress, such as that prompted by concern for those experiencing grief and shock. The police and Army have a practice of advising people whose relatives have lost their lives in traumatic circumstances. As the report says, we wish to develop that as good practice to ensure that people have the skills, and know where to turn, so that in such circumstances they are able to protect their interests long term, but we want pre-emptive action above all.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although I recognise the Government's reluctance to legislate, is my right hon. Friend aware of the public revulsion for tactics such as those used by the press in doorstepping the wife of the late hon. Member for Dudley, West, Dr. John Blackburn, only days after his death last November? Although it is important to talk about compensation where the Press Complaints Commission is concerned, would not even that be inappropriate in such circumstances, and is it not more appropriate to talk about penalties that the Press Complaints Commission could levy on recalcitrant newspapers?
Mrs. Bottomley: Once again, my hon. Friend identifies a set of circumstances in which the code of practice recognises that that procedure should not be deployed.
I have to say to those of my hon. Friends who want a statutory approach whereby every misdemeanour is enshrined in legislation as subject to court proceedings or legal activities, that I believe that such an approach would create a monster that we would live to regret. I do not believe that such legislation could be framed for every circumstance. Its administration would be out of all proportion to its benefits and there are, as I have said, severe difficulties about the public interest defence and about the development of show trials, which in many ways exacerbate the misery that causes them.
Mr. David Ashby: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, as a mark of the attitude that the House and Members of the House have towards the press and the great fear that they have, I have been strongly advised not to intervene or to ask any questions for fear that the press, who are up there in the Press Gallery, will start terrorising me again, as they did a year and a half ago and as they did all last week?
Most Members of the House feel that the Government are taking a thoroughly gutless and supine approach, that we should break up the press and that we should have a privacy law.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people cannot obtain legal aid and simply cannot afford to sue in a libel action? I had cause to monitor the press for about six weeks, and I found that it was not wealthy or public figures who were libelled day after day, but perfectly ordinary people, whose lives were being shattered by the press. We should

1337
be protecting those people just as much as people who are in the public eye. They have no recourse at all; nothing that we do helps them. We really must have some type of privacy law to protect people like that.
We must also break up the press. Is my right hon. Friend aware that papers such as The Sunday Times do not fire the shots? They put the information through to The Sun down to Today, and Today fires the shots. It is a rotten rag. I do not suppose that anybody in this Chamber reads it. We should break up the monopoly of the Murdoch press. The Labour party will not do that—it is off to Hayman Island with Murdoch.
Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks with great emotion and strength of feeling, for good reason. I have great sympathy with his comments and respect them. My hon. Friend and many other hon. Members—either for themselves or for the sake of their families—feel bruised and scarred by personal experience of the press behaving reprehensibly. My hon. Friend is concerned about not only those of us in public life, who elected to stand for public office but whose privacy should not be as curtailed as some might wish.
My hon. Friend spoke about the accessibility of procedures for men and women throughout the country. He speaks as a lawyer. Many people do not feel that the legal processes, however defined, would be user friendly, easily accessible and flexible as a means of redress. It matters that the Press Complaints Commission acts swiftly and flexibly—without great cost to users—to prevent wrongdoing before it happens. Anything after the event is after the damage. Surely we should be pressing most vigorously for pre-emptive action.
Mr. Chris Smith: Does not the Secretary of State realise that her statement has received virtually no support from any part of the House? In the light of hon. Members' response and our lack of confidence that the right hon. Lady's proposed steps will give any real protection to the privacy of ordinary people or enhance the legitimate freedom of journalists and the media, will the right hon. Lady withdraw her proposals and think again?
Mrs. Bottomley: After a two-year delay in responding to the Select Committee's report, I do not believe that the House would want me to think yet again. Having considered the complex and difficult matters in question at great length, the Government have set out their decision. We do not rule out legislation for all time, but we believe that the changes in hand and those that we are requiring from the Press Complaints Commission offer the prospect of better protecting the public.
This debate has largely concerned the national press. There are many regional and local newspapers throughout the country. If a statutory approach were adopted for the local and regional press, that would have a profoundly adverse effect on many of those people whom a few of us, in our constituency capacities, wish to criticise. They are also part of the picture.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: We must now move on.
Sir Michael Marshall: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In 21 years, I have never sought to challenge the Chair, but I seek your guidance. Those of us who wanted to raise on behalf of our constituents—the little people against the big battalions—the invasion of privacy in recent months are naturally frustrated that we have not caught your eye, Madam Speaker. Can you give some assurance that you will seek to take into account those of us who have been unable to catch your eye today, when the matter is considered again—as I believe it must?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have a list of hon. Members who have not been called. I am as frustrated as the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad that he raised the matter. I have listened for more than an hour, and at the beginning I hoped to call all hon. Members who were seeking to catch my eye. Although I intervened, many hon. Members insisted on making long statements, and there were long answers from the Dispatch Box. When that happens, I am unable to call all hon. Members who rise. The answer lies to a large extent with Back Benchers, as with the Secretary of State—who often gives long answers.

Orders of the Day

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Order [19 December],
  That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 19th July, do adjourn till Monday 16th October.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.

  Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 1

  PERMITTED HOURS IN LICENSED PREMISES
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 15 to 17 and insert—
  ("(3) In subsection (6) (off-licences), the words "or Good Friday" shall be omitted and at the end of that subsection there shall be added the words "and the permitted hours on Sundays, other than Christmas Day, shall begin at ten in the morning".")
  5.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 2.
  Mr. Baker: The amendment to clause 1, and the consequential amendment to schedule 2, will make the hours that off-licence shops may sell alcohol on Good Friday 8 am until 10.30 pm, rather than 10 am to 10.30 pm as the Bill provided when it passed from the House to another place. There are no restrictions on the hours when shops such as supermarkets may open on Good Friday, and many supermarkets open quite early on Good Friday morning. A starting time for off-licence hours of 10 am would therefore mean that between, say, 8 o'clock or 8.30 am and 10 am, supermarkets would have to cordon off their stocks of alcohol to prevent sales taking place. That is precisely the kind of practice that the Bill is intended to do away with and is a source of understandable annoyance to shops and shoppers.
  The Government propose that the amendments should be accepted. As Good Friday is a religious festival, we accept that there may be issues of conscience. We therefore envisage a free vote, in the event of the amendment being pressed to a Division.
  Mr. George Howarth: The issue is not, contrary to the Minister's remarks, enormously important or controversial. The Sunday question was settled in November 1993, with the introduction of the Sunday Trading Bill, when hon. Members who wanted Sunday kept a special day effectively lost the argument.
  Speaking in favour of the amendment for the Opposition in another place, Lord McIntosh said that it was a tidying-up measure—and the Minister accepted that argument. Amendment No. 1 will allow supermarkets with off-licences to start selling alcohol on Good Friday between 8 am and 10 am—a provision that the original Bill excluded. Consequently, alcohol will be treated in the same way as other products. For the Government, Lady Blatch drew a distinction between licensing law and ordinary Sunday trading law, emphasising that Good Friday is an important day in the Christian calendar. There has since been a change of heart by the Government, but both Lord McIntosh and the Minister in the other place made it plain that the issue was best left to individual conscience and to a free vote. On balance, I am inclined

  1341
  to support the amendment if the House divides. However, my hon. Friends are perfectly free to follow their own consciences.
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: I am not inclined to oppose the amendments, but I hope that the Government will bear it in mind that some people live in tenemental property above shops. Often, they do not enjoy the rest to which they are entitled. The situation is different for people living in a semi-detached property or in a four-in-a-block house with no shops underneath. Residents living in tenemental property over shops in which alcohol is sold find that buyers often drink their purchases on the premises.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The complaint that my hon. Friend has outlined has been brought to me by many of my constituents. Traditionally, the only day of freedom from the public drinking that my hon. Friend has described, from the entering and leaving of shops, has been Sunday. That freedom is disappearing and many of my constituents will not get a day of rest from public drinking.
  Mr. Martin: I agree with my hon. Friend and take his point.
  Where alcohol is being purchased, especially from shops above which people are living in tenemental properties, there should be more policing to ensure that those who purchase it move on to their homes or to other places so as to give peace and quiet to those living above liquor shops.
  Young people sometimes congregate in what we in Glasgow call the close mouth of a tenement. Sometimes they consume alcohol and urinate in the closes. Even on a Sunday, residents of some tenements do not get any rest. In some instances, they are embarrassed to bring their friends and relatives to their homes. They are often well-kept homes—indeed, palaces. If there are people loitering in the close mouth, residents do not want their friends and relatives to visit. In the old days they used to get a good Sunday. Now they will not get a Good Friday. I ask only that some consideration be given to residents of tenements.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

Child Support Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Child Support Bill
  Clause 1

    APPLICATIONS FOR DEPARTURE DIRECTIONS
    Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 2.
    5.21 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 3.
    Mr. Mitchell: Amendment No. 1 concerns the time limit for making a departure application. The amendment deletes subsection (4) of new section 28A of the Child Support Act 1991 inserted by clause 1 and removes the time limit for applications. Applicants would be able to apply for a departure at any time.
    I should remind the House of our original purpose in including a time limit for application for a departure direction. Our intention was to reduce as far as possible the period of uncertainty both for the person with care and for" the absent parent while there was still a possibility of a change to the amount of maintenance fixed by the assessment. We wanted to avoid delays in applications, but we always agreed that if there were good cause for a late application, it should be accepted. We felt that it would be unfair to the other party if either the absent parent or the person with care were able, perhaps after a considerable period, to request a departure direction that would affect the amount of maintenance due right back to the date when liability first started.
    We accept that it would be unfair to exclude someone from any chance of a departure because he or she had failed to act promptly. We have therefore accepted a compromise solution. The proposal is that an application made later than 28 days from the issue of a maintenance assessment will be accepted even if there is no good cause for the delay. Any direction that results, however, will not be backdated beyond the date of application. We shall achieve that by bringing forward regulations under subsection (4) of new section 28G as introduced by clause 7.
    Amendment No. 3 is consequential to No. 1. New section 281, as introduced by clause 9, contains a reference to subsection (4) of new section 28A, which has been removed by amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 3 removes the reference, which is now redundant. The amendments represent a sensible way forward and I commend them to the House.
    Mr. Keith Bradley: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box in his new duties, especially as his first speech on the Child Support Bill is designed to tell the House that the Government are prepared, in effect, to accept an amendment that I moved in Committee, which would have had the same effect as the Lords amendment. It is pleasing that, as a result of the pressure that has been imposed in another place, the

    1343
    Government have reconsidered their position. In the Minister's explanation, I think that I could hear my very words being spoken in justifying my amendment in Committee. I am pleased that a time limit will not be imposed. I am pleased also that the concession has belatedly been accepted by the Government.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: I support the amendment. It is not only fathers, however, who are not paying maintenance.
    I have written to the Department about one of my constituents who, because of certain circumstances, allowed her husband to look after her children. After 10 years, her circumstances have changed to the extent that she holds down a good job. At the same time, she looks after the children almost every night. In the evening, however, she takes the children to the father's house. During weekends, she takes the children and looks after them. She works early in the morning in a fruit market and is required to ensure that someone sends her children to school.
    It appears to me that the father is only a glorified babysitter and that the mother is facing her duties. The Child Support Agency has ruled that she must pay a substantial proportion of her earnings to the husband. Surely that is extremely unfair. Perhaps the Minister will look into the matter with a view to future amendment of the Biil.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I shall bear in mind. If he writes to me with specific details, I shall consider the matter carefully.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new position. I am sure that he will fill it with energy and commitment.
    I ask the hon. Gentleman seriously to consider departures and time. I have four constituency cases at the Child Support Agency, of which two would have benefited from departures on Saturday. If we are not careful, those who are least able to afford the consequences will be caught, rightly up to a point, by maintenance orders. Those who are able to say that they are self-employed, for example, will avoid having to make payments. In those circumstances, the low-paid in second marriages will be in real trouble if a partner of the first marriage is able to announce that he or she is self-employed. Departures will be extremely important. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when thinking about implementation.
    Ms Liz Lynne: I welcome the Minister to his new post, which I consider to be a poisoned chalice. I also welcome the amendments. I wish that the Government had seen fit to accept more amendments, especially those tabled in another place.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised important points about the workings of the departure system. She will know that we intend to pilot the departure system from next April. We are determined to get the system right, and all points will be carefully taken on board. I hope that the hon. Lady will approve of the piloting system as a means of achieving our goal.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 17, at end insert—
    ("(7) Schedule 4A has effect in relation to departure directions.")
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 4, 11 and 13.
    Mr. Mitchell: These are all minor drafting amendments. Lords amendment No. 2 is a minor but necessary drafting repair, which inserts a new subsection into new section 28A, as introduced by clause 1 of the Bill. New schedule 4A of the 1991 Act is inserted by clause 1(2) of the Bill, but no mention of it is made—as it should be-by new section 28A of the 1991 Act, which is inserted in clause 1(1); the amendment rectifies that omission, and I commend it to the House.
    5.30 pm
    Lords amendment No. 4 resolves a minor technical inconsistency in the wording of clause 19, which occurred when an amendment was made to the clause on Report in the House of Commons. Clause 19 addresses the problem that the making of a deliberately spurious claim for benefit will allow a parent with care to come within the jurisdiction of the Child Support Agency, when in fact she will not be within its jurisdiction because she has a written maintenance agreement made before 5 April 1993 or a court order for maintenance. Subject to certain safeguards, the provision requires the Secretary of State to treat the application for child support maintenance as if it had not been made if he becomes aware that the benefit claim has been withdrawn or disallowed.
    As originally drafted, clause 19 referred to "the person with care", but it later referred to the same individual as "the parent with care". The amendment corrects that minor inconsistency by using the phrase "the parent with care" in both instances.
    Lords amendment No. 11 is a clarification of an earlier amendment introduced in Committee in the House of Commons. The Bill as originally drafted made provision for regulations made under paragraphs 4 and 5 of schedule 4D of the Bill as originally introduced to be subject to affirmative procedures. However, prompted by an Opposition amendment to reconsider the schedule, we judged that it would be right for all regulations made under it to be approved by both Houses before coming into effect.
    It is possible that the amended wording of section 52(2) of the 1991 Act could be interpreted to mean that affirmative procedures apply only to regulations made under part I of schedule 4B, but that was neither the Opposition's intention nor ours. The proposed amendment would put the matter beyond doubt, and I commend it to the House.
    Lords amendment No. 13 is a minor technical amendment that rectifies omissions from the 1991 Act, which currently refers only to "part I" and "part III" of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, and does not indicate to which schedule the parts belong. The amendment makes it clear that it is parts I and III of schedule I to the 1975 Act that are amended. The amendment also rectifies a similar omission from the

    1345
    parallel amendment to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, where again the relevant schedule is not indicated. I commend it to the House.
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the necessity for these drafting amendments, which we have pointed out before—especially in regard to Lords amendment No. 11, which clarifies the affirmative procedure. We have always said that, as Bills now rely so much on regulations, affirmative procedures should be adopted whenever possible, and with clarity.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.

  Clause 21

    FEES FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTS
    Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 16, line 31, after ("out") insert
    ("(otherwise than under a direction or in response to a request)")
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 6.
    Mr. Mitchell: Clause 21 provides for the Secretary of State to recover DNA test fees that he has paid in connection with a paternity dispute when the alleged parent either admits paternity or is adjudged to be the father by a court. Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 restrict that power so that, when a court has ordered or requested that the test should be taken, the Secretary of State must apply to the court for the fees to be included in costs awarded to him if he is successful in establishing paternity.
    The Government introduced the amendments in another place, because we recognised that it would not be right for officials acting for the Secretary of State to be able to recover DNA test fees when a judge also has discretion to award those fees as part of the court costs. Lords amendment No. 5 acknowledges the important principle that officials should not be able to bypass the courts' discretion to award costs, and I commend it to the House.
    Mr. Bradley: We welcome the concession made by the Government. Although the Minister said that they introduced the measure in another place, I think that it relied on an amendment that we tabled in Committee to alter the original Bill. Despite his apparent unwillingness to commend the Opposition's approach, however, we welcome the Government's belated recognition that this is a sensible approach to the recovery of fees.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 6 agreed to.

  Clause 23

    REPAYMENT OF OVERPAID CHILD SUPPORT MAINTENANCE
    Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 18, line 49, 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.")
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    1346
    Clause 23 makes provision for the Secretary of State to reimburse overpaid maintenance in cases where it is not possible or appropriate to deal with the overpayment by means of a reduction in the current maintenance assessment. It was always the intention that overpayments arising in any circumstances should be covered by the provisions; it became clear, however, that the clause as drafted did not cover cases in which an overpayment arose as a result of an invalid assessment.
    Invalid assessments can arise in a number of ways. For example, it may be established following a review or appeal that the Child Support Agency has no jurisdiction to make an assessment. Such cases might include those in which the absent parent was not habitually resident in the United Kingdom, there was no qualifying child or there was already a written maintenance agreement made before 5 April 1993. Cases might also arise in which the absent parent accepted paternity at the time the assessment was made, but subsequently disputed it and was found not to be the father.
    We do not expect many such cases, but it has always been the intention for them to be included within the provisions of the clause. The amendment agreed to in another place ensures that that policy intention is fulfilled. Without it, absent parents who had overpaid because of invalid assessments might find it difficult to recover those payments. I hope that this House, too, will agree that the amendment is needed.
    Mr. Bradley: May I seek clarification of one point? Will the Minister confirm that the amendment deals only with cases in which the CSA itself will refund the overpayment, and not circumstances in which maintenance has been paid to the parent with care and there is an expectation that the parent with care will be responsible for repaying the money to the absent parent? If that is so, we shall be happy to accept the amendment.
    Mr. Mitchell: I think that I can go a long way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I can confirm that in cases in which an absent parent is reimbursed maintenance overpaid as a result of official error, careful consideration will be given to whether the parent with care should be required to repay that amount. All the facts surrounding the overpayment will be taken into account, and in cases in which it was due wholly to error by the CSA, it is unlikely that the parent with care would be required to repay.
    It is, however, right that there should be flexibility to consider all cases. In many instances, for example, a number of different factors may have contributed to the overpayment. We do not therefore believe that it would be appropriate to legislate specifically for official-error repayments.
    Lords amendment agreed to.

  Clause 30

    SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT ETC.
    Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 22, line 40, leave out ("paragraph 1") and insert
    ("paragraphs 1, 15A, 15B and 15C")
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 and 14.
    Mr. Mitchell: Northern Ireland has its own child support scheme, under separate Northern Ireland legislation, paralleling the Great Britain scheme. Therefore, few provisions of the 1991 Act or of the Bill—which will become the Child Support Act 1995—apply to Northern Ireland. Those that do apply need to be listed in what will become subsection (6)(c) of section 30 of the 1995 Act.
    Amendment No. 8 is a technical amendment that will enable the provisions in paragraphs 15A, 15B and 15C—inserted by Lords amendment Nos. 12, 13 and 14—to extend to Northern Ireland.
    Amendment No. 12 inserts paragraph 15A in schedule 3, which introduces a provision for help with travelling and other expenses for people who are required to attend child support commissioners' oral hearings. Such a provision already exists in social security legislation, but due to oversight, no similar arrangements were made in the Child Support Act 1991. The proposed new paragraph to be added to schedule 4 to the 1991 Act by means of the amendment to schedule 3 to the Bill, will achieve a consistent approach.
    Our colleagues in Northern Ireland propose to introduce legislation along those lines for their own purposes in due course. Therefore, the amendment proposes an amendment to paragraph 8 of schedule 4 to the 1991 Act, to prevent provision for travel and other expenses from applying to Northern Ireland. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this is a worthwhile amendment, which rectifies an omission in the 1991 Act. When dealing with amendment No. 13, I explained the effect of the minor drafting amendment in paragraph 15B, which also needs to extend to Northern Ireland.
    Amendment No. 14 inserts paragraph 15C in schedule 3, which enables issues arising from the child maintenance bonus scheme to be considered by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It was never our intention to exclude the child maintenance bonus scheme from the scrutiny of the committee. The amendment makes sure that issues arising from that scheme, which is set up under clause 10 of the Child Support Bill, can be dealt with by the Social Security Advisory Committee. That is achieved by amending the definition of enactments in section 170(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 in relation to which the Social Security Advisory Committee can give advice and assistance, to include section 10 of the 1995 Act. A similar change is made to the definition of the Northern Ireland enactments on which the Social Security Advisory Committee can give advice and assistance, including on any enactment corresponding to section 10 of the 1995 Act.
    I commend the amendments to the House.
    Mr. Bradley: We welcome the amendments and the fact that travelling expenses will be paid for attendance at oral hearings. That brings such hearings into line with similar hearings under social security legislation. We also welcome the fact that the child maintenance bonus can be referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee for its deliberations and comments. I hope that the valued advice that that committee gives to the Minister about the Child
    1348
    Support Agency is accepted more readily than many of the committee's current recommendations on other social security matters.
    I refer especially to the withdrawal of income support for mortgage interest payments. The committee was clear that the Government should not proceed with that, but despite that advice and a wealth of other information, the Government pig-headedly went ahead. I hope that in this case, they will listen carefully to the committee's advice. With that caveat, we welcome the amendments.
    Lords amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 3

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 29, line 33, at end insert—
    (". In section 33 (liability orders), at the end add—
    "(5) If the Secretary of State designates a liability order for the purposes of this subsection it shall be treated as a judgment entered in a county court for the purposes of section 73 of the County Courts Act 1984 (register of judgments and orders).")
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The amendment gives the Secretary of State power to apply for a liability order to be entered in the register of county court judgments. Hon. Members may be aware that when an absent parent fails to pay maintenance liability and arrears have built up, the Child Support Agency will make every effort to reach an agreement to repay. If the absent parent refuses to reach such an agreement or reneges upon it, enforcement action must be considered.
    In the majority of cases, the first stage in that process is likely to be a deduction from earnings order. However, when that fails or when it cannot be imposed—for example, when the absent parent is self-employed—the agency will ask a magistrates court to make a liability order. There is always a hearing before such an order is granted. A liability order can lead to distress action or to a garnishee or charging order. The amendment will allow an alternative course of action—the placing of the order on the register of county court judgments.
    An entry in the register can lead to difficulties for an individual if he seeks credit for personal or business purposes. Experience in other areas has shown that, for that reason, the threat of an entry in the register is an incentive to debtors to pay their liabilities, especially if they are self-employed.
    As I said, liability orders are needed only in cases where the absent parent has refused to pay his legal liability and will not co-operate on the repayment of arrears. Absent parents have it within their own hands to avoid a liability order and entry in the register. I stress that liability orders will not be entered automatically in the register. The absent parent will be given ample opportunity to change his mind and co-operate with the agency before it takes the step of having the liability order entered in the register of county court judgments.
    Even before an application for a liability order is made to the magistrates court, the absent parent will be advised that if the order is granted, the debt may be entered on the register. When the liability order is granted, he will be given a further warning that registration will be

    1349
    considered if arrangements to meet the liability have not been made within a reasonable period. Therefore, the absent parent can easily avoid the consequence of registration by co-operating and meeting his obligations on child maintenance even after a liability order has been obtained.
    5.45 pm
    It is regrettable that there are some obstructive absent parents who deliberately attempt to delay or avoid their responsibility to their children. It is right for us to do all that we can to ensure that parents with care receive promptly the payments to which they are entitled. Our experience of enforcement to date has been such that we think that the extra power would be useful. We took advice from those who regularly deal with such matters, as the House had wished us to do.
    I hope that the House agrees that the amendment provides a further effective means of enforcement in cases where absent parents seek to evade their liabilities. I thank all those who have worked so hard in recent years to make what will be the Child Support Act 1995 more workable. That includes Opposition and Government Members, people outside who work on policy developments and people in the agency. I hope that the amendments and the Bill are evidence that the Government have listened to concerns and that they will give the assurance that the Government will continue to listen to representations about problems related to child support. Over the next couple of years, we hope to see improvements built upon the hard work that has been so patiently done by so many.
    Mr. Bradley: No one would deny the Minister an opportunity for a reprise on the Child Support Agency. He is already looking 10 years younger than when he was last at the Dispatch Box. I am grateful for his explanation about the introduction of the liability orders. There is a clear need to be even-handed in our approach to the employed and the self-employed and we must ensure that, where possible, there is co-operation on these matters. I am grateful for the assurance that the liability order will not automatically be placed on the register, because the fact that the matter is now in legislation means that there is more likelihood of the self-employed person making his maintenance payments. In that context, we support the amendment.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 29, line 46, at end i n sert—
    (". In section 46(5) (circumstances in which child support officer may give a reduced benefit direction), after "may" insert ", except in prescribed circumstances,".")
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    A parent with care who receives or whose partner receives a relevant benefit must give her authority for child maintenance to be sought from the absent parent if she is required to do so by the Secretary of State. If she refuses to give her authority without good cause, section 46 of the Child Support Act 1991 provides that her benefit may be reduced.
    The amendment was tabled in another place in response to an Opposition amendment. It would enable the Secretary of State to prescribe the circumstances in which the benefit reduction should not apply, thus adding
    1350
    flexibility to the provisions relating to reduced benefit deductions, which already allow for a direction to be suspended.
    We listened to what was said in another place and are persuaded that where a parent with care or any child living with her is disabled, the benefit reduction may cause particular hardship. Therefore, we intend to introduce regulations as soon as practicable to exempt parents in such circumstances from the reduced benefit direction. The Government have also undertaken to introduce regulations at the same time, to suspend the reduced benefit direction in cases where the parent with care has deductions made from her income support—for example, to repay fuel debts or rent arrears. The benefit reduction is intended to make the parent with care think carefully about her decision not to co-operate, and the Government think that that is right. The amendment will mean that in specific circumstances, where the reduction could cause particular hardship, the reduced benefit direction will not be imposed. I invite hon. Members to accept the amendment.
    Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the amendment. Clearly, however, we shall need to see the precise wording of the regulations to be able to determine how they will work in practice and who will be covered by them. Yet again, as we said on several occasions in Committee, we need to see and debate the details of the regulations before we can be certain that they cover the points raised not only in the other place, but in Committee.
    We are pleased that the Bill is about to complete its passage. We were supportive in the way in which we tabled amendments to the Bill, particularly in terms of the departure direction, and we have facilitated its progress. However, we are still extremely disappointed that the Government have not yet agreed to another fundamental change—introducing a proper child care disregard to make the legislation truly put children first, by making an additional amount available to the parent with care who so desperately needs the money, rather than having all the money absorbed by the Treasury.
    There is continuing concern, as shown in the evidence that is being compiled, about the operation of the agency. Recent evidence to the Public Accounts Committee was extremely disturbing in terms of what it showed about the amount being collected and the amount passing from the absent parent to the parent with care.
    The Labour party will continue vigorously to monitor the operation of the Act, to ensure that the further amendments that will be required to ensure equity and fairness in the system are brought forward at the earliest opportunity. Although we have facilitated the passage of the Bill, that does not mean that we are satisfied with the operation of the agency or that we are satisfied that the legislation covers all the aspects necessary to ensure that the principle we support—that all parents should take responsibility for the upbringing of their children—is properly defined within legislation.
    We shall continue to monitor and look carefully at all aspects of the Act, including the way in which it is administered through the agency, to ensure that there is even-handedness and fairness between the parent with care and the absent parent. We also need to ensure at the end of the day that the real beneficiaries of child support legislation are the children who so desperately need the

    1351
    income to maintain a proper living standard and that the parents caring for them, especially those on income support, are not kept in poverty because of the Government's failure to recognise a proper child care disregard.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the Bill. I am sorry that we were unable to persuade him of the superior benefits of the child maintenance bonus. I have, however, heard what he has said—indeed, I heard it throughout the Committee stage when I was the Government Whip responsible for the Bill. I am, therefore, very familiar with his arguments.
    The hon. Gentleman emphasises the importance of the administration of the agency getting better and rendering the service to the parent with care, the absent parent and the taxpayer that we all expect. That is a point that is well made and an aspiration with which hon. Members on both sides will agree.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 12 agreed to [Special Entry].
    Lords amendments Nos. 13 and 14 agreed to.

Criminal Appeal Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Criminal Appeal Bill
  New clause

    RECOMMENDATION IN CASE OF LIFE SENTENCE FOR MURDER
    Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 2, to insert the following new clause—
    Recommendation in case of life sentence for murder
    (". After section 11 of the 1968 Act insert—
    "Appeal against recommendation
    Appeal against recommendation in case of life sentence for murder.
    11A.—(1) Where under section 1(2) of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965 a court has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the minimum period which should elapse before he orders the release on licence of a person convicted of murder, the person may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the recommendation.
    (2) Subject to subsection (3) below, an appeal under this section lies only with the leave of the Court of Appeal.
    (3) If the court which made the recommendation grants a certificate that the case is fit for appeal under this section, an appeal under this section lies without the leave of the Court of Appeal.
    (4) On an appeal under this section the Court of Appeal, if they consider that a different recommendation should be made, may—

    (a) quash the recommendation; and

    (b) in place of it declare the period which they recommend to the Secretary of State as the minimum period which should elapse before he orders the appellant's release on licence."")

    5.54 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 46 and the Government motion to disagree.
    Mr. Howard: The purpose of the motion is to remove a clause added to the Bill in the other place. The new clause was added by a majority of 16 on Report, against the advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.
    The new clause relates to the mandatory life sentence imposed on those convicted of murder. As the House knows, in such cases it is open to the trial judge, when passing sentence, to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State about the minimum period of imprisonment to be served. The judge is not obliged to do so and in practice, formal recommendations are made only in a minority of cases. The new clause would provide a right of appeal against a recommendation made in open court.
    When the amendment was debated in the other place, those who spoke in its favour argued that it would rectify an anomaly between discretionary and mandatory life sentences. They believed that it would introduce greater openness into the tariff-setting process and they claimed that it would have no bearing on the role of the Secretary of State, whom Parliament has entrusted with the final decision about tariff in mandatory life sentence cases.

    1353
    I have considered the arguments with great care, in deference to the noble Lords who spoke in favour of the new clause. However, I remain firmly of the view that the proposed right of appeal is not only unnecessary, but would introduce anomalies of its own into the tariff-setting procedure.
    I would like to start by explaining exactly how the tariff—which is the minimum period required for retribution and deterrence—is now set in mandatory life sentence cases. The procedures were substantially overhauled in 1993 following the judgment of the House of Lords in the Doody case. I hope that the House agrees that for the prisoner, the current system is anything but secretive—indeed, it is extremely open.
    In every case where an offender is convicted of murder, the trial judge completes a detailed report on the background to the case. Whether or not he has made a formal recommendation in open court, the judge sets out his advice on the minimum period that should be served for retribution and deterrence. This report goes first to the Lord Chief Justice, who adds his own comments and then forwards the report to me. All this normally happens within two or three weeks of the conviction.
    The whole of the report, apart from opinions about future risk, is disclosed to the prisoner, together with any other relevant papers, such as details of previous convictions, which will be put to Ministers in due course. This means that in practice, the prisoner sees everything that is relevant to the setting of the tariff.
    The prisoner is given the opportunity to make any representations he wishes on the judicial recommendations and the other contents of the report. It is, however, made clear to him that the judicial views are advisory and that the tariff will be set by the Secretary of State. The prisoner's representations, along with the judicial report, are then submitted to Ministers, who make the decision on tariff. This is communicated to the prisoner.
    If, after considering the judicial advice and the prisoner's representations, I decide that a tariff higher than that recommended by the trial judge is required for deterrence and retribution, the prisoner is given detailed reasons for that decision and these reasons are, of course, open to scrutiny by the courts by way of judicial review.
    To summarise, the prisoner is aware of the judicial view and has the opportunity to make representations. He is then told of the tariff set. If there is any departure from the judicial advice, he is given detailed reasons. Once the prisoner has been informed of the tariff, we are prepared to disclose both the tariff and the judicial recommendation in individual cases to anyone who asks. The process cannot therefore be described as secretive—it could hardly be more open.
    The present procedures are fair, open and sensible. They ensure that proper weight is accorded to the advice of the trial judge, who has heard all the evidence, and the Lord Chief Justice, who can bring his wider experience to bear either to confirm the trial judge's advice or to offer a different view. The prisoner has every opportunity to make informed representations before a decision is taken on tariff. The final decision rests with the Secretary of State, who has been entrusted with that responsibility by Parliament as guardian of the public interest. Like my predecessors, I shall always attach great weight to the
    1354
    advice of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. But I am not bound by it, and in the public interest I can, and do on occasion, take a different view.
    6 pm
    Those arrangements are working well, and appear to command public confidence. They have recently been scrutinised and upheld by the European Court of Human Rights, and fully reflect the Doody judgment, which I mentioned earlier. Against that background, I now turn to examine the new clause and the right of appeal that it proposes.
    First, it is argued that a right of appeal against recommendations is necessary to rectify an anomaly as between mandatory and discretionary life sentences. But there are differences between the two. In the case of discretionary life sentences, the trial judge is now required by statute to specify the "relevant part" of the sentence in open court. That is the minimum period of detention that the prisoner must serve, and there is a right of appeal against the judge's order as to the relevant part.
    In the case of discretionary lifers, however, I have no power to modify the relevant part of the sentence or to substitute a different order. It is therefore entirely right that a judge's a decision should be subject to appeal—otherwise it would be unchallengeable.
    On the other hand, a formal recommendation in mandatory life sentence cases is just that: a recommendation. It is only one aspect of the tariff-setting process. While I naturally give very careful consideration to any recommendation, and to the views of the Lord Chief Justice, the role of the judiciary in mandatory life sentence cases is purely advisory. The final decision is mine, and my decision is, of course, open to challenge by way of judicial review.
    As the trial judge's recommendation is only advisory, I see no good reason for building an appeal procedure around it. The recommendation is only one part of the tariff-setting process and it is not binding, unlike the relevant part in discretionary life sentence cases. The perceived anomaly does not therefore exist.
    I said earlier that the proposed right of appeal, instead of resolving an anomaly, would introduce anomalies of its own. For example, the proposed right of appeal would be available where a recommendation had been made in open court, which happens only in a minority of cases. That means that some mandatory life sentence prisoners would have a right of appeal against the trial judge's advice on tariff while others would not, depending on whether the judge made his recommendation in open court or in his report to me.
    I am aware that the Lord Chief Justice has said that, if the amendment became law, he would issue a practice direction to judges advising them to use their discretion to make minimum recommendations in all but the most exceptional cases. But I do not believe that it is necessarily good practice to introduce statutory provisions that depend on a practice direction being issued before they can work sensibly. In any event, such a direction would not be binding on judges.
    Even if judges made minimum recommendations in all cases—which is entirely a matter for the judiciary—I am not persuaded that there should be a right of appeal against them. Where there are avenues of appeal against sentence, they are, almost without exception, in cases

    1355
    where the court has the final word on the subject—where the Executive has no power to substitute a different order. That is not the position here.
    A further anomaly is that the Lord Chief Justice has indicated that, if a right of appeal were in place, he would no longer act independently in advising the Home Secretary on tariff lengths. Instead, he would sit in the Court of Appeal in any such case. That would deprive the Home Secretary of a second judicial opinion in cases where there was no appeal by the prisoner against the recommendation. That might be a considerable proportion of cases, and it would certainly include those cases where the judge had erred on the side of an unduly lenient recommendation. That means that, in precisely those cases where it is most necessary for the Secretary of State to consider imposing a longer tariff than that recommended, he would have no second judicial view to help him in reaching a decision.
    The present arrangements for setting the tariff in mandatory life sentence cases were substantially overhauled following the judgment of the House of Lords in the Doody case and are working well. They are sensible, fair and open; and they offer the prisoner every opportunity to make informed representations before a decision is made on tariff. The present arrangements ensure that proper weight is accorded to judicial recommendations on tariff, but reflect the fact that Parliament has entrusted the final decision to the Secretary of State. For those reasons, they command public confidence in this highly sensitive category of cases.
    I hope that the House will agree that it would be wrong to disturb those arrangements by introducing a new right of appeal that touches on only a part—and not the most significant part—of the tariff-setting process, and which would create anomalies rather than remove them.
    Mr. John Hutton: Will the Home Secretary give way?
    Mr. Howard: I was about to sit down, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hutton: If the present arrangements are as satisfactory as the Home Secretary says they are, would he care to reflect on the fact that seven out of the 10 Law Lords voted for the amendment moved by the Lord Chief Justice and five former Law Lords also supported that amendment? There would therefore seem to be a judicial consensus that the picture is not as rosy as that painted by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Howard: To a large extent, there is a judicial consensus on the proposition that the whole of our arrangements for mandatory life sentences should be changed and that the Secretary of State should no longer have a role in that decision-making process. I understand that that is not the view of the Labour Front Bench. In a television interview not long ago, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) expressed his support—
    Mr. Jack Straw: A radio interview.
    Mr. Howard: I think that I saw him make the same proposition in a television interview as well. Be that as it may, his views on the subject are reasonably clear: like
    1356
    me, he disagrees with the Law Lords' view to which the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) referred. Although, in supporting this amendment in the other place, those Law Lords disclaimed any intention of addressing, in this context and at this opportunity, the arrangements for mandatory life sentences, one must look at their arguments in the context of their opposition to the present arrangements as a whole. I differ from their views on the present arrangements as a whole, as does the hon. Member for Blackburn. That may be the best answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness.
    For all the reasons that I gave before I gave way to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, I invite the House to reject the amendments proposed in another place.
    Mr. Straw: The debate is not about the merits of the discretionary versus the mandatory system of life sentences. The Secretary of State anticipated me by referring to remarks which, according to the evidence that he gave on my behalf to the Select Committee on 29 March, I made on Radio 4's "Today" programme on 10 December last year. There is no reason why I should not have repeated those remarks on the television programme, except that I do not remember doing so. In that interview, I expressed my view about where the balance of advantage lay between mandatory and discretionary sentences, and that remains my view.
    We shall look carefully, as I hope the Home Secretary will, at the report of the Select Committee that is currently considering this matter. We need to do that because, in the words of Baroness Blatch, the Minister of State, Home Office, speaking in the other place, there should be no suggestion that
    "the current procedures surrounding the setting of tariffs should remain immutable."
    Having made a strong argument in the other place in favour of the system of discretionary life sentences, Baroness Blatch went on to say:
    "There may, however, be a case for greater transparency within those procedures where the general public is concerned."
    May I say in parenthesis to the Secretary of State that I am grateful to him for the fact that he set out his views in a letter to me and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on Friday, because that was very helpful?
    I approached this issue from the position of supporting in principle the mandatory life sentence system and I therefore considered the arguments that were advanced with some scepticism. Having done so, I am persuaded of the sense of the amendments moved by their Lordships.
    On whether the system can be made more transparent, in the other place, the Minister of State accepted that there could be a case for greater transparency. The Secretary of State referred to the changes that have been made for the better since the Doody judgment. He went on to say that it was therefore wrong to categorise or describe the current system as secret, but that was not exactly the word that the learned Lord Chief Justice Lord Taylor used in the other place. There is a subtle difference here. He used, not "secret" but "secretive". He went on to say:
    "Justice in our system is administered in public. It is fundamental that proceedings which lead to conviction and sentence should, wherever practicable, be conducted openly and be subject to appeal. The current procedure involves a quite unnecessary and counter-productive deception on the public."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 1995; Vol. 564, c. 1478–84.]

    1357
    The public, therefore, do not know what life means in the view of the trial judge when he makes his recommendation, unless he makes it in open court.
    The Secretary of State sought to recognise some of the strength in the Lord Chief Justice's point when he said that the recommendation was disclosed to the prisoner, and that the prisoner can see everything. Since Doody, that has been true, although it was not true before. It would be interesting to know what view his Department took before that. I assume that it accepted the view that there should be no disclosure.
    The Secretary of State also said that, once he as Home Secretary had made a recommendation, he would be prepared to disclose that recommendation and what had preceded it to anyone who asked. That is okay as far as it goes, but it represents not an administration of justice in public, but a willingness to disclose retrospectively the trial judge's recommendation if he does not make it in open court, the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation, and of course ultimately the Secretary of State's decision. On any analysis, however, that could not be regarded as an open administration of justice. A real distinction exists between the process as it operates at present, especially where no recommendation is made in public, and the process as the Lord Chief Justice has proposed it.
    The Secretary of State suggested that, if there were a right of appeal against the trial judge's recommendation in open court, that would produce its own anomaly because, at present, the law does not require that recommendation and a recommendation could be made in open court at the discretion of the trial judge which was subject to appeal. Plainly, however, there could not be an appeal where no recommendation was made by the trial judge. In a sense, one then ends up with three different systems for settling life sentences—the discretionary, and then a split system of two rather than one mandatory system—rather than two.
    Again, the Secretary of State sought to deal with that by picking up the point made by the Lord Chief Justice that that apparent consequential anomaly could be dealt with by a practice direction. As I understood him, the Secretary of State said that it was wrong for a practice direction essentially to make law.
    We sought to deal with that issue head on in amendments that we tried to include in the Bill. We wanted to make it a requirement on the trial judge to make his recommendation in open court and for any practice directions to be subject to approval by the House. Should the Secretary of State have wished to achieve that position, he could have provided for amendments to be made in the other place so that, in all cases, recommendations were made in open court.
    6.15 pm
    On the merits of why recommendations should be made in open court, it is important that the offender has the right to challenge the judge's recommendation and to advance arguments against it in a judicial setting. I shall come on to the issue of whether that undermines in practice the Secretary of State's discretion. I do not accept that it does; neither did the Lord Chief Justice, who said that he as Lord Chief Justice was placed in a difficult position when it came to making recommendations about a convicted murderer. He said:
    "I hesitate to say the number of occasions on which he"—
    1358
    the Home Secretary—
    "departs from the advice"
    of the Lord Chief Justice. He continued:
    "it would be quite unnecessary for him to seek the views of the Lord Chief Justice"
    in all cases. He goes on:
    "And may I make it clear that when I give my views under the present convention I have very little information. I have not been at the trial. I do not have the benefit of hearing representations and I have only a brief report from the trial judge."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 1995; Vol. 565, c. 538.]
    I found most persuasive of all the Lord Chief Justice's recommendation to the other place that the system should be changed. Here was the Lord Chief Justice, in a sense at the centre of this process, saying that he did not think that the current arrangements were working well because he did not have the benefit of the representation that could be made in open court about the length of sentence.
    The Attorney-General should also have the right to make representations against what the Secretary of State rightly describes as a too lenient sentence. The phrase that he used was that the Home Secretary would be deprived of the Lord Chief Justice's advice in cases where there was no appeal. He was especially concerned about cases where the trial judge had, in the view of the Lord Chief Justice, been unduly lenient. There is an argument about whether the Lord Chief Justice would not be able to make recommendations in such a case. I cannot understand that argument. If there has been no appeal, but the Home Secretary still has, as he will have, a legitimate interest in making his own judgment on the merits of the case and in the public interest, about the appropriate sentence, the Lord Chief Justice's position, as someone who will give internal advice, could not be compromised by the possibility that he would sit on the appeal as, by definition, there is no appeal in that case.
    We are dealing with an issue not only of openness, but—here we are completely in agreement—of maintaining public confidence in the system by which prisoners are sentenced and serve sentences for the most heinous of cases, for which there is rightly the greatest public revulsion. It would be appropriate therefore for the Attorney-General to have the right of appeal against the recommendation made by the trial judge. I know what the argument was in the other place against that, but I do not accept it.
    The changes that the Lord Chief Justice has recommended would not only improve the administration of justice, which is often seen, wrongly, exclusively in terms of the offender and the prosecution; it would improve the administration of justice from the point of view of the victim's family, who are the victims as the victim has, by definition, died.
    That point was made by the national chair of Victim Support, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, in a letter which was sent to the Clerk of the Home Affairs Select Committee on 28 March 1995. He said that there had been much discussion when Victim Support gave oral evidence about who should set the tariff. He said:
    "Victim Support and SAMM both agreed in favour of the judge determining and announcing the period to be spent in custody."
    As far as I can judge, the argument was not about discretionary sentences versus mandatory ones, but whether the recommendation should be made in open court. Whatever the argument, there is no doubt that Victim Support wants that recommendation to be made in

    1359
    open court. I believe it is right, because there is every advantage in the system being as open as conceivably possible from the point of view of the victim's family.
    Is it appropriate for there to be an appeal within the judicial system against what is just a recommendation to the Secretary of State, not a decision? The argument advanced by the Secretary of State today was that made by the Minister of State in another place on 8 June. She said:
    "I cannot accept the argument that a right of appeal ought to exist against those … recommendations. Where there are avenues of appeal against sentence they are, almost without exception, in cases where the court has the final word on the subject: where the Executive has no power to substitute a different order."
    That argument had been shot down in flames earlier by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, who spoke in support of the proposed changes. He said that another of his noble Friends had suggested there was an important distinction between a judge who was making a decision and a judge who merely made a recommendation. He accepted that that was a distinction, but he went on to say:
    "but it does not go to the merit of this amendment because at present the recommendation for deportation which a judge makes is only a recommendation. It is not binding on the Home Secretary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 June 1995; Vol. 564, c.1479–82.]
    He went on to say, however, that within the statute there is a right of appeal in respect of a recommendation for deportation.
    How much more appropriate it would be if the long period of years that a defendant may have to serve in custody as a result of a recommendation about the length of the term he should serve was also subject to the right of appeal. Given that Lord Taylor spoke before Baroness Blatch, I am surprised that she did not pick up his argument and answer it.
    It is usual for appeals to be made in court against decisions, not recommendations. The example offered by Lord Taylor reveals that there are cases, quite correctly in my view, when the Secretary of State exercises the judgment that Parliament has given him because wider considerations than simply narrow judicial matters exist. That is one of the arguments in favour of the mandatory system. Despite that, however, Parliament has also decided that that judgment is consistent with the Secretary of State having the benefit of advice, determined through a judicial process, of both the trial judge and a judge at the Court of Appeal.
    I am the first to admit that this is not an easy matter. I acknowledge that the Secretary of State has thought long and hard about it, as I have—I hope that is apparent from what I have said. I am sorry that we are on different sides of the argument because it is important on such issues that we should, as far as possible, reach a consensus, particularly at a time when the argument between different sides of the House about capital punishment is largely over.
    I have studied the matter with great care and I believe that their Lordships were correct; I therefore urge the House to resist the motion moved by the Secretary of State.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I apologise to the Home Secretary for missing his opening remarks. That
    1360
    apology is made on behalf of British Rail, whose train, which customarily takes four hours to travel to London, took eight hours instead. I left the train while an argument ensued about which operating company was responsible for the track to which the train might be diverted. That argument seemed further to delay the train, so I fled the scene at Alexandra Palace and resorted to other means of transport.
    I approach the matter from a different standpoint from that of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I disagree with him about the value of the mandatory life sentence. It is undesirable in principle for the Executive to impose sentences and visibly unsatisfactory in practice when it leads to problems as diverse as excessively lenient sentences and those arising from the Private Clegg case. This is not the occasion for that argument.
    Suffice it to say, the hon. Member for Blackburn, arguing from the rather conservative standpoint of one who does not want to change the current position, nevertheless demonstrated that it is possible to support the Lords amendment whether one approves or disapproves of the mandatory life sentence. I approach the argument from a different standpoint. The particular value of the argument put by the hon. Member for Blackburn is that it underlines to Conservative Members that it is possible to support the Lords amendment while nevertheless wishing the mandatory life sentence to continue to be imposed.
    I do not want the mandatory life sentence to remain in operation and I find myself in agreement with the Law Lords who were leading figures in tabling the amendment. My reason for supporting the amendment is slightly different from that put by those Law Lords. If we are to have a system of Executive determination of sentence it should be an open one, so that we can know what is happening at each stage.
    Lord Ackner argued strongly that the Government's primary reason for resisting their Lordships amendment was the inconvenience caused when it became clear in which cases the Home Secretary had overturned strong judicial opinion, whether in favour of a shorter sentence or a longer one.
    It is desirable that the process should be an open one. The existence of a process of appeal is a natural part of such openness. That particular proposal commanded support from many in the other place as well as the overwhelming support of members and ex-members of the judiciary, for example, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone among others.
    The arguments adduced against the change range from those that are merely arguments about Government convenience and the avoidance of embarrassment to those that construct a delicate constitutional distinctiveness for the process of Executive decision of sentences. It is argued that that mechanism is so unique that it is not appropriate to subject it to a process of appeal.
    I do not accept either of those types of argument and I urge my hon. Friends to support the noble Lords in the sensible change that they have made to the Bill.
    Mr. Howard: I can be brief as the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was kind enough to say that I had anticipated most of the arguments that he intended to put. I believe that I did so, and therefore I do not propose to repeat them.

    1361
    The issue of openness was dwelt upon by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I do not believe that the amendment has anything to do with that. I gave an account of our existing system. There are ways in which it could be made even more open. It is true, as the hon. Member for Blackburn said, that there could be a requirement on the trial judge to say in every case in open court what his recommendation would be. Quite how helpful that would be, bearing in mind that that recommendation is only the first part of a three-part process, I am far from clear. That is something that could be changed. Perhaps that proposal will be recommended in the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I know not. We should have to look at such a proposal with great care in the context of that Select Committee report. But that is an entirely separate matter from the right of appeal against that recommendation which is what the amendments are essentially about. It is that right of appeal to which I object, for the reasons which I gave earlier, and in particular because I cannot see the sense or logic in having a right of appeal against a recommendation that is the first stage of a multi-stage process.
    The decision made by the Secretary of State on these matters is not immune from the scrutiny of the courts. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed seemed to give the impression—no doubt inadvertently—that that was so. But it is not because the decision of the Secretary of State is subject to judicial review. That is an important safeguard and it is right that it should be there. It is not the case under the existing arrangements that the decision of the Secretary of State cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny. It can be, and it is.
    On the point made by the hon. Member for Blackburn about the precedent for an appeal against an advisory decision—the deportation order recommendation—with respect to the hon. Gentleman and the Lord Chief Justice, that is significantly different. The recommendation of deportation is part of the order of the court and unless such a recommendation is made, the Secretary of State cannot deport on the ground that the person concerned has been guilty of a criminal offence. There may be other grounds on which the Secretary of State can deport, but if the Secretary of State wished to deport solely because that criminal offence was committed, he could not do so unless there had been a recommendation to that effect by the judge.
    So although it is true that in one sense that recommendation is advisory, it plays a much more significant role in the decision-making process in that context because it is a sine qua non of the Secretary of State's decision, than does the trial judge's recommendation of what the tariff should be, which is just the first stage in the multi-stage process which I have described.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point. I accept that there is some distinction, but I do not think that in principle there is any serious distinction. In the other place, Baroness Blatch said words to the effect that there were no circumstances in which a recommendation from a trial judge was subject to a judicial process of appeal where the final decision was made by the Secretary of State. In deportation situations, it
    1362
    is a recommendation—albeit the Secretary of State cannot act without it—it can be the subject of appeal and the Secretary of State has, as I understand it, complete discretion as to what to do about it.
    Mr. Howard: He does not have complete discretion as to what to do about it because, as I said a moment ago, he cannot deport without that recommendation.
    Mr. Straw: He can confirm or reject it.
    Mr. Howard: He can confirm or reject it, but if there is no recommendation, he cannot deport. It is for that reason that the deportation recommendation is part of the order of the court and is very significantly different in effect from the kind of advisory recommendation which we are discussing.
    For all those reasons, therefore, in addition to those which I gave earlier, I invite the House to reject the amendments. They would add a quite unnecessary stage to procedures that are on the whole working well. I do not believe that the case for them has been made out and I invite the House to disagree with the Lords in the amendments.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 225.

    Division No. 205]

    [6.33 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

    Carrington, Matthew

    Alexander, Richard

    Carttiss, Michael

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Cash, William

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Clappison, James

    Arbuthnot, James

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

    Colvin, Michael

    Ashby, David

    Congdon, David

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Conway, Derek

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

    Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

    Cran, James

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Bates, Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Batiste, Spencer

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Bellingham, Henry

    Devlin, Tim

    Bendall, Vivian

    Dicks, Terry

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Dover, Den

    Booth, Hartley

    Duncan, Alan

    Boswell, Tim

    Duncan-Smith, Iain

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Dunn, Bob

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Elletson, Harold

    Bowis, John

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Brazier, Julian

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Evennett, David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Faber, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Fabricant, Michael

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Burns, Simon

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Burt, Alistair

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Butcher, John

    Forth, Eric

    Butler, Peter

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Butterfill, John

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Carlisle, John (Luton North)

    Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    1363

    French, Douglas

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Malone, Gerald

    Gale, Roger

    Mans, Keith

    Gallie, Phil

    Marland, Paul

    Gardiner, Sir George

    Marlow, Tony

    Garnier, Edward

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Gill, Christopher

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Merchant, Piers

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Mills, Iain

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Gummer, Fit Hon John Selwyn

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Hague, Rt Hon. William

    Nichcolls, Patrick

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hannam, Sir John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Page, Richard

    Harris, David

    Paice, James

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Patrick, Sir Irvine

    Hawkins, Nick

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Hawksley, Warren

    Pawsey, James

    Hayes, Jerry

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Heald, Oliver

    Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hendry, Charles

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Riddick, Graham

    Hicks, Robert

    Robathan, Andrew

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Hill, James (Southampton Test)

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Horam, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

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

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

    Sackville, Tom

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Jack, Michael

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Jessel, Toby

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Key, Robert

    Spring, Richard

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Sproat, Iain

    Knapman, Roger

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Steen, Anthony

    Knox, Sir David

    Stephen, Michael

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Stern, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Stewart, Allan

    Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

    Streeter, Gary

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Sumberg, David

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Sweeney, Walter

    Legg, Barry

    Sykes, John

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Lidington, David

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Lightbown, David

    Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Thomason, Roy

    Lord, Michael

    Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

    Luff, Peter

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    MacKay, Andrew

    Thurnham, Peter

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tredinnick, David

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Trend, Michael

    Madel, Sir David

    Trotter, Neville

    1364

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Wiggm, Sir Jerry

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Willetts, David

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Wilshire, David

    Walden, George

    Wolfson, Mark

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Wood, Timothy

    Waller, Gary

    Yeo, Tim

    Waterson, Nigel

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Watts, John

    Whitney, Ray

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Whittingdale, John

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Mr. Bowen Wells.

    NOES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Dobson, Frank

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Ainger, Nick

    Dowd, Jim

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Eastham, Ken

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Etherington, Bill

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Austin-Walker, John

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Barnes, Harry

    Reid, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Barron, Kevin

    Flynn, Paul

    Battle, John

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Bayley, Hugh

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Foulkes, George

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Fraser, John

    Bell, Stuart

    Fyfe, Maria

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Galbraith, Sam

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Galloway, George

    Benton, Joe

    Gapes, Mike

    Berry, Roger

    Garrett, John

    Betts, Clive

    George, Bruce

    Blunkett, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Boateng, Paul

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Bradley, Keith

    Godsiff, Roger

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

    Graham, Thomas

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

    Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

    Burden, Richard

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Byers, Stephen

    Gunnell, John

    Callaghan, Jim

    Hain, Peter

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hardy, Peter

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Harvey, Nick

    Campbell-Savours, D.N.

    Henderson, Doug

    Cann, Jamie

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Hinchliffe, David

    Church, Judith

    Hoey, Kate

    Clapham, Michael

    Hogg, Norman (Cumbemauld)

    Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

    Clelland, David

    Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hoyle, Doug

    Coffey, Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cohen, Harry

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hutton, John

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Illsley, Eric

    Corbett, Robin

    Ingram, Adam

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

    Corston, Jean

    Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jamieson, David

    Cox, Tom

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jones, Martyn, (Clwyd South West)

    Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

    Darting, Alistair

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

    Jowell, Tessa

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Keen, Alan

    Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

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

    Khabra, Piara S

    Denham, John

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Dixon, Don

    Kirkwood, Archy

    1365

    Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Lewis, Terry

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Litherland, Robert

    Purchase, Ken

    Livingstone, Ken

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Randall, Stuart

    Loyden, Eddie

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lyme, Ms Liz

    Rendel, David

    McAllion, John

    Rogers, Allan

    McCartney, Ian

    Rooker, Jeff

    Macdonald, Calum

    Rooney, Terry

    McKelvey, William

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Ross, William (E Londonderry)

    McLeish, Henry

    Rowlands, Ted

    Maclennan, Robert

    Ruddock, Joan

    McMaster, Gordon

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McNamara, Kevin

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    MacShane, Denis

    Short, Clare

    McWilliam, John

    Skinner, Dennis

    Madden, Max

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

    Maddock, Diana

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mahon, Alice

    Smyth, The Reverend Martin

    Marek, DrJohn

    Snape, Peter

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Spellar, John

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Martlew, Eric

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Maxton, John

    Stevenson, George

    Meale, Alan

    Strang, Dr. Gavin

    Michael, Alun

    Straw, Jack

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Milbum, Alan

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Timms, Stephen

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Tipping, Paddy

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Touhig, Don

    Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

    Trimble, David

    Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Turner, Dennis

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Mowlam, Marjorie

    Watson, Mike

    Mullin, Chris

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

    O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Winnick, David

    Olner, Bill

    Wise, Audrey

    O'Neill, Martin

    Worthington, Tony

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Pearson, Ian

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Pendry, Tom

    Pike, Peter L

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Mr. George Mudie and

    Prentice, Gordon (Pende)

    Mrs. Barbara Roche.

    Question accordingly agreed to.

New clause

  EVIDENCE
  Lords amendment: No. 2, to leave out clause 4 and insert the following new clause—
  (".—(1) In section 23 of the 1968 Act (evidence)—

  (a) in subsection (1) (power to receive evidence etc.), for paragraph (c) substitute—

  "(c) receive any evidence which was not adduced in the proceedings from which the appeal lies.",

  (b) for subsection (2) (duty to receive evidence in certain circumstances) substitute—

  "(2) The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—

  (a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;

  (b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;

  1366

  (c) whether the evidence would have been admissible in the proceedings from which the appeal lies on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and

  (d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence in those proceedings.", and

  (c) in subsection (3), after "any" insert "evidence of a".
  (2) In section 25 of the 1980 Act (evidence)—

  (a) in subsection (1) (power to receive evidence etc.), for paragraph (c) substitute—

  "(c) receive any evidence which was not adduced at the trial.",

  (b) for subsection (2) (duty to receive evidence in certain circumstances) substitute—

  "(2) The Court of Appeal shall, in considering whether to receive any evidence, have regard in particular to—

  (a) whether the evidence appears to the Court to be capable of belief;

  (b) whether it appears to the Court that the evidence may afford any ground for allowing the appeal;

  (c) whether the evidence would have been admissible at the trial on an issue which is the subject of the appeal; and

  (d) whether there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to adduce the evidence at the trial.", and

  (c) in subsection (3), after "any" insert "evidence of a".")
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 34, 47, 48 and 52 to 54.
  Mr. Baker: The amendments are all concerned with the receipt of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal in England and Wales, and by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court, which operate the same procedures. At present, section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 contains two separate provisions on the receipt of evidence on appeal. The relationship between them is somewhat complex and has given rise to difficulties for the Court of Appeal. It has created room for argument in appeal hearings about whether the court should receive evidence under the narrow, qualified duty in subsection (2) or under its general discretion in subsection (1).
  We have therefore taken the opportunity to devise amendments to improve the construction of section 23. They are intended to provide a unified test for the receipt of fresh evidence which reflects the current practice of the Court of Appeal. We intend that the amendments should not in any way narrow the scope for the receipt of fresh evidence by the Court of Appeal. The Lord Chief Justice, when supporting the amendments in another place, confirmed that they would in no way lessen the likelihood of fresh evidence being received on appeal. He said that he could think of no occasion on which evidence received under the present section 23 would not be received under the new section proposed in the new clause 4.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

  POWERS EXERCISABLE BY REGISTRAR
  Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 5, line 14, leave out from beginning to ("but") in line 17 and insert
  ("No variation of the conditions of bail granted to an appellant may be made by the registrar unless he is satisfied that the respondent does not object to the variation;")
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  This is a minor amendment that is designed to clarify the drafting of clause 6.
  Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

  APPEALS IN CASES OF DEATH
  Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 33, leave out
  ("by virtue of paragraph (a) above")
  and insert
  ("in relation to his case by virtue of paragraph (a) above or by a reference by the Criminal Cases Review Commission")
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 9, 45 and 49 to 51.
  Mr. Baker: These are minor and technical amendments that are designed to ensure that the provision in clause 7, allowing appeals to be conducted on behalf of deceased persons, operates smoothly.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 9 agreed to.

Clause 13

  GENERAL PROVISIONS ABOUT REFERENCES
  Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 10, line 29, leave out from ("verdict") to end of line 2 on page 11 and insert
  (", finding or sentence shall not be made under any of sections 9 to 12 unless—

  (a) the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made,

  (b) the Commission so consider—

  (i) in the case of a conviction, verdict or finding, because of an argument, or evidence, not raised in the proceedings which led to it or on any appeal or application for leave to appeal against it, or

  (ii) in the case of a sentence, because of an argument on a point of law, or information, not so raised, and

  (c) an appeal against the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence has been determined or leave to appeal against it has been refused.

  (2) Nothing in subsection (1)(b)(i) or (c) shall prevent the making of a reference if it appears to the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances which justify making it.")
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 11.
  Mr. Baker: When setting out in clause 13 the broad criteria for the referral of a conviction, verdict or finding
  1368
  by the commission to the courts, we have sought to enable the commission to refer cases when there appears to be a real possibility of a subsequent appeal succeeding and there is some new element, whether argument or evidence, for the courts to consider but, when setting reasonable criteria for references, we are conscious of the need to ensure that references are not precluded in circumstances in which injustice would result.
  Amendment No. 10, therefore, enables the commission to refer a conviction, verdict or finding in the exceptional case where the existing criterion for there to be argument or evidence not already raised in any relevant proceeding is not met, but there are, nevertheless, compelling reasons that justify its referral.
  Amendment No. 11 is purely a drafting amendment.
  Mr. Alun Michael: It is always entertaining to hear a Minister urge the House to agree to something that he resisted in an earlier debate. We welcome Lords amendment No. 10 because it allows some flexibility in the rules which govern whether a case can be referred to the Court of Appeal.
  In the Bill as drafted originally, there had to be argument or evidence that had not been raised previously in any way, shape or form. In Committee, we suggested an amendment to allow consideration when the argument or the evidence had not been raised adequately—which is another way of putting the amendment that is before us today. We touched on the issue again on Report on 26 April. Interpretation by the Court of Appeal changes over time. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has affected how courts look at admissions of guilt, and mistakes by lawyers can mean that an issue is not argued fully.
  I welcome the Lords amendments, but I note that such matters may be considered in exceptional circumstances. We have always believed that such appeals should be catered for in exceptional circumstances and that they should be allowed to reach the Court of Appeal.
  I cannot let the Minister's authoritative comments on Lords amendment No. 10 pass without pointing out that, basically, we told him so.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 11 to 16 agreed to.

Clause 18

  POWER TO REQUIRE APPOINTMENT OF INVESTIGATING OFFICERS
  Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 14, line 38, leave out
  ("such other police force as the chief officer thinks fit")
  and insert
  ("another police force selected by the chief officer")
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will he convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21.
  Mr. Baker: Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 21 empower the commission to approve or disapprove the outside force to be brought in to investigate any case at its request.
  Mr. Michael: As with a number of other Lords amendments, Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 21 deal with points that Labour Members raised in Committee and on

  1369
  Report. Their importance should not come as any surprise to Ministers. A letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers sent to the Home Office on 9 May 1994 said that it would be unwise for West Midlands police to investigate West Yorkshire while the West Yorkshire police were investigating the West Midlands on a different matter. During debate in this place, the Minister suggested that that was not a problem and I said at the time that I believed that he was wrong.
  The Minister had not understood the limitations on the powers. Clause 18(4)(6) does not give the commission the power to break the arrangement whereby the West Midlands force investigates the West Yorkshire force and vice versa. The Bill empowered the commission only to get an outside officer to investigate and it was then up to the chief officer to choose the other force. That was made clear in debate on 26 April this year.
  In Committee in another place, the Government accepted the case. Baroness Blatch moved an amendment to that effect and said:
  "Although such a scenario"—
  as we depicted in this place—
  "seems a little improbable, not least because our current experience would suggest that an outside force is needed in relatively few cases, we nevertheless think it best to enable the commission … to approve or disapprove the outside force … to be brought in".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 June 1995; Vol. 564, c. 1606.]
  I am glad of the confirmation that we were right. The Lords amendment is a small step in the right direction as it ensures that there is objectivity and transparency in the investigation of such cases.
  With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall deal with an allied matter and, therefore, not speak to the next group of Lords amendments. I ask the Minister to clarify one other matter in relation to investigations. Some observers believe that a major concession has been given and they are not sure whether it goes as far as they think. Baroness Blatch said:
  "the commission does not need special provision in order to direct and supervise its own staff. Nor does it need such provision in order to engage the services of an outsider—for example, an accountant—to investigate a case for it".
  What Baroness Blatch said goes further than the Lords amendments in this group and the next. She said:
  "the Government intend that the commission should have its own
  unit of experienced investigators to advise it and also, as the Noble Lord suggested, to play a part in the direction of investigations".
  That is an important statement, which relates to matters that the Opposition raised on a number of occasions in this House. Baroness Blatch continued:
  "The Government's position has always been that the commission can employ investigative staff and can engage investigative expertise."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 1995; Vol. 565, c. 578–81]
  In contrast, in a debate in this House, the Minister gave no hint of a concession when he rejected our new clauses 1 and 2, saying that they
  "would enable the commission to draw on in-house investigators or on those that it has contracted in, as well as on investigating officers appointed at its request by the appropriate chief constable. They would, in effect, give the commission power to appoint an in-house investigations unit to make inquiries … I am not convinced that creating an in-house investigative capacity would be helpful or necessary."—[Official Report, 26 April 1995; Vol. 258, c. 887.]
  Will the Minister now tell us who is right? Does he support the interpretation of Baroness Blatch in another place? Do the Lords amendments have the effect that we
  1370
  looked for but which the Minister rejected during the debate here? Do Baroness Blatch's words give the correct interpretation of the Government's intentions—yes or no? I look forward to the Minister's response.
  7 pm
  Mr. Beith: I had some questions on the same point, which I intended to raise during the debate on Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24. If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I might still do so.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: If you are to allow us to debate also the next group of amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the convenience of the House, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) rightly said—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It must be clear that proceeding with the debate in such a way meets with the general wishes of the House.
  Mr. Beith: It might be of assistance if I speak now to the next group of Lords amendments. It is an odd way to proceed, but I shall happily do so for the convenience of the House.
  The assurances that Baroness Blatch gave in relation to Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24—or to their equivalent amendments in the Lords—were, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, of considerable significance. The amendments add to the Bill usefully, and the assurances that Baroness Blatch gave put them in an even stronger light.
  She said:
  "I said in my response to the amendment that the Government intend that the commission should have its own unit of experienced investigators to advise it and … to play a part in the direction of investigations."
  She said that she understood that investigations can be undertaken by the commission, and added that
  "The Government's position has always been that the commission can employ investigative staff and can engage investigative expertise."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 1995; Vol. 565, c. 581.]
  I have to say that that was not the impression conveyed on Second Reading or in Committee in this House.
  My view was that, whereas in most circumstances it would be satisfactory for the commission to make use of a police force to carry out investigations, it might occasionally be better to make other arrangements or to have a unit of investigators on the commission's own staff. Confidence in the commission would be greater if that were the case from the start. It will be very good news if, as seems to have become clear during our proceedings, that is to be the case. I hope that it is, and that the combination of Baroness Blatch's assurances and Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24 may achieve that objective. I should be grateful to hear that confirmed by the Minister.
  Mr. Nicholas Baker: We have transgressed the rules once, and you are allowing us to do it again, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  The Lords amendments grouped with Lords amendment No. 17 arise out of concerns expressed in the House by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and others that the commission's powers under clause 18 might be insufficient to enable it to prevent, where it thought it desirable, two forces investigating one another

  1371
  on behalf of the commission. We considered that scenario to be a little improbable, not least because of our current experience, which suggests that an outside force is needed in relatively few cases, but we nevertheless think that it is right to give the commission the necessary powers, hence the Lords amendments.
  On Lords amendments Nos. 23 and 24, questions arose in Committee and in another place as to whether the commission would be invariably bound to use the police or some other public body to investigate possible miscarriages of justice. The purpose of the amendments is to make it clear that the commission is not constrained in that way. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked whether the commission members will undertake major investigations themselves. When it comes to what might be called police-type inquiries—interviewing witnesses, retracing car journeys and so forth—the Government expect the commission as a rule to use clauses 18 and 19 to obtain assistance from the police or from another public body.
  The Government have no intention of funding a team in the commission whose job would be to operate as a mini-police force, duplicating work which could, and should, be done by the police or other public bodies under clauses 18 and 19, but we accept that, exceptionally, the commission might want one of its staff or someone else to do investigative work such as would otherwise be done by a police officer under clause 19. No one has provided a convincing example of such a case, but it could, theoretically, happen.
  It is much more likely that the investigations that the commission will undertake will not require police experience or expertise—for example, telephone inquiries, getting hold of copies of relevant papers and obtaining expert analyses and opinions. That is how we envisage the commission operating in practice.
  Mr. Michael: I return to the words used by Baroness Blatch, who stated specifically that
  1372
  "the Government intend that the commission should have its own unit of experienced investigators to advise it and also … to play a part in the direction of investigations".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 1995; Vol. 565, c. 581.]
  That comment was specific, and the Minister now seems to be contradicting it—as his colleagues did in the Commons last time around. It is important for us to know whether the Minister has accepted the argument that we have stressed strongly, as Baroness Blatch seems to have done, or whether he continues to insist on the commission's not having any sort of body, however small, of competent investigators. That is an important point. The Minister has not dealt with the comments of Baroness Blatch. Which Minister is telling us what will happen?
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman is taking the word "investigation" into some magic fields. I have made it clear that we do not envisage the commission carrying out large-scale investigations. We envisage it doing investigative work from time to time but, generally, the right people to investigate will be the police or other bodies. There will be investigative work that it might be appropriate for the commission's unit to do, such as advising the commission, helping others direct and supervise investigations and liaising with investigations. Those are the types of investigations that the unit in the commission can do, rather than the large-scale investigations that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 45 agreed to [some with Special Entry].
  Lords amendment No. 46 disagreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 47 to 55 agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Alun Michael and Mrs. Barbara Roche; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  To withdraw immediately.

Representation of the People
7.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): I beg to move,
That the draft Local Government Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualification of Members) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
For many years, our electoral law restricted the right to vote and to be a candidate in any election to British and other Commonwealth citizens and to citizens of the Irish Republic. However, the treaty on European Union conferred certain electoral rights on Union citizens, which extends our franchise further. The rights conferred by the treaty are to vote and to be able to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and in local government elections. Regulations approved by Parliament last year conveyed into our domestic legislation rights with regard to European parliamentary elections and, accordingly, Union citizens resident in this country were eligible to participate in the European parliamentary elections held in June 1994. Of course, British citizens living abroad in the European Community enjoyed similar rights.
The draft regulations deal with the second aspect of electoral rights contained in the treaty and they accordingly extend to resident citizens of other member states the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in local government elections.
Sir Teddy Taylor: As the issue is rather complex, will the Minister clarify the position of Gibraltar? Did Gibraltar residents qualify previously because Gibraltar was allegedly part of the Commonwealth although it was not, or do they now qualify because they are part of the European Union? Will the Minister explain to my constituents whether Gibraltar residents who are British citizens had the right before, will still have it or will perhaps never have it?
Mr. Baker: I hope that, before the end of the debate, I shall be able to give my hon. Friend an answer about Gibraltar but, if he will allow me to proceed, I shall do what I can before then.
Progress has been reported to Parliament by means of the usual explanatory memoranda. One explanatory memorandum was submitted by the Home Office on 22 April last year, and supplementary memoranda were submitted on 18 May and 30 November. The matter was debated by European Standing Committee B on 19 July 1994 when the Committee endorsed the Government's main policy objectives.
One of those policy objectives was to avoid the somewhat bureaucratic system of information exchange which is required under the directive governing European parliamentary elections. Our participation in that information exchange at the time of the 1994 European parliamentary election confirmed us in our view that it served little purpose. The directive on local government elections does not contain the same requirements, which is much to be welcomed. During the review of the European parliamentary directive—a process that has just begun—we shall be seeking to have the requirements for information exchange removed or at least reduced.
1374
The regulations are being brought forward now because the directive stipulates that member states shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive before 1 January 1996.
Dr. Kim Howells: Will the Minister tell the House whether there is a set timetable for implementation by other European member states?
Mr. Baker: Other European member states have, like us, declared to which elections the provisions shall apply, and they are subject to the same time limit as us—1 January 1996. That means that we must have the procedures in place in time to enable Union citizens to be registered during this autumn's electoral canvass.
Although representation of the people legislation is complex and detailed, the draft regulations are pretty simple. They extend local government electoral rights to resident Union citizens by means of simple amendments to the nationality criteria contained in the Representation of the People Act 1983. Draft regulation 3 effects the necessary changes with regard to the right to stand as a candidate, and regulation 4 deals with the right to vote. The general principle of the relevant article of the treaty is that non-national residents in a member state should be treated, for electoral purposes, in the same way as nationals of that state.
The simple amendments to which I referred are all that is necessary to give full effect to our treaty obligations, and they do no more and no less than that. We are not introducing any requirements of citizens of other member states that we do not require of our own citizens, and no changes are made to the way in which previously enfranchised nationalities are dealt with. That is in line with the welcome provision that allows the existing laws of individual member states to apply as far as possible.
I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that, in the case of our local government elections, our existing law can continue to apply unchanged. To register a vote, for example, a European Union citizen must have been resident in Great Britain on the qualifying date of 10 October, or 15 September for Northern Ireland, in exactly the same way as British, other Commonwealth, or Irish citizens. Citizens of other member states who wish to be candidates in local government elections must conform to the nomination procedures to which candidates have conformed hitherto.
The majority of the draft regulations are set out in the two schedules, where consequential amendments are made to primary and secondary legislation. I hope that the House will agree to them.
7.20 pm
Dr. Kim Howells: The Opposition extend a guarded welcome to the extension of the right to vote in local elections in this country to all citizens of member states of the European Community on the same terms as Commonwealth citizens. We shall extend a warmer welcome when there is clear evidence that British citizens living in other European Union countries enjoy similar privileges, especially in countries such as Germany, where there have been long-standing constitutional objections to extending the franchise to non-nationals.

1375
It is worth recalling for a moment that, before the 1990s, voting rights for non-nationals existed only in Denmark, Ireland and the Netherlands. In Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal, only nationals had the right to vote.
The movement of European Union citizens across intra-Union frontiers has grown apace, especially in the past five years or so. An estimated 5 million European Union citizens may be enfranchised by the regulations if fairly applied by each member state. I hope that the Government will reassure the House and the British people, however, that the new regulations will be fairly applied, and that some of the Governments of countries that I listed earlier, such as the Germans and the French, will not deny the right to vote in local elections to UK nationals residing in those countries. Well in excess of 150,000 of our nationals reside in Germany and France, while we provide that right to 100,000 Germans and French nationals who reside in the UK.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate; I was downstairs in a meeting.
The Minister may well have made the argument already, but I understand that, when we passed the legislation for the Maastricht treaty through the House, automatically other EU citizens in this country had the right to vote in our elections. Is that not the case with regard to UK citizens in other EU countries? If not, why the difference?
Dr. Howells: No. As I understand it—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—it was not regarded as part of the competence of either the Commission or the European Parliament to grant that, and it needed to be debated separately in order to become a right. It is important that we understand that distinction because the House may wish to know that, at 1 January 1992, about 410,000 UK nationals were living outside the UK but in the European Union.
We welcome the fact that the Home Office had effectively issued three consultation papers, in the form of supplementary explanatory memoranda, on that subject during 1994, because it raises issues that go to the heart of our democratic system. Indeed, if our response as a Parliament had not been the right one, we might have sent to Brussels dangerous and misleading messages about our willingness to cede to the Commission and to the European Parliament the competence to make decisions about aspects of home affairs that, Opposition Members believe, lie entirely within the competence of this Parliament.
Mr. Marlow: Am I right or am I wrong in saying that EU citizens in this country were able to vote in our local elections in May of this year, and that that had nothing to do with the European Parliament, the Commission or any European institution, but was a result of the House having passed into law the provisions of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986? If it happened here, why did it not happen for UK citizens in other EU countries?
Dr. Howells: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not believe that European Union nationals
1376
living in this country had the right to vote in local elections last May, which is the reason why we are considering this legislation now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not confuse voting in local elections last May with voting for the European Parliament, which European nationals living in this country certainly have a right to do.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the argument that I wanted to make before I got off my knees. EU citizens living in this country had the right to vote because of legislation that we passed in this Parliament; they had the right to vote in the most recent European elections, as British citizens did in their countries. We are now carrying out a similar process in relation to local elections in our respective countries.
Dr. Howells: That opinion was shared by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, which, in one of its reports, warned that a cautious approach was necessary as the granting of legislative competence in the Council would result in an irreversible transfer of power from national parliaments. More ominously, the Committee also warned that if Community competence were accepted, it would extend to national elections.
The second supplementary memorandum on European Community legislation, issued by the Home Office on 30 November 1994, expressed its satisfaction with the final draft of the directive and especially with the proposals for registration for local government elections. They should be conducted according to the laws of the member state of residence, rather than along the lines of the so-called voluntary scheme used for European Parliament elections, which sought to impose a much more standardised model throughout the 15 member states.
In other words, European Union citizens will be registered according to existing national practice and as part of the normal annual canvass. That is a simple, straightforward proposal and, with the important proviso that the Government maintain the utmost vigilance both in advancing the reciprocal voting rights of UK nationals living elsewhere in the European Union and in guarding against electoral fraud and illegal manipulation of votes in this country, Labour supports the motion.
7.27 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: This is the first time that I have ventured into the European fray, and I do so with a fair degree of trepidation. My party colleagues in the House and in my constituency are all well aware of my private reservations, but this is the first time that I have placed those reservations on the record. I believe that it is fair to say that I have not done so in the past because I wanted to do what I could to help the Government, so I have kept a low profile, but there comes a point, however trivial that point might appear, when each one of us concludes that enough is enough. I have reached that point.
I am not alone. Two surveys that I have carried out in the past month or so of my constituents and Conservative party members in my constituency reveal that more than 85 per cent. of those who have replied to both surveys are unhappy about any further dilution of our sovereignty, which is what I judge that the regulations amount to.

1377
Before I go further down that track and disturb my hon. Friend the Minister, let me give him some good news. I have no problems with regulation 4 because I subscribe to the principle of no taxation without representation irrespective of where a person is born or what is written in his passport, and because I believe that anyone who lives in this country and becomes liable to pay council tax has every reason to expect to have some say in helping to choose his representatives.
However, I find regulation 3 very disturbing. Before I explain why, may I discuss two arguments that someone might be tempted to make later that would weaken my case? The first is that the regulations extend the rights of Irish and Commonwealth citizens only to citizens living in the European Union. Quite so. I would remove the entitlement of Irish and Commonwealth citizens to stand for election in this country. The second argument that could weaken my case is that the regulations are merely consequential and that we do not therefore have any choice. In one way, I accept that that is true, but, in practice, the regulations require the approval of the House. If so, by definition we have a say. We could reject the regulations, if we are willing to face the consequences, but I suspect that we are not. One day, I judge that the House will have to face the consequences.
I find regulation 3 disturbing because I am opposed to allowing foreigners to stand for election in this country, however closely allied and however much we like them. Anyone who is not a British citizen is by definition a foreigner, and I do not use the word "foreigner" to belittle anybody in any way. I accept that I am a foreigner in every other country in the world. Elected bodies at whatever level are part of the way that a sovereign state operates its political system and democracy. As such, elected bodies are an integral part of a state's independence and individuality.
I do not accept that councils are merely a way of getting dustbins emptied. They are an expression of who we are and who is foreign. Elected representatives at parliamentary or parish council level all play a key role in upholding the integrity and independence of the sovereign state. In the House, we swear an oath of allegiance as soon as we are elected. The same duties apply in local government, although they go unspoken. I cannot for the life of me see how foreigners can uphold Britishness unless they first become British citizens.
At its most absurd, the regulations could lead to a council on which not one British citizen served. Common sense says that will not happen but if we do not believe that it will happen or do not want it to happen, why pass regulations that allow it to happen?
Mr. Marlow: The logic of the Maastricht treaty, including moves within Europe, is that we cease to have British citizenship and have European citizenship instead. If we are all European citizens, why should it matter who stands in local government elections?
Mr. Wilshire: I would love to go down that track, but it would probably be better not to enter into that debate when considering this measure.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be relived to hear that that is all that I want to say. I simply want to flag up the matters that worry me in principle. I do not want to delay the House. I know that my hon. Friend cannot assist me, so we are stuck with the measure for now. However, I wanted to put my views on record for the avoidance of
1378
doubt and so that when more substantial changes are being considered in future by hon. Friends on the Front Bench, they will know exactly the direction from which I am coming.
7.33 pm
Mr. David Rendel: The speech of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) was astounding and rather worrying—worrying because it reflected a form of xenophobia that the House should not exhibit, and astounding because it was so poorly argued. If there is any understandable argument for opposing the regulations, they should be opposed as a whole. After all, the power to vote is the real power that the regulations are giving away—the power to enable people to do something about their local area. The ability merely to stand leaves the power in the hands of the electorate. If they decide that they do not wish a so-called foreigner to be their councillor, they can choose not to elect him or her.
Mr. Wilshire: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that argument is flawed because once an individual is elected to a council, for the next four years there is no means of recalling his or her mandate?
Mr. Rendel: That does not in any sense argue against my point that the electorate have the right not to choose as their councillor somebody who is not a British citizen. How long a person remains a councillor is irrelevant to what happens at the time of an election.
I welcome the final approval of the regulations by the House. They have been delayed for far too long and that is a shame. It is time that all European Union citizens resident in this country were given the right to participate in our local democracy—just as they already participate in many other areas of British life, including paying their taxes.
Mr. Terry Dicks: What does the hon. Gentleman think of people in Macau being given full Portuguese passports and being able to enter Britain and vote, without having contributed to this country or been residents of the European Union?
Mr. Rendel: They will not, under the regulations, be given the right to vote or to stand, unless they have been resident in this country. It is not true to say that former residents of Macau will have the right to vote in Britain even if they have not been resident in the European Union. They must have been resident on the date on which they were entered on the electoral register the year before.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Although the hon. Gentleman is making a good democratic point, as one would expect of a Liberal Democrat, why should a citizen of the United States of America who has been resident in the hon. Gentleman's constituency for five years, with the right to reside and as a taxpayer, not have the right to vote in council elections? Why no to America but yes to the European Union?
Mr. Rendel: Were I given the chance tonight to approve regulations to allow universal voting rights to people properly resident in this country, paying taxes and playing a full part in local affairs, I would do so. Unfortunately, the Government are not giving us that opportunity, but that is not my fault.

1379
That it has taken so long to establish a basic democratic principle for all citizens of the European Union living in Britain is a sad comment on the narrow-mindedness of the British political establishment. The delay cannot simply be blamed on European squabbles about the definition of the word "municipal". The House had the opportunity to approve such regulations at any time of its choosing, regardless of debates proceeding elsewhere on other issues.
It is a fundamental principle of representative government—in this, I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne—that all members of a community who are expected to contribute to it on an equal basis should have equal rights to representation. The same even-handed principle applies to other rights and duties. We expect foreign nationals who are permanently resident in British communities to pay their taxes. We expect them to obey our laws. Within the obvious limitations of our archaic legal system, we also uphold the right of foreign nationals to equality under the law. How is it that extending the franchise to active, legitimate members of our community—whether from America or the European Union—has caused so much anguish on the Conservative Benches? Why does the notion of European friends and neighbours being able to take part in the democratic process horrify Conservative Members?
Last week, I spent some time reading the Hansard report of a debate on the subject on 1 February 1993. Predictably—then as apparently tonight—one Conservative Member after the next stood up to wave the flag of xenophobia and to raise all sorts of evils that would result from giving foreigners resident in Britain the slightest taste of democratic power. One speaker in that debate was considerably more heated than the rest. He warned of grave threats to Britain as we know it—even to the monarchy itself. Perhaps he feared that some members of the royal household might be tempted to escape to other countries in the European Union, on the basis that they would then have the vote in those countries' local elections. That outraged speaker was of course the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor)—whom I warned of my reference to him in tonight's debate. I am sorry that he is not present. At that time the hon. Gentleman was a Back Bencher and free to castigate foreign nationals as much as he wished. He has now reached the elevated position of a Foreign Office Minister. What a wonderful and "logical" career progression the Prime Minister has seen fit to give him. The hon. Gentleman berated foreigners—especially the Greeks, for some reason—and he is now a highly paid senior diplomat and Minister in our foreign service.
Not content with mere xenophobia, the hon. Member for Upminster did a grave disservice to local democracy as a whole and to British nationals living abroad. He announced:
"What advantage does article 8 offer the British people? It gives them rights exercisable in other countries—the right to vote in municipal elections in France, Greece, Italy, Germany, Ireland or Luxembourg. Marvellous. I cannot see any use to the British people in that right."—[Official Report, 1 February 1993; Vol. 218, c. 91.]
I can. How can a Member of this place so denigrate the right to vote in local elections? It is an important right and we should all regard it as such. If that is the regard in which local government and local people are held by a
1380
senior member of the Conservative party, is it any wonder that year after year the Conservatives are trounced in local elections? The next time that the Conservative party sponges off British expatriates, whether for votes or donations, will it honestly inform them of its Minister who feels that their rights abroad are worthless?
Despite the opposition of so many Conservative Members, at least we have progressed to this point—the regulations are before us. It is a pity though that so many residents of this country were not enfranchised in time for the recent local elections, which were, after all, the largest set in the electoral cycle. Many foreign nationals will now have to wait for nearly four more years before they can put into practice the right that I believe we shall give them tonight to contribute to their local democracy.
Mr. William Cash: The hon. Gentleman keeps on referring to foreign nationals and thereby goes beyond the subject in question, which is citizens of the European Union. Does he think that Japanese should vote in local government elections or citizens of the United States? Is he not guilty, in a sense, of the same xenophobia that he is trying to cast on others?
Mr. Rendel: I have already answered an intervention in exactly that form. If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place a few minutes ago he might have heard my answer.
For me the issue is simple. The more members of a particular society who take part in the democratic government of that society, the better. We all agree that low electoral turnouts are bad for democracy. Some of us go to extraordinary lengths to persuade people to exercise their democratic rights. Yet some Conservative Members would prefer that thousands of people living in this country and thousands of British people living abroad had no such rights. I say to them, "What price democracy when petty nationalism invades our political agenda?"
7.42 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I expected, as usually happens with European issues, that the Chamber would be virtually empty as a result of most Members having a voluntary strike. That is because Members do not want to ask themselves, "What are we doing and why?" Attendance has been a bit better than usual tonight. For example, we heard the brave speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). He said what I think every Member knows in his heart, which is that basically the people of Britain are becoming sick to death with the way in which their independence and liberty are being thrown away without their being advised, told or consulted. That is the issue, and it is not taken up by the petty points of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel).
As the hon. Member for Newbury rightly said, however, if there were a proposal before the House that every national resident in Britain should have the right to vote in local government elections, it would be an issue of principle on which he and I would agree. I feel that anyone who is living in a council area and paying local taxes should have participation in democracy. But that is not the issue this evening. My sole point—I plead it before the Government—is that we should tell the people what is going on.
It is sad that with the EU, as a result of small divisions in the past, which are now growing and of which the people are aware, we have a conspiracy of silence on

1381
Government policy. If anyone doubts that, I ask him or her to read a question that I tabled and the answer that I received today from a Treasury Minister. I asked simply about our "net contribution" to the European Union this year and what it was in each of the past 10 years. If that information had been contained in a Government pamphlet, the Government would have replied, "Look up the pamphlet." But it is not. I have been advised that I must turn to Command Paper 2824 to find this year's figure and then to refer to a similar Command Paper for the past 10 years. It is obvious that that absurd bureaucratic nonsense is to avoid stating in Hansard how much the people of Britain pay and how much more they are now paying.
The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) seems to think that this is a laughing matter. It is not. If he thinks that it is funny, let him go to Hong Kong and then Macau and say to the people, "What are our respective rights?" The hon. Gentleman might wave his hands around, but there is the dreadful possibility that Labour might assume power. By the time that that happens, if it does, Labour will find that the country's freedom to decide virtually anything will have gone.
I want the Government to answer a simple and straightforward question: who will be able to stand for our council elections? We know that there is a definition in the treaty of Rome. When our debates took place, all Members were able to be present throughout. The explanation was "citizens of the Union concerned".
What is a citizen of the Union? He is not only a Frenchman, a German, an Italian or a Belgian. Unless I am terribly wrong—I might be stupid—it is my understanding that citizenship of the Union means basically residency in overseas territories of member states. It is not just citizenship of member states themselves. For example, a Portuguese citizen who lives in Macau is a Portuguese citizen. Macau is 40 miles from Hong Kong. As we know, Hong Kong used to have a close relationship with Britain. We understand now that it is to be transferred to China. What will be the position in two or three years of a resident of Hong Kong and a resident of Macau 40 miles away? I understand that one would be able to vote and the other not.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to annex IV of the Maastricht treaty, which contains a list of overseas territories of member states. It contains places such as Ubangi-Shari, Chad, Gabon, Ruanda-Urundi, French Polynesia, the Netherlands Antilles, Bonaire, Curacao, Saba and Sint Maarten. I understand that French Guinea is an overseas territory of France. Britain, on the other hand, is within a special relationship. Is it true that this consideration applies only to people living on the continent? Does it not apply also, as we well know, to a host of countries throughout the world that happen to be overseas territories of member states? If that is the position, what is the point of giving rights to people living in strange parts of Africa and south-east Asia, for example, unless they are to be given to everyone?
Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend will note that the definition of "citizen of the Union" explicitly excludes Commonwealth citizens. We are conferring a right on those who are citizens of overseas territories as a result of other countries' attachments while our Commonwealth citizens are expressly excluded.
Sir Teddy Taylor: These matters are complex and complicated. I understand that Commonwealth citizens
1382
already have the right that we are discussing. What is written in papers that come before us is not usually the whole story. If my hon. Friend were thinking of borrowing money, for example, I would strongly advise him to read the small print of the relevant document. It is so important to take account of the small print.
There is the special question of Gibraltar. Its citizens are going through a nightmare because of the hostility of and pressurising by Spain. Surely the Government are well aware of what is happening. I understand that people in Gibraltar are British citizens. One would expect that as British citizens they would have the right to stand in our council elections. I am told that they do not as citizens of the EU because of a special problem in the treaty. It seems that although Gibraltar is in the Union it is not exactly in it. For example, it is the only part of the Union that has no representation in the European Parliament.
There is always the danger of becoming a Euro-bore and going on and on. I go on only because at almost every debate that involves European issues one more Member attends. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne was so honest when he said that he has been worried for a long time and is now becoming especially worried.
People should wake up to what the idea of European citizenship really means. This is not a question of voting in council elections in Harrow, for instance; we are talking about the beginning of the disappearance of United Kingdom citizenship. Hon. Members may say that that is not true, but they know in their hearts that it is. Slowly, day by day, our liberty and national identity are disappearing. I would have no objection to that if people were consulted, asked or told.
Let me ask the Minister some basic questions. First, is it true that a substantial number of overseas territories throughout the world classify their citizens as citizens of the European Union—places such as Macau, which I have already mentioned? Secondly, if that is true, does it mean that, if resident in this country, those people can stand in council elections? Thirdly, if all those people in those strange countries all over the world can stand in council elections here, why on earth cannot a citizen of the United States have the same right? I feel that this is not an extension of our franchise or an extension of liberty, but merely a further attempt to nail down the new principle of our citizenship of the European Union rather than of a nation.
May I ask the Minister two more specific questions? Will he tell me—with the help of his splendid Foreign Office advisers who visit the area; I only wish that they would tell us what they are actually doing one of these days—what will be the position of Hong Kong and Macau in the year 2000? Will citizens resident in Hong Kong not have this right, while those in Macau will? What is the position of poor old Gibraltar, about which no one seems to care nowadays and which is going down the plughole with no friends or supporters? No one is prepared to shout for Gibraltar, but I hope that we shall start shouting.
I hope that I have followed the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, and said what people are really saying out there tonight.
7.51 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I intend to speak briefly.

1383
Like many of my hon. Friends, I was delighted by the encapsulation of Liberal party foreign policy that we were given by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). He thought that the main priority of any Foreign Office Minister was the interests of foreigners, as it was totally reprehensible to be the slightest bit interested in those of the United Kingdom. That, certainly, is a summation of his speech.
Mr. Rendel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Marlow: I did want to be brief.
Mr. Rendel: What I said was that it was important for a Foreign Office Minister to look after the interests of our citizens, and their right to vote in other countries.
Mr. Marlow: As far as I could make out, the hon. Gentleman thought it totally reprehensible for a potential Foreign Office Minister to go on about the interests of the United Kingdom and to treat the United Kingdom as his main priority. The hon. Gentleman used that dreadful word "xenophobic". He said that it was unforgivable to take such views; how could a Foreign Minister possibly look foreigners in the eye if he were interested in the interests of the United Kingdom? I shall let that pass, however.
All this follows from the ghastly notion of European citizenship incorporated in the Maastricht treaty, which was one of the crosses that the Government had to bear as the thing was bulldozed through the House against the wishes of a large number of right hon. and hon. Members, and certainly against the wishes and interests of the population of the United Kingdom. We thought then that talk of EU citizenship was a ghastly nonsense. I am sure that Ministers thought that it was a ghastly nonsense when they were ploughing through the briefs before them, but if they did not think so then they certainly think so now. They know that 80 or 90 per cent. of our constituents are totally against this bizarre concept. No one can be a citizen of the European Union and of the United Kingdom at the same time; one must take precedence and priority over the other.
Having accepted—as I think most people now do—that the concept is misguided, why must we bring this nonsense before the House? I suppose that we must do so because it is in the Maastricht treaty; but what will be the consequences if we proceed with the regulations? What are the potential consequences for parliamentary elections? Will my hon. Friend the Minister tell the House categorically that passing these measures this evening will have no implications for such elections—or is this the thin end of the wedge? Does it mean that at some later stage EU citizens will also be entitled to vote in our parliamentary elections?
Will my hon. Friend tell the House where we come in the pecking order? Are we the first to pass the regulations, or the second? What other countries in Europe have passed them, and, if other countries have not passed them, by when do they intend to do so? We are usually the most reluctant to agree to such measures, but we always seem to be the first to implement them. If that has been the case in the past, why is it the case now? Why do we not wait for the Germans and the French to pass regulations—as
1384
has been suggested—before forcing them on a reluctant British people, when we know that their heart is not in the issue?
Finally, what will happen if we do not pass the regulations? Will that mean that EU citizens will be able to vote in our local elections in future? If they cannot do that, will they be able to bring a legal case, with potential compensation, against Her Majesty's Government and the House of Commons? What will happen then? Does the House have real powers, or, if it objects, is it merely a cipher, and will the regulations still have their effect? Will my hon. Friend tell the House that?
This week the House will debate its pensions. There has been discussion in the press today about how we should deal with Prime Minister's questions, and later in the week we shall discuss the regulation of our outside interests. I suppose that all those are important issues, but they are relatively trivial in the context of our democracy, how we control it and the powers of the House. Has the House real powers with regard to Europe, or is it a mere cipher? In comparison with Nero fiddling, the House is in danger of becoming an orchestra.
7.56 pm
Mr. William Cash: This is yet another example of the slippery slope down which we headed when we debated Maastricht in 1992–93. For example, an English citizen is given no right to a business vote in local government elections by virtue of his having a business. That highly contentious but very important question is not dealt with by the regulations.
We know from a recent survey by Sheffield university that more than 60 per cent. of Conservative Back Benchers said that they did not agree with the Maastricht treaty, although they had voted for it in the Lobby. It is also known that, under the rulings of the European Court of Justice, the word "municipal"—which has already been raised—means "national"; it does not necessarily mean "local government". The Minister is having an interesting conversation with the Whip, but, if he would be good enough to listen, may I ask him for an absolute assurance that there is no question of the word "municipal" ever being interpreted by the British Government as implying a right to vote in general elections? In that event, the slippery slope would become a chasm.
Then there is the question of title 2 itself. Title 2 clearly states that the rights and duties of a so-called European citizen are effectively a blank sheet of paper that will be filled in later. May we have an explicit assurance that in no circumstances will those rights be extended to general elections? Will the Minister ensure—will he put it to the Prime Minister—that the question of an extension of those rights in relation to local government will be expressly included in the agenda for the next intergovernmental conference, so that we can have a clear assurance that such developments will be ruled out with respect to general elections?
There is also the question of the connection between citizenship and movement of persons. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has already pointed out that citizenship of the European Union in respect of other countries includes overseas territories. I stand by the point that I made with regard to Commonwealth citizens, and I think that my hon. Friend was right about Gibraltar; but people using the citizenship

1385
of overseas territories that are linked to France, Portugal, Spain and other EU countries have been engaging in illegal immigration. If a member of such an overseas territory has been granted the right to vote in a local government election, it follows that he will be allowed to emigrate to the country in which the election is held. Perhaps the Minister, who is also responsible for immigration, will comment on that. This is not a trivial matter: it is about an invasion of the rights of the people of this country to determine their own identity and make their own decisions in local government elections about those who will represent them.
Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend should not waste the House's time by seeking assurances from the Government. Article 8E on citizenship makes it abundantly clear that when the powers in the regulations are granted, the Council of Ministers, after consulting the European Parliament, could add to the rights of citizenship without consulting this House. Does he appreciate that under the treaty, which he and I voted against, powers to extend the rights of European citizens have been given to the Council of Ministers who can do that after consulting the European Parliament? Let us not waste time by asking for assurances from the Government or the Opposition, or even from the Liberal Democrats.
Mr. Cash: I am always more than glad to take my hon. Friend's advice. However, I ask for assurances because these matters are always open to interpretation, as is the word "municipal". It is important to be crystal clear. No doubt the Minister will want to say that such an extension under the aegis of the Council of Ministers would apply merely to local or regional government or something of that kind. I want an explicit assurance from the Minister that there is no question whatever of further additions or extensions to citizenship in relation to local government being extended to general elections. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that.
8.2 pm
Mr. Nicholas Baker: We have had a good and wide-ranging debate and I shall do my best to comment, if briefly, on the matters that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) made a good point when he said that he was anxious to see that the new regulations were fairly applied. We are also concerned about that. We are anxious to see that British nationals are not denied rights to vote in other countries in accordance with the directive.
All member states have to declare to which elections the directive will apply. They have all done that, and the list of elections in each country is included as part of the directive. No member state has failed to declare which elections will be applicable, and at the moment we have no reason to believe that any country is behind in preparing for what we are moving towards in this important debate.
Mr. Marlow: Can my hon. Friend tell me in which EU countries United Kingdom citizens are able to vote in local elections?
Mr. Baker: No, I cannot, but I will write to my hon. Friend about that.
I stress that under the directive the laws of member states apply to their local elections. The basis of voting is residence here. Some hon. Members got a little carried
1386
away about that. I accept that whether someone is a citizen of the European Union is relevant, but to qualify to vote here that person must be resident in the same way as anyone else.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) was a little churlish. We have taken our time in debating these matters. We debated the Maastricht treaty and we have considered the regulations on a number of occasions: they have been gone through thoroughly in Committee. That is a measure of the concern of my colleagues on this matter, and I take issue with the hon. Gentleman over his tone. When he had the nerve to attack my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), he went too far. If the hon. Gentleman did anything, he lost the argument that he was trying to advance. My hon. Friends have described their genuine concerns, and anyone who tries to rub those out or pretend that they do not exist does not deserve to be taken seriously.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) voiced some concerns. We debated the treaty before signing it. The regulations are consequential and we have debated them: they are a continuation of the process. My hon. Friend seems to want to exclude Irish citizens from voting here. We certainly would not do that. Perhaps my hon. Friend does not appreciate the number of Commonwealth citizens who can vote here as it is and it seems that he does not place much value on the fact that when the directive is implemented, our citizens will be able to vote in EU local elections.
Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Minister misses the point that I think I made in my speech. It is that I do not have any difficulties with people voting here. The point I made was about the people who offer themselves for election.
Mr. Baker: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I possibly mistook what he said. However, some comments apply to people who stand for election as well as to those who vote.
I take seriously the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He answered his own question about the directive and its application to Gibraltar. He is right to say that Gibraltar is not part of the electoral territory of the United Kingdom although Gibraltarians are British citizens and those of them who live in the UK can vote here. I shall have to write to my hon. Friend about Hong Kong and Macau. Citizens of the European Union are defined in the treaty and that is where one must look for the definition. In that respect, he again answered his own question. I repeat that the right to vote is based on residence here.
Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend the Minister spoke about a directive. Which directive has given birth to the regulations?
Mr. Baker: I do not have the records to show that, but the directive to which we are party has at the back of it a list of countries and the elections in which, member states have agreed, the right to vote in local elections shall apply. My hon. Friend and other hon. Members were concerned about the implications for parliamentary elections. I make it quite clear that the directive contains no implications for elections to the House and we do not intend to see that franchise extended. That is a quite

1387
separate matter. Allied to that is the fact that "municipal" does not mean "national" and the directive cannot be interpreted as applying to general elections here.
The reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) seeks is a directive of the Council of the European Community. The reference is 94/80/EC. That is the one I have in mind. We have had a good debate and I regret that time prevents me from debating these matters at greater length.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Local Government Elections (Changes to the Franchise and Qualification of Members) Regulations 1995, which were laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
  That the Updated Code of Audit Practice for Local Authorities and the National Health Service in England and Wales, dated 23rd June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

  EXPORT AND INVESTMENT GUARANTEES
  That the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Foreign Currency Commitments) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]
  Question agreed to.

Social Security
8.9 pm
Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1644), dated 28th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be annulled.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I understand that with this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1613), dated 26th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be annulled.
Mr. Bradley: One set of regulations deals with restrictions on housing benefit and the other deals with restrictions on income support for mortgage interest payments. I intend to deal with the latter first as they have already provoked considerable comment and concern both inside and outside the House. They could not be better summed up than by a quotation from an article by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) who, unfortunately, is not with us tonight. In Roof magazine in March 1995, he said:
"The proposals to reduce income support for mortgage interest are poor economics, weak housing policy and bad politics."
All Opposition Members agree with that sentiment.
Let us consider the main changes. First, most borrowers with existing agreements at 2 October 1995 will get no income support for their mortgage interest during the first eight weeks of a claim and will get only 50 per cent. during the next 18 weeks. At present, most borrowers get 50 per cent. during the first 16 weeks. In effect, two weeks are added on to that period, with an eight-week period with no income support mortgage interest payments at the beginning.
Secondly, most borrowers who take out new agreements after 2 October will get no income support mortgage interest payment for the first 39 weeks of a claim. That is completely new. Thirdly, income support mortgage interest payments will, in future, be paid only at a standard rate that may be less than the actual rate that a borrower has to pay to the lender. Fourthly, the regulations tighten up definitions of repairs and improvements that are eligible for any payment.
Throughout our deliberations on the matter, the Government have given a clear signal that they want private insurance to replace public provision for mortgage holders who fall on hard times. Indeed, in their memorandum to the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Government referred to their proposals as the "first steps". Surely we must ask where the first steps are leading. Logically, they must be leading to the abolition of income support mortgage interest payments, particularly given some of the Government's arguments in support of the changes. It seems likely that, at the very least, the new restricted periods will be extended in the future.
In fact, the regulations are not the first steps. Over the past few years, the Government have introduced many measures reducing protection. Since 1987, for example, claimants under 60 have had only 50 per cent. of their interest met for the first 16 weeks of a claim. Only interest

1389
on loan capital up to £100,000 is now met and new or increased loans to claimants who have been on income support during the previous 26 weeks are now generally excluded. Those are just some of the measures that the Government have already taken to restrict such payments.
We do not argue that there is no place at all for private provision in mortgage protection schemes. However, we believe that the Government have an important role to play in the protection of home owners who fall on hard times. A home cannot be compared with any other commodity; it is the bedrock of family life and personal security. The consequences of losing one's home are devastating, especially when children are involved. The fear of losing one's home must put an intolerable strain on relationships and on health. Falling into mortgage arrears, which will inevitably be a heightened risk under the new proposals, often triggers a spiralling descent into debt from which it may be impossible for many to extricate themselves.
The Government clearly wish to make savings in the social security budget. What are the real reasons for the growth in that budget? The large rise in the income support mortgage interest payment budget over the past decade and a half is not due to any relaxation in the rules governing it; indeed, the reverse has been the case. The rise is due to the growth in home ownership, especially among those on low incomes who may be more susceptible to unemployment. It is also due to the boom in house prices and the relaxation of credit controls that fuelled it. In addition, there were periods of high interest rates during preceding years. Many of those factors are the direct result of Government policy. They have certainly been outside the control of borrowers who now suffer under the new rules.
Let us now consider what the Government's proposals are to replace income support mortgage interest payments. Let us look at the inadequacy of mortgage protection policies on which the Government rely to protect people. First, certain groups are not covered. The Association of British Insurers, for example, admits that several groups are not able to buy adequate or, indeed, any protection at present. Examples are part-time, seasonal and contract workers, the self-employed and those with pre-existing conditions, especially those who are HIV positive. It is also not possible to insure against the risk of separation. The Government have made no concessions for the various groups of casual workers. That is especially ironic, given that they have been actively encouraging the casualisation of the labour market in recent years—a trend that will, no doubt, continue with the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance next year.
Secondly, there is difficulty in renewing cover. Even when people are initially able to obtain cover, they may not be able to renew it or will be able to renew only on prohibitive terms. Mortgage protection policies offer only short periods, typically 12 months, whereas mortgages are a long-term commitment, usually 25 years. At the end of each 12-month period, the insurer has the option of whether to agree to renew. If the insured has in the meantime developed a chronic illness or is now in less secure employment, the insurer is at liberty not to renew or to make the terms of the policy and the new premium even more stringent. Meanwhile, the insured person retains his or her liability under the mortgage. The Government just do not seem to address the crucial point
1390
of the interrelationship between the mortgage terms and the mortgage protection policies that are on offer. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that point.
Thirdly, there are disproportionately larger premiums for particular groups of people. I am grateful for the mound of evidence on that point, which has come from many voluntary organisations, such as the Disability Living Alliance, the Child Poverty Action Group and citizens advice bureaux. Those larger premiums affect especially vulnerable groups, such as disabled people or people who have been in and out of work. They are able to obtain insurance, but are likely to have to pay larger premiums. At present, the cost through the mortgage interest system is spread among all taxpayers on the normal principles of equity. That benefit will be lost under the new arrangements.
The Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that the proposals will add 10 per cent. to the annual cost of home ownership. For many people who are already struggling to keep their homes, that increased burden may tip the balance and stop them being able to keep their property.
There is also the difficulty of making a claim; much case study work has been done on that. Again, I am grateful to organisations such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux for providing the Opposition with the relevant material. It is not surprising that insurers insist on relying on the small print when they pay out on their policies. Obviously, the companies are there to make a profit and the commercial reality is that the fewer claims that have to be met, the greater their profits. Although insurers may, for public relations reasons, be keen to portray themselves as prompt payers and willing, as they say, not to make a drama out of a crisis, the reality can be very different for many people who try to make a claim.
Whatever the position of insurers, hardly any policies pay out for the first 60 to 90 days of unemployment. In their response to the Social Security Advisory Committee report, the Government do not even pretend that people will be able to insure for the first eight weeks when existing borrowers will have no income support mortgage interest payments. So how do they justify the rule that prohibits payment during those eight weeks? The Government say that private insurance should cover that, but admit that they have no answer to the claim that that first period is uninsurable.
In many previous debates on the matter, we have heard about the wonders of the Skipton building society. The Labour party recently undertook a survey of building societies, to see exactly what picture is now emerging. The results are, to say the least, interesting. The Nationwide building society, for example, said:
"The first point to make is that research indicates that less than one third of customers in arrears could have claimed on a private insurance policy. Offering free insurance which provides insufficient cover therefore is misguided. There are categories of borrowers, such as the self-employed, for whom aspects of this insurance would be inappropriate and therefore expensive. In fact, it is likely that policies which do not cover divorce or separation, or cater for the ending of a fixed term contract, will be of little value to many customers."
It goes on to say:
"We believe the effect on the market place of the new regulations will be to further reduce confidence in the housing market, at a time when this is least appropriate. Without the benefit of ISMI, more borrowers will unfortunately find themselves in arrears, and repossessions could increase."

1391
That is just one typical example from the comments that we have received from many building societies that represent the bulk of the market, and the Government should take note. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.
Another example is from the head of lending at the Woolwich building society. He said:
"The housing market is suffering from a dearth of confidence. People are reluctant to take on (or increase) commitments, given the uncertainty over job security, interest rate movements, etc. The restrictions on income support merely serve to further undermine confidence."
The general manager of the Halifax building society said:
"The changes will not be good for the housing market."
Despite all that evidence, the Government are determined to plough ahead with their arrangements.
The Government made some concessions during the consultation period but, at best, the changes that they made could be described as minimal. They may be better described as mean-spirited. New borrowers with pre-existing medical conditions or HIV whose mortgage protection claim is rejected would not be subject to the 39-week no-income-support rule. However, that takes no account of people who cannot obtain insurance in the first place, or cannot renew it, because they will be subject to the eight and 18-week rule. They will be treated like existing borrowers and therefore left without protection for those periods.
In respect of HIV, much work and lobbying has been done by important organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, and the Social Security Department recognises in incapacity benefit the need to deal with that group of people sensitively. Why have the Government rejected the claims and representations made on that point so far? I would value the Minister's comments on that important issue, which is causing immense difficulty for many people who are trying to take out normal commercial insurance.
Similarly, new borrowers who are lone parents and who have been deserted or bereaved will be subject to the eight and 18-week rule at a time when they face emotional and financial pressures. The Government accept that it is not possible to insure against the risk of separation, but make no concession to partners left alone who do not have children, despite the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation to the converse. Although carers are exempt from the 39-week rule, they will be subject to the eight and 18-week rule. If they have given up work to look after disabled relatives, they will fall outside mortgage protection insurance because they will have become unemployed voluntarily. There are more and more examples of where minor concessions that the Government have made during the consultation period do not add up to a bean. In practice, they are worthless because insurance policies will not cover key groups of people. The Government must respond to those difficulties.
I shall deal briefly with the introduction of the new standard rate of interest that will apply when calculating income support mortgage interest. In future, interest will generally be paid at a standard rate, not the actual rate that borrowers must pay. In their consultation document, the Government said that there will inevitably be gainers and losers with a system based on an average. Some
1392
potential gainers—those with rates of under 5 per cent.—will get income support mortgage interest at their actual rate and will therefore not gain. All potential losers will, by contrast, lose. The Government are putting administrative simplicity before fairness and borrowers with interest rates above the standard rate will inevitably be placed in difficulty.
Moreover, the Government specifically rejected the Social Security Advisory Committee's recommendation that, where borrowers remortgage so that they can get a lower rate, they should be treated as existing borrowers in relation to the new arrangements and therefore be subject to the eight and 18-week rule, not the 39-week rule. The Government insist that they must be subject to the 39-week rule. How do they justify that proposal?
Let us look at the overall effect of the changes. The Council of Mortgage Lenders has estimated that a further 12,000 to 24,000 repossessions a year will take place as a direct result of the changes. Already, nearly 1,000 repossessions take place every week. In addition, the number of borrowers in arrears—currently well over a quarter of a million people are more than six months in arrears—is bound to increase. One can imagine the catalogue of human misery that will result.
The irony is that the savings to the Exchequer are likely to be minimal. The Government estimate that annual savings will eventually be some £200 million. They have provided no detailed costing showing how that figure is arrived at. However, even if it proves accurate, it takes no account of the extra expenditure that other parts of the Government budget, national and local, will have to bear, for example, the housing budget through more homelessness and additional housing benefits, and perhaps the health and social security budgets.
The Government should tackle those problems and the serious problems of repossessions, arrears and negative equity. They must do something to stimulate the housing market rather than pursue these mean-minded measures. I offer a final thought on this subject—a quotation from a recent book of memoirs:
"I was acutely conscious of what interest rate changes meant for those with mortgages … borrowers' lives can be shattered overnight by higher interest rates. My economic policy was intended to be a social policy. It was a way to a property owning democracy. And so the needs of home owners must never be forgotten".
That is a quotation from Margaret Thatcher's memoirs, "The Downing Street Years", pages 698–99. Why do the Government no longer want to support home owners in the spirit of their former Prime Minister?
On the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment Regulations, it should be pointed out that those changes have been deferred from October 1995 to January 1996, presumably to avoid administrative chaos. Will the Minister confirm that all the computer systems for the changes will be in place and operational, ready for the new implementation date? We are well aware that the new system poses a number of difficult questions relating to operational matters: how rent officers will determine average rents; how the interface between rent officer service and the housing benefit authorities will work; how the review process will function; the practicalities of running the new and old systems side by side; and so on. I understand that the housing and public services section is involved in detailed discussions with the DSS and the rent officer service on those points, to minimise the problem. Will the Minister give us some details tonight

1393
about how those discussions are going, to ensure that we do not run into administrative chaos when the scheme is finally introduced?
There are several other key points in the regulations that are causing particular concern: first, the introduction of the local reference rent; secondly, the abolition of guaranteed protection for vulnerable groups; and, thirdly, the impact on supported housing schemes.
First, the local reference rent level may be less than a reasonable market rent. The shortfall between the housing benefit paid and the property's market rate is likely to increase financial hardship, rent arrears and eviction. Furthermore, there may be no suitable alternative accommodation at the local reference rent for the person to move to. That could mean a significant increase in homelessness. Again, we have had example after example of how people are unable to meet the shortfall between the rent that they are asked to pay and housing benefit levels. They are expected to pay the shortfall from other meagre benefits, which is unacceptable.
Secondly, at present, certain vulnerable groups, essentially elderly or disabled people and families with children, are exempt from housing benefit high-rent restrictions, unless suitable alternative accommodation is available and it is reasonable to expect the claimant to move. That protection will be abolished and housing benefit authorities will be given a cash-limited grant instead to use to offset, in part or in whole, the effects of cuts in cases of exceptional hardship.
The key purpose behind that proposal is clearly to make savings. On current figures, the Department of Social Security contribution to local exceptional hardship funds will be about one third of the amount that the Department estimates will be necessary to protect the groups currently defined as vulnerable. Housing benefit authorities will be permitted to put in a similar amount from their own resources. The remaining third are presumably expected to move or to persuade their landlords to reduce the rent. DSS estimates show that the savings from those cuts in respect of vulnerable groups—and I stress that we are dealing with such groups—will be £53.1 million at 1995–96 prices. The Social Security Advisory Committee commented in its report on the regulations:
"the cash-limited nature of the proposal appears to make it inevitable that some people who merit extra help will not receive it".
Many organisations have compared that cash-limited budget with the social fund, where the time of the year one goes through the door determines whether one receives help. Again, many vulnerable people will be affected.
Thirdly, there is concern over supported housing schemes. On that point, I and my hon. Friends have received many representations from concerned organisations. During the consultation, the Government made some welcome concessions in respect of accommodation provided by housing associations, registered charities or voluntary organisations that support, supervise, care and provide for the particular needs of a resident, but the new rules pose a particular threat to supported lodgings, including "adult placement" type schemes in the private rented sector. They are not included in the concessions recently extracted from the Government.
As service charges will be counted against the local reference rent, the great majority of such supported lodgings can be expected to be subject to housing benefit
1394
cuts in respect of new cases. I am informed that Department of Social Security officials are in communication with the Department of Health on that policy area, but as we are debating the regulations tonight, no details have yet been forthcoming. Will the Government give us information tonight about why they have excluded supported housing schemes in the private rented sector, what discussions are going on with the Department of Health in relation to community care schemes, where the private rented sector is in use by local authorities and approved of by the Government, and why those schemes have been excluded from the concessions that have been made by the Government for other types of supported schemes?
All those changes will have a fundamental impact on housing, whether it be through the income support or housing benefit reductions. One must ask whether those housing benefit changes are necessary. The argument for introducing the changes involves the need to stem the rising cost of that subsidy, which totalled £10 billion in 1994–95. That sum, however, includes benefit paid to local authority tenants and housing association tenants. From 1989 to 1993–94, private sector rents rose by 117 per cent., but local authority rents rose by 77 per cent. and housing association rents by 65 per cent. That shift from bricks and mortar subsidies to personal subsidies in the public sector, along with the deregulation of the private rented sector, has been the real reason for the increased cost of housing benefit.
Further to that, under regulation 11 of the Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987, local authorities already have the ability to restrict benefit where the accommodation is over-large or unreasonably expensive. In its report to the Secretary of State, the Social Security Advisory Committee states that, in 1993–94, 17 per cent. of properties referred to rent officers in England and Wales were deemed "over-large" and 33 per cent. of private sector rents referred following housing benefit applications were deemed to be above the market level. We can already see that powers are there for rent officers and local authorities to use existing legislation for proper restrictions on housing benefit where it is clearly inappropriate.
The way in which the Government are tackling these matters is particularly unsound. They will affect vulnerable groups, and create hardship, arrears and further repossessions. We shall vote against the regulations because there are better ways forward. A move towards bricks and mortar subsidy, to provide social housing at rents people can afford, is the best way to restrict the housing benefit budget. The changes to the income support regulations do no more than seriously undermine people's security, and further depress the housing market.
8.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): On 13 July, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was quoted in The Times as saying that he intended not to increase the social security budget, but to change the way in which it was spent. If that be right, we certainly saw no sign of a change in policy in the speech by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). He described an expenditure of £200 million a year as minimal—I use his very words—and he has completely overlooked the fact that the Government currently spend £18 billion of

1395
taxation a year to support housing. The majority, about £11 billion last year, was distributed through the benefit system.
Expenditure through the benefit system on housing has more than doubled since 1988.
Mr. Nick Raynsford: It is your fault.
Mr. Evans: It is amusing to hear the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), the Opposition housing spokesman, say, "It is your fault," by which I take it that he means my and the Government's fault rather than yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We had an indication of that in the closing remarks by the hon. Member for Withington. Is the Labour party really going back to the dyed in the wool, 1950s bricks and mortar type subsidy, the sort of expenditure that put a family in a house for 50 years? They were in need on the day that they moved in, but 10, 20, 30, 40 years later they were not in need. The whole thing was absurd. The housing queues built up because no one and no Labour local authority would evict tenants. The Conservative party took the right view that people in council houses who no longer qualified under social need should have the right to buy those homes. That has been vastly popular.
Let us turn to the question of income support mortgage interest payments. I shall deal with the matters in the order that the hon. Member for Withington raised them. The point about this proposal is that the existing system is plainly not supporting the housing market adequately. It is all very well to refer to the income support mortgage interest safety net, but 70 per cent. of those people who have been repossessed did not qualify for income support. Three out of four borrowers in arrears are not in receipt of income support.
Mr. Henry McLeish: So what?
Mr. Evans: The "so what", if the hon. Gentleman wishes to hear it, is simply that if one is talking about devising a safety net, it is a pretty inadequate safety net if it leaves 70 per cent. of people outside the scope of its protection.
Dr. Lynne Jones: The Minister has claimed that the fact that certain people are not covered is an excuse for withdrawing or certainly reducing the safety net. Does he not agree that that safety net could be enlarged by offering universal housing benefit to help with mortgage interest payments? That may cost the Exchequer more money, but it would be cheaper for the person in the street, whether a taxpayer or someone paying an insurance premium, to have to pay a little bit extra in his or her taxes than to have to pay about £5 a week to take out private insurance for the average mortgage.
Mr. Evans: "A little bit extra on your taxes" is what the Labour party always says when it proposes an enormous extension of state expenditure. A mortgage-housing benefit scheme was costed by the Rowntree Trust in 1992 at £600 million a year. There is no doubt that the kind of schemes that have been proposed by various people involve even greater sums than that. There is a better way forward—one which encourages private responsibility and encourages people to take out insurance.
1396
The Labour party is stuck in the mould of the one male householder supporting his family, but 62 per cent. of mortgages these days are taken out on double incomes.
Dr. Jones rose—
Mr. Evans: Let me finish my point and then I shall give way to the hon. Lady.
Should a couple take out a mortgage based on a double income and one of the couple becomes unemployed, the earnings of the other could make the couple ineligible for income support but there will still be a gap in the payments that threatens their home. Income support is not intended to meet that kind of provision. We suggest that there should be a provision for private insurance, where it is necessary to take that out. Not everyone needs to take out private insurance. Some people have some savings; some people have larger amounts of equity; but for a large number of people mortgage protection insurance offers an imaginative and important means of feeling more secure in their homes.
Dr. Jones: With respect, the Minister has not answered my question. It would be cheaper to offer an improved safety net through the Government than to force people—you are now forcing people—to increase their housing costs substantially by taking out private insurance.
Mr. Evans: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are doing no such thing, even if I may stand accused of that.
The point at stake is simple. A private insurance scheme is not necessarily more expensive. The Skipton building society is introducing one free. As for the promises of greater public expenditure from the Labour party, we know that their historic cost is always enormous and much more than the party promised in the first place. It always means the extension of state control at the expense of the hard-earning couple who are working hard to pay their mortgage. Those are the people expected to pay an extra few pounds a week to support socialist taxation.
The Government have sensitively listened to the problems of various groups who may face difficulty with obtaining cover. That is why new borrowers who are carers; those with pre-existing medical conditions or HIV-related illnesses; remand prisoners and deserted partners who have care of children will be treated as existing borrowers.
The new scheme will come in slowly in stages. If people make a decision to move and buy a new house after 2 October, they know what they are taking on and what their responsibilities and problems are. There is opportunity for someone to take out insurance or to make such other provision as is satisfactory to that person's position. At the same time, an existing claimant will continue to be protected. There is, of course, a halfway house for those who do not move but fall into difficulty.
The essential point is that we are talking about new borrowers facing disqualification or non-payment after 2 October for nine months. That is a finite period. Insurance is, classically, suited to meeting finite risks that can be quantified and evaluated by the market and a price properly put upon them. The Government have no proposals to go beyond the stage that we have suggested and nine months is an eminently insurable proposition.
We have carefully clarified the definition of new borrowing to avoid the perverse effects of what happens if someone wants a remortgage on his existing property.

1397
We have introduced a 26-week linking period where requalification periods for insurance may leave borrowers uncovered. We have introduced special rules to "start the clock", if I may put it like that, on the restricted period for those who are not entitled to income support because of excess income or capital. Above all, once housing costs become payable, they will be paid direct to lenders participating in the mortgage direct scheme. That will help to control arrears by ensuring that benefit paid for housing costs is used for that purpose.
The measures that we have set out in the regulations represent the right balance between benefit and insurance provision and ensure that the two mesh together to provide more comprehensive cover for borrowers.
What the hon. Member for Withington has spelt out, with, to be fair, less than the Caledonian gloom of his colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is that somehow or other the changes are bound to have an adverse effect upon the housing market. Compared with our debate on 13 June, what the hon. Member for Withington said was much more measured—
Mr. Donald Dewar: More cheerful.
Mr. Evans: Oh, it will be cheerful. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Garscadden saw the report in The Herald on 29 June, which said:
"The Edinburgh Solicitors' Property Centre called its first new conference in 24 years to allay fears of negative equity and present a new report with an upbeat picture of the Scottish housing market … chairman George Clark said the volume of misinformation, based on serious problems experienced in the south of England, had reached such a level that it had been decided to take action …
'We do not have a problem in Scotland with negative equity … He said where people owed more to the bank or building society than their house was worth, it was generally due to them borrowing more than 100 per cent. on the loan or falling into problems with repayments.
'Scotland's property market is definitely not in the doldrums, but our fear at this time is that all this doom and gloom can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.'"
Mr. Dewar rose—
Mr. Evans: The hon. Member for Garscadden, to whom I shall happily give way in a moment, may wish to become the doomster of the Scottish property market, but that is not the view of that particular group, which is heavily involved in it.
Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to say that I have no wish to crack jokes with the Minister. Does he not accept that the report of the Edinburgh property centre, which I saw, made one important point, that Scotland's property market was out of line with the experience in the rest of the country? Although I regard Scotland as an enormously important part of the United Kingdom, it represents only about 9 per cent. of the population and probably rather less than that of the property markets.
Mr. Evans: I do not think that any of us noticed on 13 June that Scotland was excepted from the general gloom propounded by the hon. Gentleman about the housing market.
If we are talking about general gloom, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman also saw the report in the Financial Times by Mr. Kaletsky on the question of how the "myth of negative equity" has arisen. [Interruption.]
1398
Those were the words in the headline in that newspaper. That is why a parliamentary answer was given by the Department of the Environment to the effect that that idea is being looked at. The question is a simple one. It is a question of how, statistically, the figure of over 800,000 households quoted by the Minister at the Department of the Environment somehow has become inflated to well over 1 million people in other reports and other arguments. The point at stake, methodologically, which is significant, is that the definition of negative equity currently used by some commentators appears to have left out the value of the collateral security in the form of the endowment policy, which is an important part of the equation. It is a real asset, which exists to meet the liability.
The arguments about negative equity are a typical example of the unnecessary and highly negative view of the housing market that we have heard from the Opposition, who seem to glory in talking it down. At this point in the business cycle, houses have never been cheaper.
Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Evans: No, I am about to conclude.
Housing has never been cheaper. The opportunities to buy houses have never been better and the relationship between average earnings and average house prices is highly favourable. It is typical that the Labour party has somehow forgotten, or somehow does not seem to understand, the phenomenon of the trade cycle, which has been analysed by commentators for the past 250 years. The point is that recovery will come.
I turn quickly, because I have spoken for longer than I intended, to the second part of the argument: housing benefit. I shall deal with the first question asked by the hon. Member for Withington about the introduction of the new arrangements in January. We have had discussions with local authority representatives and associations. We were persuaded by listening to their careful and reasoned arguments about the difficulties of developing the various—and they are various—computer software systems that they needed longer than we had originally intended to provide. We believe that it was right to accede to their request and we have been assured by them that they will be able to meet smoothly the January 1996 start date.
Mr. Bradley: On that point, can the Minister assure the House that all the information on the subsidy arrangements and changes for new claimants is now available to the software companies so that they can introduce the systems for the local authorities?
Mr. Evans: I am slightly puzzled by that question in the sense that we are debating the very regulations which provide the legal framework for the computer software. I do not understand to what possible additional matter the hon. Gentleman may be referring. As I understand it, we are debating the very regulations which define the scheme in law and from which the software may be written.
Both the regulations—I shall invite my hon. Friends to reject the prayers to annul them—represent a fair balance between defending people's homes and encouraging private responsibility, and the needs of the taxpayer.
8.51 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I was interested in what the Minister had to say about Scotland. He appears to have second-hand information from the solicitors of Scotland.
Mr. Dewar: The Edinburgh solicitors.
Mr. Martin: The Edinburgh solicitors, as my hon. Friend says. They are not exactly experts in the suffering endured by some people in Scotland or, indeed, in the rest of the United Kingdom. Houses which used to be sold in a matter of weeks now take nine or 10 months to sell. The Minister and other Ministers have spoken about the mobility of labour and how young people should be able to move around the country to follow jobs. How can they follow jobs to other parts of the country if they cannot sell their homes?
It is easy for the Minister to talk about insurance and mortgage protection, but he must know that many young couples are finding it more and more difficult to get a mortgage, let alone insurance to go with it. Building societies and banks had their fingers burnt over evictions. This Government's policies meant that people found themselves unemployed and could not pay their mortgages, so building societies got into serious difficulties.
When young couples apply for a mortgage they are now asked more and more probing questions, especially about their employment prospects. Both parties in a marriage are asked whether their jobs are secure. As a result, sometimes young couples have to settle for brokers who charge higher interest charges rather than getting help from bigger building societies. They have to shop around to try to find a firm prepared to take them on.
Where I come from, it is not so easy for a young engineer to be able to say that he has a job for life—far from it. Many engineers in the west of Scotland work for employers who may be reasonable, but make it clear to those engineers and to other workers that their jobs are not permanent. That means that it is harder for such people to get a mortgage and very hard for them to get insurance. No insurance company will take on someone who is, for example, on a fixed-term contract for three or four years, and the Minister must know that.
The Minister also states that benefit will cover those who have been deserted by their spouses. But he should be improving the situation and trying to give more assistance to those who have been deserted, particularly deserted wives. If in good faith a wife takes out a joint mortgage with her husband and he leaves her, she has the children to worry about, the emotional stress of her marriage breaking up and she will soon have to try to cope with mortgage payments as well. The Minister must know that that is very difficult.
Surely the Minister should be more interested in weeding out from the housing benefit market unscrupulous landlords who charge tenants well over the odds for property. The tenant does not always have a choice of landlord. The Minister knows that sometimes when a person from Scotland loses his job, say down here in England, he moves back up to Scotland because even without a job, at least he is back in the family circle receiving support from relatives. Sometimes that means the person has to rent a place from a private landlord. Some landlords leave a great deal to be desired. They charge terrible rates for accommodation.
1400
A recent report showed that young students were living in dangerous conditions in my native city of Glasgow. In fact one young student lived in a fire trap, and when fire broke out, he had to jump from a two-storey building. He has been disfigured for life because of an unscrupulous landlord. The Minister should be going after those landlords, not people who are easily exploited.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall not speak for too long. Scottish Homes, which is responsible for the housing association movement in Scotland, has brought in a system known as assured tenancies. When a new tenant moves into a housing association property and becomes an assured tenant, he is not able to go to the rent officer. The Minister will also know that those housing associations are getting involved in what is known as joint ventures, where private sector money is being invested in new build. Part of that deal is that the private sector is always able to get its money back.
If the tenants are assured tenants and have no recourse to the rent officer, they face a double problem. They cannot go to the rent officer, so if their rent increases, those who are unfortunate enough to be on social security will not receive any assistance from the Minister's Department. It is time that the Minister tried to help people who are in difficulties rather than trying to hinder them.
8.58 pm
Ms Liz Lynne: The announcement by the Secretary of State for Social Security last month that he was to backtrack on some of the proposals for income support mortgage interest payments and housing benefit was welcome, even though the concessions were only very small. He should not have thought about penalising carers, the sick, remand prisoners, people suffering from AIDS or deserted partners with children in the first place. It is scandalous that he proposed to remove income support and tighten up the housing rules for those people. The housing association charities and the voluntary organisations that provide care and support will, fortunately, be able to function. But, again, the Secretary of State should not have thought of penalising them in the first place.
Vulnerable groups will still face tremendous problems, especially in relation to income support mortgage interest payments. The Secretary of State has accepted only certain of the Social Security Advisory Committee's proposals. I welcome the fact that he has accepted them, but he has not accepted the proposals for seasonal workers and part-time workers. He has not thought about deferring the changes until April 1996, as the Social Security Advisory Committee proposed. He has not introduced help for existing borrowers who switch to a new lender.
The main problem concerns seasonal workers and part-time workers. If people take a job for 12 weeks in the summer and are then out of work, they will lose their benefit. If they do not take that job they will lose their benefit anyway, so they cannot win. Their unemployment benefit will be cut. The Association of British Insurers said that it would not cover seasonal workers and part-time workers, remand prisoners or deserted partners. The Government have made an exception in two of those cases; why not in the third? Why have they not made an exception for seasonal workers and part-time workers? What will happen to that group of people? They will not

1401
be able to obtain benefit and they cannot obtain insurance. They will face repossession and homelessness. It will cost the taxpayer more in the long run.
As for the time scale, the Under-Secretary of State seems to have a blind faith in the fact that everything will be in place by October. Is he seriously telling the House that someone who becomes unemployed in October will be able to receive cover? I should appreciate it if he would clarify that when he answers tonight. The number of people claiming income support for mortgage interest has fallen since 1993, so one would have thought that the Government might have considered the position to be under control. It is a cost-effective way of keeping families housed.
Another stupid policy that the Government have introduced is to penalise those who switch lenders to receive a lower interest rate. All that will happen is that those borrowers will stay with their existing lender and will not switch. In the long term that will cost the Treasury more.
On the subject of housing benefit, I welcome the Government's decision to exempt non-profit-making accommodation offering care, supervision and support, but the Government lack courage. They are not facing up to what has happened and the reasons why the bill for housing benefit has soared. The cost of housing benefit has soared because the Government have forced up council rents and housing association rents and there has also been an increase in rents in the private sector. I know that the Minister will try to deal with that problem, but the growth in housing benefit is a deliberate Government policy. If it were not, why would the Government have introduced policies that have contributed to it? The subsidy for bricks and mortar was removed and given to the individual for housing benefits. The Government's approach is that of a motorist who blames the temperature gauge when the car overheats.
I am concerned about private tenants because they do not have any negotiating strength. What do they do if the landlord will not bring down the rent? They have to move or make up the shortfall from their meagre benefits or low income. The Minister is placing them in an impossible position. There will be a growth in rent arrears and homelessness. According to Shelter's research, in 1993, 19 per cent. of its clients came to see it about rent arrears and housing benefit problems. One fifth of homeless families come from the private rented sector. The reduction in housing benefit for landlords will mean that they will stop performing essential maintenance work. They will say, "We're not getting enough money, so we will not do the repairs." A lot of private rented accommodation is already in an appalling condition. People who cannot afford it may be forced out of rented accommodation and there is often no other low-rent accommodation in their areas.
The Government could assist by releasing the council housing receipts so that local authorities could build more low-rent housing. The Secretary of State for Social Security groans about that but, in trying to shift more people out of local authority housing and into the private rented sector, he has introduced measures that will penalise people in the private rented sector. The Secretary of State is taking entirely the wrong approach.
Local authorities can restrict housing benefit if people are in over-large accommodation or if the accommodation is too expensive. They have the power to do that at
1402
present. The Government reforms fall between two stools: they hit the vulnerable and they do not save the taxpayer any money. I oppose the regulations because I believe that they will cause real hardship and increase homelessness. The Government have yet again failed to see the knock-on effect of their actions. Until that lesson is learned, the taxpayer and the most vulnerable in society will continue to suffer.
9.6 pm
Dr. Lynne Jones: Earlier today the Minister accused my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of being gloomy and doom-laden. However, I listened to the Minister's speech and I detected a rather strong rose-coloured tint to his glasses. He seems completely oblivious to the insecurity and misery that his Government have created among people on average and below-average incomes. The measures that the Government have introduced tonight will do nothing to relieve that sense of insecurity.
The Minister talked about the economic recovery, but the improvements in the market and in the economy that occurred after black Wednesday are now slowing down. There is no wonderful recovery—unless the Government seek to stimulate it artificially with tax cuts, which is presumably what the measures are about. As I attempted to suggest in an earlier exchange, any tax cuts that the Government may hand out before the next election will not compensate for the tax increases that they have imposed already. Nor will they take into account the extra charges that people will have to meet as a result of tonight's measures.
Like his right hon. and hon. Friends, including the Prime Minister, the Minister mentioned the Skipton building society. It has received a lot of free advertising courtesy of Conservative Members in recent weeks. He did not respond to the suggestion that, contrary to what the Minister and his colleagues try to promote, all may not be well in the building society sector. I have been in touch with the 17 building societies that are as large as or have a larger asset base than the Skipton building society, and there is little evidence that they are rushing to follow its lead. The Bradford and Bingley building society said:
"The Society is concerned that the Government is seeking to transfer obligations from the public to the private sector especially when those involved are potentially the most vulnerable in society".
The Nationwide building society said:
"We have no plans to offer 'free' insurance on an ongoing basis as this is not sustainable; the cost involved would have to be covered by borrowers in one way or another".
The Portman building society said that it already offers mortgage protection insurance, and added:
"We currently charge for these services and have no plans to change that policy."
A person with an average mortgage who is worried about insecurity or losing his job is faced with charges of about £5 a week—far more than the Government will give to people on average or below-average incomes in any tax giveaway. The Government seem more concerned about doing away with inheritance tax than helping those on low incomes. I support everything that has been said by Opposition Members in opposition to these mean-minded regulations.
On housing benefit, the Government again will create more misery and will put people at risk. The measure is contradictory to the Government's espoused policy of

1403
promoting the private rented sector. In the recent White Paper, the Government recognised that small landlords were worried about ensuring that rent is paid regularly. People on low incomes find it easier to find accommodation if landlords can be confident that rents will be paid. What will the measures do to improve that confidence?
The Government are also promoting rent guarantee schemes, and I am involved in such a scheme in Birmingham. These schemes will be put at risk, as landlords will not be willing to take on people on low incomes if they know that the housing benefit will not cover the rent. Benefits at the moment are not sufficient to enable people to meet any shortfall that may exist.
It is common on the continent for the benefit system not to cover the full cost of rental, but basic benefit on the continent is much more generous than it is here. That may be a practice that we could follow. If we looked at the base amounts of benefit and gave people more money in their pockets, it really would give those people choice. The Government talk about choice, but what choice do people on low incomes and seeking rented accommodation have in Tory Britain? Very little.
Finally, housing associations are extremely concerned about whether the housing associations as managing agents initiative—a ministerial initiative from 1991—can continue. The initiative is a good idea, and was designed to help bring empty private properties back into use. The housing associations say that the scheme will be put in jeopardy unless it is given an exemption from the measure, and they call for the introduction of a mechanism to appeal against rent officer determinations. I have been pretty unkind to the Minister, but perhaps I could finish by asking him—in the nicest possible way—if he will consider exempting such schemes from the regulations, if nothing else.
9.12 pm
Mr. Bradley: I shall be brief in summary. We have had an interesting, if short, debate. I say to the Minister that we are as keen as the Leader of the Opposition to reduce the housing benefit budget. We believe that the problem has been caused by the Government deregulating rents in the Housing Act 1988, and by the way in which they have allowed housing subsidies—through a transfer to the individual from bricks and mortar—to take the strain of their policies. That could be quickly rectified by allowing houses to be built at rents that people can afford. The housing benefit budget would then reduce.
The Minister redefined negative equity for us tonight. It was a useful new concept. He said that mortgage holders must take account of the proceeds of their endowment mortgage which they may get in 25 years' time if they manage to make all the payments during that period and if they have not moved in the meantime to a house whose price was lower than the mortgage they wanted. That was some new evidence on negative equity, for which the public outside will be grateful. They now know that they are not in negative equity, even if the figures that they have for their mortgage and for their current house price would tend to confirm that they are. I am grateful to the Minister for his new analysis of that matter.
1404
I must press the Minister on two issues. First, will he confirm that most private insurance policies do not pay out for the first 60 or, more usually, 90 days? How are people to take out private insurance to cover the first eight-week gap that the Government are creating by their change in policy?
Secondly, and most important, the Minister did not comment on private rented supported housing schemes. I asked him a number of questions, but why did he not answer them? Why have such schemes not been included in the concessions? Many bodies such as local authorities use organisations like Barnardo's which then use high-quality, carefully monitored, private sector housing schemes, especially adult placement schemes. Why will these now be subject to benefit cuts under the new regulations? I must press the Minister for answers.
As I said, we shall be voting against the regulations because they are a testament to the Government's inadequate response to people's real needs, whether they be in the private rented sector or own their own homes.
9.15 pm
Mr. Roger Evans: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) should treat Mr. Kaletsky with a little more care. Significantly, Mr. Kaletsky's point was that statisticians have assumed for the purpose of negative equity that repayment mortgages are 100 per cent. of the market whereas we know that they were less than 20 per cent. at the material time. Statistically that is rather important. People's endowment policies after, say, five years—most of the mortgages that went wrong were taken out five years ago at the height of the boom—have a substantial value. It is nonsense to compare like with dislike. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman appears wholly unaware of the fact that quite apart from cashing them in, or surrendering them with a penalty, one can assign such things. They do have a value and are perfectly acceptable security. He is simply showing ignorance of the commercial world.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about private insurance and why there was a 60 or 90-day waiting period. Lending institutions have already accepted that such a pause at the beginning is not going to be a ground for repossession. The hon. Gentleman should understand that when one takes out insurance, the longer the waiting period for which one opts—it may be a matter of choice if one has savings or equity—the cheaper the insurance. That is sensibly a matter for individual judgment and negotiation.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) mentioned the cost of insurance. Building societies' margins are at a historic two-decade high of 2 per cent., which is why the Skipton building society is able to offer this insurance free. It is also why, despite a private Labour party survey from which we heard only two examples and a private enterprise survey of which we heard from another Labour Member, we are assured by the Association of British Insurers that insurance will be in place for the October start date. The Association of British Insurers would be very unhappy about any deferment.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) expressed concern about landlords. However, the Government are concerned that under the existing arrangements some landlords in some circumstances have

1405
been dealing neither ssensibly nor fairly with tenants or taxpayers. The purpose of the local reference rent system is to introduce an element of control.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 256.

Division No. 206]

[9.18 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Donohoe, Brian H

Adams, Mrs Irene

Dowd, Jim

Ainger, Nick

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Allen, Graham

Eastham, Ken

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Etherington, Bill

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Ashton, Joe

Faulds, Andrew

Austin-Walker, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Flynn, Paul

Barnes, Harry

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Barron, Kevin

Foster, Don (Bath)

Battle, John

Fraser, John

Bayley, Hugh

Fyfe, Maria

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Galbraith, Sam

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Gapes, Mike

Bell, Stuart

Garrett, John

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

George, Bruce

Bennett, Andrew F

Gerrard, Neil

Bermingham, Gerald

Godman, Dr Norman A

Berry, Roger

Godsiff, Roger

Betts.Clive

Gokding, Mrs Llin

Blunkett, David

Graham, Thomas

Boateng, Paul

Griffiths, Win (Biidgend)

Bradley, Keith

Gunnell, John

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hain, Peter

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Hanson, David

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

Hardy, Peter

Burden, Richard

Harman, Ms Harriet

Byers, Stephen

Harvey, Nick

Caborn, Richard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Callaghan, Jim

Henderson, Doug

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hinchliffe, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hodge, Margaret

Campbell-Savours, D N

Hoey, Kate

Cann, Jamie

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Chidgey, David

Hood, Jimmy

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hoon, Geoffrey

Church, Judith

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Clapham, Michael

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hoyle, Doug

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clelland, David

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Hutton, John

Coffey, Ann

Illstey, Eric

Cohen, Harry

Ingram, Adam

Connarty, Michael

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Jamieson, David

Corbett, Robin

Jarnner, Greville

Corbyn, Jeremy

Johnston, Sir Russell

Corston, Jean

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cox, Tom

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Cummings, John

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Jowell, Tessa

Darling, Alistair

Keen, Alan

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

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

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

Khabra, Piara S

Denham, John

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dewar, Donald

Kirkwood, Archy

Dixon, Don

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Dobson, Frank

Lewis, Terry

1406

Litherland, Robert

Raynsford, Nick

Livingstone, Ken

Rendel, David

Loyden, Eddie

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McAllion, John

Rogers, Allan

McCartney, Ian

Rooker, Jeff

Macdonald, Calum

Rooney, Terry

McKelvey, William

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

McLeish, Henry

Rowlands, Ted

McMaster, Gordon

Ruddock, Joan

McNamara, Kevin

Sedgemore, Brian

MacShane, Denis

Sheerman, Barry

McWilliam, John

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Madden, Max

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Maddock, Diana

Short, Clare

Mahon, Alice

Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

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

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Martlew, Eric

Snape, Peter

Maxton, John

Spearing, Nigel

Meale.Alan

Spellar, John

Michael, Alun

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Steinberg, Gerry

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Stevenson, George

Milbum, Alan

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Miller, Andrew

Straw, Jack

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morgan, Rhodri

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Timms, Stephen

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Tipping, Paddy

Mowlam, Marjorie

Touhig, Don

Mudie, George

Turner, Dennis

Mullin, Chris

Tyler, Paul

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Wareing, Robert N

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Watson, Mike

Olner, Bill

Welsh, Andrew

O'Neill, Martin

Wicks, Malcolm

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Pearson, Ian

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Pendry, Tom

Winnick, David

Pike, Peter L

Wise, Audrey

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Worthington, Tony

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wray, Jimmy

Primarolo, Dawn

Wright Dr Tony

Purchase, Ken

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Tellers for the Ayes:

Radice, Giles

Mr. Joe Benton and

Randall, Stuart

Ms Estelle Morris.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Alexander, Richard

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Booth, Hartley

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Boswell, Tim

Amess, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Arbuthnot, James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Bowis, John

Ashby, David

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Brandreth, Gyles

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brazier, Julian

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Bright, Sir Graham

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Baldry, Tony

Browning, Mrs Angela

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Burns, Simon

Bates, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Batiste, Spencer

Butcher, John

Bellingham, Henry

Butler, Peter

Bendall, Vivian

Butterfill, John

1407

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Horam, John

Carrington, Matthew

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

Carttiss, Michael

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Cash, William

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Clappison, James

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hunter, Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Coe, Sebastian

Jack, Michael

Colvin, Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Congdon, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Conway, Derek

Jessel, Toby

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Connack, Sir Patrick

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Cran, James

Key, Robert

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

' King, Rt Hon Tom

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Knapman, Roger

Day, Stephen

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Devlin, Tim

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

Dicks, Terry

Knox, Sir David

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Dover, Den

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Duncan, Allan

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Legg, Barry

Dunn, Bob

Leigh, Edward

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Dykes, Hugh

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Elletson, Harold

Lidington, David

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lightbown, David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lord, Michael

Evennett, David

Luff, Peter

Faber, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fabricant, Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Fenner, Dame Peggy

McLoughlin, Patrick

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Forth, Eric

Madel, Sir David

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Malone, Gerald

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Mans, Keith

French, Douglas

Marland, Paul

Gale, Roger

Marlow, Tony

Gallie, Phil

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Gardiner, Sir George

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Garnier, Edward

Merchant, Piers

Gill, Christopher

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Moate, Sir Roger

Grant, SirA(SWCambs)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Nelson, Anthony

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hague, Rt Hon William

Nicholls, Patrick

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hannam, Sir John

Ottaway, Richard

Harris, David

Page, Richaid

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Paice, James

Hawkins, Nick

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Hawksley, Warren

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hayes, Jerry

Pawsey, James

Heald, Oliver

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Hendry, Charles

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hicks, Robert

Powell, William (Corby)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Richards, Rod

1408

Riddick, Graham

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Robathan, Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Thomason, Roy

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Thurnham, Peter

Sackville, Tom

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Tredinnick, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Trend, Michael

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Trotter, Neville

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shersby, Sir Michael

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Sims, Roger

Walden, George

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Waller, Gary

Spencer, Sir Derek

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Waterson, Nigel

Spink, Dr Robert

Watts, John

Spring, Richard

Whitney, Ray

Sproat, Iain

Whittingdale, John

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Widdecombe, Ann

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Stephen, Michael

Willetts, David

Stern, Michael

Wilshire, David

Stewart, Allan

Wolfson.Mark

Streeter, Gary

Yeo, Tim

Sumberg, David

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Sweeney, Walter

Sykes, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.
Motion made, and Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Income Support and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulaions 1995 (S. I., 1995, No. 1613), dated 26th June 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be annulled.—[Mr. Dewar.]
The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 252.

Division No. 207]

[9.31 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

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

Adams, Mrs Irene

Burden, Richard

Ainger, Nick

Byers, Stephen

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Cabom, Richard

Allen, Graham

Callaghan, Jim

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Austin-Walker, John

Campbell-Savours, D N

Banks, Tony (Newharn NW)

Cann, Jamie

Barnes, Harry

Chidgey, David

Barron, Kevin

Chisholm, Malcolm

Battle, John

Church, Judith

Bayley, Hugh

Clapham, Michael

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Bell, Stuart

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clelland, David

Bennett, Andrew F

Clwyd, Mrs Am

Bermingham, Gerald

Coffey, Ann

Berry, Roger

Cohen, Harry

Betts, Clive

Connarty, Michael

Blunkett, David

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Boateng, Paul

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Bradley, Keith

Corbett, Robin

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Corston, Jean

1409

Cousins, Jim

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Cox, Tom

Lewis, Terry

Cummings, John

Litherland, Robert

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Livingstone, Ken

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Loyden, Eddie

Darling, Alistair

Lynne, Ms Liz

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

McAllion, John

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

McCartney, Ian

Denham, John

Macdonald, Calum

Dewar, Donald

McKelvey, William

Dixon, Don

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dobson, Frank

McLeish Henry

Donohoe, Brian H

McMaster, Gordon

Dowd, Jim

McNamara, Kevin

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

MacShane, Denis

Eagle, Ms Angela

McWilliam, John

Eastham, Ken

Madden, Max

Etherington, Bill

Maddock, Diana

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Mahon, Alice

Faulds, Andrew

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Flynn, Paul

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Martlew, Eric

Foster, Don (Bath)

Maxton, John

Fraser, John

Meacher, Michael

Fyfe, Maria

Meale, Alan

Galbraith, Sam

Michael, Alun

Gapes, Mike

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Garrett, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

George, Bruce

Milburn, Alan

Gerrard, Neil

Miller, Andrew

Godman, Dr Norman A

Mitchell, Austin (Great Grimsby)

Godsiff, Roger

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Golding, Mrs Llin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Graham, Thomas

Morgan, Rhodri

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Gunnel, John

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hain, Peter

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hanson, David

Mudie, George

Hardy, Peter

Mullin, Chris

Harman, Ms Harriet

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Harvey, Nick

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Henderson, Doug

Olner, Bill

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

O'Neill, Martin

Hinchliffe, David

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Hodge, Margaret

Pearson, Ian

Hoey, Kate

Pendry, Tom

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Pike, Peter L

Hood, Jimmy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Primarolo, Dawn

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Purchase, Ken

Hoyle, Doug

Quin, Ms Joyce

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Radice, Giles

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Randall, Stuart

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Raynsford, Nick

Hutton, John

Rendel, David

Illsley, Eric

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Ingram, Adam

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Rogers, Allan

Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

Rooker, Jeff

Jamieson, David

Rooney, Terry

Janner, Greville

Ross, Ernie (Dundee West)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Ross, William (E Londonderry)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Ruddock, Joan

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Sedgemore, Brian

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Sheerman, Barry

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Jowell, Tessa

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Keen, Alan

Short, Clare

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

Skinner, Dennis

Khabra, Piara S

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

Kilfoyle, Peter

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Kirkwood, Archy

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

1410

Snape, Peter

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Spearing, Nigel

Wareing, Robert N

Spellar, John

Watson, Mike

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Welsh, Andrew

Steinberg, Gerry

Wicks, Malcolm

Stevenson, George

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Straw, Jack

Winnick, David

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wise, Audrey

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Wray, Jimmy

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wright Dr Tony

Timms, Stephen

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tipping, Paddy

Touhig, Don

Tellers for the Ayes:

Turner, Dennis

Mr. Joe Benton and

Tyler, Paul

Ms Estelle Morris

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Alexander, Richard

Devlin, Tim

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Dicks, Terry

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Amess, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arbuthnot, James

Dover, Den

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Duncan, Alan

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Ashby, David

Dunn, Bob

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Elletson, Harold

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Baldry, Tony

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bates, Michael

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Batiste, Spencer

Evennett David

Bellingham, Henry

Faber, David

Bendall, Vivian

Fabricant, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Booth, Hartley

Forth, Eric

Boswell, Tim

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Bowis, John

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

French, Douglas

Brandreth, Gyles

Gallie, Phil

Brazier, Julian

Gardiner, Sir George

Bright Sir Graham

Garnier, Edward

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gill, Christopher

Browning, Mrs Angela

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Burns, Simon

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Burt, Alistair

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Butcher, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Butler, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Butterfill, John

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Carrington, Matthew

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Carttiss, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Cash, William

Hampson, Dr Keith

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Clappison, James

Hannam, Sir John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Harris, David

Coe, Sebastian

Haselhurst Sir Alan

Colvin, Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Congdon, David

Hawksley, Warren

Conway, Derek

Hayes, Jerry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Heald, Oliver

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hendry, Charles

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hicks, Robert

Cran, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

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

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Horam, John

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

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

Day, Stephen

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

1411

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Powell, William (Corby)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Richards, Rod

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Riddick, Graham

Hunter, Andrew

Robathan, Andrew

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'dn S)

Jack, Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jenkin, Bernard

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jessel, Toby

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sackville, Tom

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Key, Robert

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shersby, Sir Michael

Knapman, Roger

Sims, Roger

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Knight, Rt. Hon. Greg (Derby N)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

Spencer, Sir Derek

Knox, Sir David

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Spink, Dr Robert

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spring, Richard

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sproat, Iain

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Legg, Barry

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Leigh, Edward

Stephen, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Stern, Michael

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Stewart, Allan

Lidington, David

Streeter, Gary

Lightbown, Sir David

Sumberg, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Sweeney, Walter

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Sykes, John

Lord, Michael

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Luff, Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

MacKay, Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Temple-Morris, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Thomason, Roy

Madel, Sir David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Malone, Gerald

Thurnham, Peter

Mans, Keith

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Marland, Paul

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Marlow, Tony

Tredinnick, David

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Trend, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Trotter, Neville

Merchant, Piers

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Moate, Sir Roger

Walden, George

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Waller, Gary

Nelson, Anthony

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Watts, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Wells, Bowen

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Whitney, Ray

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Whittingdale, John

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Widdecombe, Ann

Oppenneim, Phillip

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Ottaway, Richard

Willetts, David

Page, Richard

Wilshire, David

Paice, James

Wolfson, Mark

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Yeo.Tim

Patten, Rt Hon John

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Pawsey, James

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Tellers for the Noes:

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Mr. Timothy Wood and Dr. Liam Fox.

Porter, David (Waveney)

Question accordingly negatived.

Parliamentary Pensions
9.42 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That this House endorses the proposals for changes in Members' pension scheme benefits to increase the death in service gratuity to three times the Member's annual salary, to allow Members to nominate individuals, institutions and trusts to receive the death in service gratuity and, when the Pensions Bill is enacted and relevant Regulations under it made, to establish a formal dispute resolution procedure as recommended in the SSRB Report on the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme laid on Thursday 30th March (Cm 2830).
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I should like to inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of Mr. Alfred Morris.
Mr. Newton: Along with all right hon. and hon. Members, I plainly have an interest to declare in the subject that we are debating.
The motion follows the publication on 30 March of the Government Actuary's latest report on the parliamentary contributory pension fund and the Senior Salaries Review Body report on its review of the parliamentary pension scheme, and the Government's response to that. The Government recommended acceptance of all but one of the SSRB's four recommendations, and I shall deal with the three that I have recommended and the one that I have not.
I should like briefly to remind the House of the background to the debate, and to do that I shall make two points. First, in 1991, the SSRB recommended that it should review the pension scheme regularly at the time of the Government Actuary's triennial valuation of the fund. This has been the first review under those arrangements, and on behalf of the House I should like to thank the members of the SSRB—particularly those who were on the special sub-committee that was set up to deal with the review—for their work.
Secondly, I should like to deal briefly with the procedure for changing the scheme. Changes to the pension scheme regulations are made under the negative resolution procedure in accordance with the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1987. It has, however, always been the case that the House is first given an opportunity to discuss proposals for changing the scheme before the regulations are laid; that is the purpose of the debate tonight.
I should add that, under the 1987 Act, I have a duty to consult the trustees about the regulations. I have, of course, done so and I take this opportunity to thank the trustees and their chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), on behalf of both current and former Members of Parliament and their dependants, for their valuable work, which I know is much appreciated. I have also consulted the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party and the chairman of the 1922 Committee.
With those brief introductory comments, I come to the SSRB's recommendations and our proposals. Three of the recommendations present little or no difficulty. Two are, in effect, procedural. The first is that the scheme should allow Members to nominate more than one individual, as well as institutions and trusts, to receive the

1413
death-in-service gratuity. That seems sensible, and we can readily accept it. It will provide Members with the proper scope to make nominations as they see fit. I need only add a few words about its potential effect on future nominations.
The way in which the current rule operates has the effect that the nomination is ignored if it is made in favour of a person who has been the husband or wife, but who, at the time of death, is no longer so. The gratuity is then paid to the personal representatives. The intention is to treat multiple nominations in the same way. If more than one individual is named and one of the nominees has to be disregarded, the proportion of the gratuity that would have been paid to that person will pass to the personal representative. Nothing in the proposed regulations disturbs the current position, which allows Members to change their nomination at any time.
The second of the procedural recommendations is that a formal dispute resolution procedure should be established for the scheme. Again, that is entirely sensible and acceptable. The only reason why I have not already produced a draft regulation in this respect is that—I think I can say that the trustees agree—it seems sensible to wait until we have the detailed provisions which will follow the present Pensions Bill so that we can be sure that the procedures that we put in place for our scheme are consistent with the rules for schemes generally. I will, of course, consult the trustees about the terms of any such regulation before it is laid, including on the question of to whom appeals should go at the third stage. I do not envisage a further debate as long as the trustees are content with the final proposals.
The third of the SSRB's proposals that I can recommend is concerned with the benefits of the scheme. The recommendation is to improve the death-in-service gratuity from two to three times annual salary. That change is fair and it can be justified given the particular circumstances of Members even though this aspect of the scheme now compares favourably with other public service schemes. I propose to bring that recommendation into effect from 1 April 1995.
The fourth proposal is clearly the most contentious, and is the subject of the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and a number of others. The proposal is that the rate of accrual for Members' pensions, which is currently 60ths in respect of all service before 20 July 1983 and 50ths for all service thereafter, should, in respect of those of us who are still Members of Parliament, be retrospectively improved to 50ths for the years before 1983. The Government do not feel able to recommend this proposal to the House for a number of reasons, which I shall set out in a moment.
Before doing so, I should briefly make clear precisely who is and who is not affected by the proposal, as one or two comments that have been made to me in the Corridors suggest that there may have been some misunderstanding. As I have said, the proposal concerns only periods of service before 20 July 1983. It follows that no one first elected in 1987 or 1992, or at a by-election in those 12 years, is affected in any way at all. The number in the unaffected category is 362—more than half the House. Those elected in 1983 are affected only to a very small extent: the improved accrual rate would apply only to a short period of service between June and July. The number in that category is 104.
1414
Thus, the total number of Members who are either unaffected, or affected to a degree that might be described as de minimis, is 466. The remainder would have an improvement in their pension rights, the size of which would depend on the extent of their service before 1983.
Mr. David Harris: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Newton: May I first finish this point, because it concerns me? Having already declared a general interest, I should make it clear that the number of those whose pension would be improved beyond a de minimis amount includes me, as I was first elected in February 1974. In view of the arguments that I am about to adduce, I suppose that that could be described as a perverse interest.
Mr. Harris: I declare an interest in this matter. Would my right hon. Friend care to inform the House what would be the position of those hon. Members who were elected to the European Parliament in 1979 but entered this House in 1983? Would they be affected by the provisions?
Mr. Newton: Yes, I think that they would because the same pension scheme applies to Members of the European Parliament as well.
Sir Peter Fry: May I declare my interest, in that I was here before 1983? I am fascinated as to why my right hon. Friend suggests that our widows should be helped—so they will benefit after we are dead through the death-in-service payment—but apparently resists any attempt to help us while we are still alive.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend puts his point in a characteristically good-natured way. I am afraid that the rather more solemn answer is that the proposed improvement in the form of the death-in-service gratuity is, in effect, from a current date and therefore has no retrospective element, whereas the proposal to improve the accrual rate for years in service now more than 10 years ago is an entirely retrospective proposal. That raises additional arguments, to which I shall come shortly.
Sir Andrew Bowden: I declare an interest, in that I was elected to this House in 1970. I hope that, by emphasising to the House how many Members are not affected, my right hon. Friend is not using that as an argument to persuade hon. Members to vote against the amendment. That would be wrong, because only those affected should be allowed to vote.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, too, puts his point in a characteristically good-natured way. I set out the facts and figures in the way that I did, not as an argument against the amendment but simply because it had become apparent, talking to a number of our more recently elected colleagues in the Corridors in the past week or so, that some of them were harbouring hopes that would be disappointed in respect of what they might get out of this debate. I meant no more than that.
In picking up what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Sir P. Fry) said a few moments ago, I should first remind the House that this is not a new argument but one that took place some four years ago when the former Top Salaries Review Body—the forerunner of the current Senior Salaries Review Body—made a similar recommendation and when the House accepted the Government's view that it should be rejected.

1415
In setting out the issue which the House as a whole must face and address as a matter of public policy, I can do no better than quote what my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor), said in the debate almost exactly four years ago on 18 July 1991:
"the TSRB did not point to other schemes, public or private, which have adopted that approach on accrual. If we adopted that retrospective change—which is what it would be—we should be under strong pressure to make similar changes to other public service schemes and the repercussions could be very expensive. I do not believe that it is possible to justify going back almost two full Parliaments"—
it would now be nearer three—
"to undo a decision made eight years ago, and never questioned in the interim. Moreover, it is a particularly unnecessary change as provision already exists for Members to purchase added years at the improved rate of accrual. Those who have chosen not to upgrade their pension have obviously felt that they had good reason for not doing so.
Of course, many of our colleagues did upgrade their pensions. I believe that the choice should continue to be left to the individual Member."—[Official Report, 18 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 615.]
Those arguments weigh substantially and are compelling today, as they were then.
Mr. John Garrett: They may be arguments, but they are all flimsy arguments. How many public service schemes changed from 50ths to 60ths at that time? When that speech was given, the Treasury contributed 4.5 per cent. and we contributed 9 per cent. to the fund. Surely, the point is that this is not a generous scheme by any manner of means compared with civil service and public service schemes because of, for example, the severance arrangements.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has skated away from the point that was a significant ingredient in what my right hon. Friend said four years ago and in what was said in the House only a fortnight ago in discussions on possible improvements to the armed forces pension scheme in respect of pre-1973 cases. After that debate, the House voted against a retrospective change, which might be said to be comparable in some respects, by 199 votes to 41, I think it was, with the official Opposition Front-Bench team advising hon. Members not to vote for the amendment. That needs to be borne in mind. The key point is whether the scheme is retrospective, not whether there should be the improvements in the scheme that I am proposing now in respect of the death-in-service benefit. The issue is whether those changes should be made retrospectively.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend more or less saying to those of us who did make up our contributions to change them from 60ths to 50ths, that that was money down the drain?
Mr. Newton: I shall come to that point. Clearly, whatever else, that would not be acceptable to anyone.
As I have already said, especially in the light of the recent debates that the House has had on other matters, in the Government's view the arguments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South put forward in 1991 are no less compelling now than they were when the House accepted them. In one respect, they are even more compelling as, at that time, there was a surplus of £7
1416
million in the fund, to which the Top Salaries Review Body referred in making its proposals, and which might at least have made it possible to make such a change without having to raise contributions to pay for it. That is not the position now, however. As a result of the numerous other improvements made in 1991, little more than £1 million remains as a surplus in the fund, and once the death-in-service proposal, which is part of my proposals, has been put into place, the surplus will be no more than £300,000.
Unless Members' contributions are to be raised so that all Members have their take-home pay reduced to improve the pensions of less than a third, there would have to be an increase in the Exchequer contribution—that is to say, from the taxpayer—to fund the improvement. It is estimated that accepting the accruals proposal as it stands would mean an increase in capital terms of £2.3 million or, looking at it in another way, of about £480,000 each year until the year 2000.
Sir Terence Higgins: Is it not the case that the present state of the fund reflects the fact that, on previous occasions, the Treasury has taken every possible opportunity to reduce its contribution? On the comparison with the civil service scheme, will my right hon. Friend tell us whether that is a contributory scheme?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend, with his long experience, knows as well as anyone in the House that the civil service scheme is not a contributory scheme. The argument is always, as he well knows, that that fact is taken into account in determining the salaries, but there is no getting away from the fact—nor do I seek to disguise it—that this is a contributory scheme and that the civil service scheme is not. Alongside this important general argument stand a number of practical considerations, which perhaps help to show why retrospective changes of the kind proposed are such a dubious course. I shall mention two in particular, one of which will bring me to the thought raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
Mr. John Butterfill: When my right hon. Friend talks about the comparison between the civil service scheme and the scheme for Members, can he advise the House whether, when the House voted to link its pay with that of an appropriate grade of civil servant, it voted to do so in terms of both the salary and the pension contribution, or were they entirely separate?
Mr. Newton: I do not think it was I who introduced any comparison of that kind, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). Leaving that aside, my understanding, and the reality, is that the House has voted on the linkage between the pay of Members of Parliament and pay at a particular level in the civil service, taking account of all the factors involved. As I have said, there is no mystery about the fact that the basis of—
It being Ten o'clock, consideration of the motion stood adjourned.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill, to the Child Support Bill and to the Criminal Appeal Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and the Motion in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to

1417
Parliamentary Pensions may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Knapman.]
Question agreed to.
Question again proposed.
Mr. Newton: There is no mystery about the fact that the pension arrangements in the civil service are on a different basis from those for Members of Parliament.
I hope that the House will realise that certain practical difficulties need to be addressed. First, as I have already indicated by quoting from the previous debate, since 1983 Members have had the right, and I judge from what she said that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster has probably used it, to purchase added years of service. If they did so during the first two years after 1983, they were able to do so at a discounted rate. Many did so. Those who did not, of whom I am one, will obviously benefit from the proposal in the amendment, but the question then arises—exactly the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster—of how in fairness to treat those who did purchase added years.
One possibility, presumably, would be to refund what those Members paid in respect of what would now be provided by the Exchequer. The other, which is what the SSRB report and the amendment of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe appear to envisage, is that they should be treated as having their years of service augmented so that they continue to benefit from the extra that they have chosen to pay, as well as the extra that the amendment would provide. However, that would produce the situation in which some Members would have an entitlement exceeding the maximum allowed by Inland Revenue rules. So once again, we would have to face—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many Members?"] It is important that the House should understand those complications. We would have to face the issue of refunds, whether interest should be paid, and if so, at what rate and so on. There could be yet further complications arising from the interaction between the basic scheme—
Mr. Garrett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Newton: Yes, of course I will give way. I have shown that I am willing to give way, but I should like to complete a sentence before I do so. Still further complications could arise from the interaction between the basic scheme and the scheme for additional voluntary contributions introduced last year.
Mr. Garrett: Is it not the case that to exceed the Inland Revenue threshold, a Member of Parliament would have had to have spent 40 years here? Therefore, the number affected is few. The right hon. Gentleman continually refers to those hundreds of Members of Parliament who will not benefit from such a proposed scheme, but they will not benefit because they are on 50ths already.
Mr. Newton: That latter point has been acknowledged in everything that I have said. They will not benefit because the improvement in 1983 meant that, since 1983, all of us, whether new Members or old, have been accruing at a rate of 50ths. That does not get away from the argument that I have been putting to the House about whether it is right to backdate that accrual before 1983. In the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, he, in effect, confirmed what I said. In some cases, that
1418
possible tangle would arise. I do not say that it is insuperable, but it is one of the things that the House must register.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I do not think that that is a serious point. As it happens, I am advised by the Fees Office that I qualified for the maximum two-thirds pension some time ago, but I have elected to go on contributing to the pension fund of Members of Parliament. I am told that I could go on until I am entitled to a 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. pension if my electors go on re-electing me. I am assured that there is no problem about that, so why not just enhance the thing?
Mr. Newton: I have said that, in my view at least, there could be a problem of, as it were, running into the ceiling. I know that a number of Members have said, "Well, that could be dealt with in one way or another." Indeed, I am not saying that those problems are insuperable, but they are a factor of which the House should be aware.
The second, and in my view much more serious practical problem, is the inequity which would arise between Members and ex-Members in respect of service in the House in the same period. As I have said, the SSRB's proposal and the amendment of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe relate only to those of us who are still Members of the House. In other words, a pension in respect of—to take my own case, 1974 to 1983—would be increased for someone like myself who happens to be still here, but unaltered for those who were here in precisely the same years and who happen to have left for whatever reason in the intervening period. I frankly think that it would be very hard indeed to defend that as being in any way fair.
The complexities of seeking to include ex-Members, let alone their survivors or legatees, are all too obvious and they may well prove insuperable. Moreover, the costs would certainly be significantly greater. On a rough estimate, against the £2.3 million in capital terms for the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to which I have referred, we would be talking about something like an extra £7 million, which the taxpayer would have to find. I said earlier that I believe the arguments against the amendment to be compelling. I hope that I have shown why I hold that view and I hope that the House will reject the amendment and agree on my motion as proposed.
10.5 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 4, after 'gratuity', insert
'to apply the existing accrual rate of fiftieths to all service for
currently sitting Members in respect of their future pension entitlement, with appropriate augmentation for those who have been making up the shortfall voluntarily'.
The amendment stands in my name, as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund, and those of all my fellow trustees. It was trailed by early-day motion 1223, which has 354 signatories and the support of many other right hon. and hon. Members who, as office holders of one kind or another, are unable to sign early-day motions. It reflects deep and growing concern in all parts of the House about an official attitude to the pension fund that is seen not only as unjust, but as damaging now to the whole basis on which changes to the pension fund are processed by the Senior Salaries Review Body. More and more hon. Members are questioning the point of having an

1419
independent review body whose major recommendations in two successive reports in the space of four years can be set aside, as will have happened in this case if the managing trustees' amendment is not approved tonight.
In 1991, in Cmnd 1576, the review body first recommended an accrual rate of 50ths in the following terms:
"We recommend that the existing accrual rate of fiftieths should be applied to all service for currently sitting MPs in respect of their future pension entitlement, with appropriate augmentation for those who have been making up the shortfall voluntarily."
That recommendation was anything but extreme. In fact the House had resolved 11 years earlier in July 1980 that the accrual rate should be one 40th of final salary for each year of service. Nevertheless, the review body's 1991 recommendation was not accepted by the Government and, when it was again asked to report on the fund in the current parliamentary Session, its report—Cmnd 2330—reaffirmed the 1991 recommendation in virtually identical terms.
But it was made clear immediately that the Government would again resist the recommendation. One reason given was that a part of the total cost—now reduced to £2.3 million from £3 million in 1991—would fall on the Exchequer. As the Leader of the House knows, that was not well received by hon. Members who recall what happened to the fund in 1983. I hasten to add that the right hon. Gentleman was in no way personally involved in the decision then, in effect, to raid the pension fund to offset part of the cost of an award from the review body on parliamentary pay by gratuitously increasing the Member's contribution to the fund to a wholly unnecessary 9 per cent. of salary. There was no talk then of the consequential effects of that huge increase on others in the public service. It would have been too ridiculous for words; and indeed, as we have heard tonight, the civil service has a non-contributory pension scheme while judges, I believe, have an accrual rate of 15ths.
The decision to impose a contribution of 9 per cent. on Members of Parliament—of which some have claimed authorship for Edward du Cann—was totally unrelated to the financial needs of the pension fund at the time, but of direct and substantial benefit to the Exchequer. It was a clear case of manipulating a pension fund at the Member's expense, a technique later refined and perfected by others and which is now being legislated against.
That is but one reason why it is not for Ministers to complain ever again of members of the fund unfairly benefiting at the expense of the Exchequer. As I have shown in previous debates on the fund, the Exchequer contribution was seriously and most unfairly out of line with what the Member had to pay over an extended period after 1983. Again, the Exchequer was for many years the main beneficiary of the managing trustees' investment policy. For far too long we were, in fact, victims of our own success in that the more that policy succeeded, the more disproportionately it helped the Exchequer.
The trustees' latest proposals to the review body were not confined to the accrual rate. We sought a range of improvements to benefit past and present Members alike and their dependants. The trustees are not alone in believing that more could and should be done to help retired Members, to assist the widows of our former colleagues and to improve the fund's provision for early
1420
retirement. Among our other proposals to the SSRB, the trustees also asked for an improvement in the death-in-service benefit.
Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a good point from the Front Bench. How can we justify retrospection for our pension scheme and not justify it for the armed services pension schemes?
Mr. Morris: There are many of us who feel that retrospection is well merited in that scheme as well, but I have a particular responsibility, as chairman of the managing trustees of the parliamentary contributory pension fund, to do my best in that capacity, which is what I am seeking to do in this debate.
As the Leader of the House has explained, the review body concluded that only four changes should be made to the fund, of which the Government, as they oppose the now reaffirmed recommendation on the accrual rate, accept only three. Of those, the improvement to the death-in-service benefit is, of course, welcomed by the trustees and we are glad that it is to be given retrospective effect, which means that the widow of our late and much-missed colleague Geoffrey Dickens will not lose from the lapse of several months since the review body reported in March. The trustees also welcome the other two recommendations, but these are matters of procedure and not benefit improvements.
As the law stands, only when proposals for change to the fund are recommended by the review body can this House amend the provisions of the fund. We cannot do so on our own initiative. Essentially our role is thus to propose and it is for the review body to dispose. It is for that reason that I must emphasise again that it is the independent review body's judgment, twice stated, first in 1991 and again in 1995, that improvement in the accrual rate is, and has been for four years now, a priority for change.
As soon as I knew of the Government's intention to oppose the change, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I inquired whether the review body might be prepared, in the event that its principal recommendation was again rejected, to substitute for an improved accrual rate some other change, or changes of equal value from the range of improvements sought by the trustees—a better deal, for example, for widows and/or for retired members of the fund—but the answer was that what is on offer is what is in the review body's report and nothing else. So anyone who thinks that to reject the recommendation on the accrual rate might help others must understand that that is not the case.
Mr. Tom Cox: My right hon. Friend is no doubt aware that I am one of the trustees of the parliamentary Labour party benevolent fund. All hon. Members can recall many colleagues from various political parties who left this place in very poor circumstances and who have never received a proper pension. The same is true of the wives of colleagues who have passed on. We might not be able to do anything for them, but my right hon. Friend is seeking in his amendment to ensure that ex-Members of Parliament and the wives of those colleagues who may pass on will begin to receive a reasonable pension to support them in their old age. Sadly, many former colleagues and their wives do not receive such a pension at present.
Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I very much admire his work and that of his colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party's benevolent fund, just as I hold in very high regard those in the 1922 Committee who perform similar work for their former colleagues who now live in circumstances of hardship.
There is one other matter on which I must briefly report to the House. The trustees have an important role in considering changes to the fund's provisions and we have taken legal advice in relation to our duties and responsibilities. The advice is unequivocally clear. It is that it is proper for the trustees, in considering what is best for Members, to regard recommendations of the review body as a proper guide for their decisions. We are advised also that it is not proper for the trustees to have regard to the fact that the Government's policy is not to implement particular recommendations of the review body. The advice proceeds:
"The Trustees would accordingly be right to use what Parliamentary means they have to cause amending regulations to be made by the Leader of the House to implement the Review Body's recommendation in question".
We are further enjoined—on the basis of expert, impartial and independent advice—to accept that:
"The Review Body bases its recommendations on what is good current practice in pension schemes and what, in particular, would be fair to Members (of any class under consideration), balancing the burden of contributions against the benefit of higher pensions".
Interestingly as well, our advice states:
"It is the Leader of the House, and not a person as Minister of the Crown, who makes the amending regulations. Hence is preserved, in law and principle, the independence of these crucial decisions from Government policy, as distinct from the collective view of the House".
Mr. David Shaw: I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman might explain at some point why the trustees are not recommending an accrual rate that is more akin to the average service of a Member of Parliament. My predecessor served the House and the Government loyally for 17 years, and I understand that that is much closer to the average service of most Members of Parliament—although there are different views. Why do we still have an accrual rate of 50ths and 60ths, when the average length of service of a Member of Parliament is much less?
Mr. Morris: There are a great many points that I could make in my speech, but it must be limited out of consideration for hon. Members on both sides of the House who want a decision on the amendment as quickly as possible tonight. As the hon. Member implies, the longevity of Members of Parliament is not great. On average, they serve something like 13 years and three months. I cannot recall the precise figure, but it is of that order. As I have said, judges base their pensions on an accrual rate of 15ths. Of course, no hon. Member is likely to serve 60 years here, and it is a virtual certainty that very few—perhaps not even the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—will achieve 50 years. That is why Members on both sides of the House say that we should have been asking the SSRB for 40ths and not 50ths. Yet even the figure of 40ths is unrealistic and if one looks at what other legislatures do across the world, one finds that we are anything but profligate in this Parliament when it comes to the protecting of Members' interests.
1422
What I have quoted from legal advice received by the trustees ought not to be unimportant to the outcome of the debate. I trust that that outcome will be the approval of the amendment and a consequential change to the draft amending regulations. In commending the amendment to the House, I want especially, and very warmly, to thank the right hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) and the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), together with my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) for their constant and extremely valuable help in promoting a long-overdue change to the fund. The House as a whole is much in their debt.
10.21 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I wish to speak briefly, because most hon. Members will probably have made up their minds on the issue. Like all colleagues, I must declare an interest. Many of the recommendations that are being discussed this evening apply to all of us, but the amendment applies in particular to those hon. Members who were here prior to the changes in 1983.
I want to say a few words in support of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) on behalf of the trustees, and it is important to emphasise the all-party nature of the amendment and the support for it within the House. The issue before us this evening has been outlined extremely clearly, but it is important to emphasise that the key point of the debate is that it is not just hon. Members who are concerned about parliamentary pensions and the 50ths and 60ths issue before 1983. The real strength of my right hon. Friend's argument is the case that has been put and the recommendations made by the Senior Salaries Review Body, which has recommended changes that are the subject of my right hon. Friend's amendment.
Mr. Marlow: What reason did the SSRB give for recommending the change?
Mrs. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the report, he will see that it is clear. I want to take the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members back one stage. In 1991, the SSRB report first recommended this particular upgrading. It did so—this may answer the specific question asked by the hon. Gentleman—on the basis that such an upgrading would be fair to those who had contributed to the surplus that was then in the pension fund. That is a very important principle, and the hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind. The recommendations were not acted on in 1991. Had they been acted on, the degree of retrospection of which the Leader of the House complains would not have been as significant as it is. The retrospective element is so significant only because the 1991 recommendations were turned down on the advice of the then Leader of the House and the Government.
Mr. Butterfill: On the question of the surplus, is not it true to say that the latest revaluation produced a surplus which enabled the Government to reduce the standard contribution from 17.5 per cent. to 6.8 per cent?
Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Had that Exchequer windfall—if we can call it that—not occurred, there would have been a very significant surplus in the pension fund. That is what the Senior Salaries Review Body was referring to when it made its initial

1423
recommendation. It is a very strong point in favour of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe. It is also probably one of the reasons why the SSRB returned to the issue this year and why we are debating this recommendation now. Indeed, the amendment covers the precise wording used by the SSRB in its report, and it is one of the reasons why I recommend it to the House.
Pension matters are incredibly complex. The Leader of the House gave us some figures to show how many people would not benefit from the proposed change. It is true that there are many anomalies in many pension schemes, including our own. Indeed,, when I talked today to the Fees Office about the changes in contribution rates over the years, it became clear just how complex an issue it is.
The point that we should emphasise and which underlines our support for the amendment is that although hon. Members are in the unfortunate position of having to vote on such issues, we are not in a position to make the basic recommendations. Those recommendations come from the SSRB—we have not dreamt them up, nor have my right hon. Friend and his fellow trustees. The pension fund trustees suggested the amendment following the detailed recommendations from experts on the independent review body.
Mr. Ray Powell: Before my hon. Friend concludes, I hope that for the benefit of those outside who might be listening she will emphasise the fact that all 651 Members of Parliament contribute 9 per cent. of their salary. In addition, most people in the civil service pay for a non-contributory pension scheme.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have at times contributed 9 per cent. of our salary. The comparisons that have been made with other schemes are difficult because different people have contributed on a different basis, and the benefits that we obtain in other ways are different from those in other spheres of employment.
Mr. Newton: I do not intervene in an aggressive spirit but, in view of the exchange that has just taken place, I want to make it clear that our contribution was 9 per cent. but was reduced to 6 per cent. following the 1991 recommendations. At present, the Members' contribution is 6 per cent.
Mrs. Taylor: If the Leader of the House checks the report of the proceedings tomorrow, he will find that I said that at times we had contributed 9 per cent. I remind him of the remarks made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), who pointed out that the Exchequer contribution had been significantly reduced. That is the basic reason why the surplus in the pension fund has been reduced so considerably over the years.
We could raise many issues related to this topic. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) talked about reducing the contributions to 40ths. I am sure that other hon. Members—perhaps many Conservative Members—would like at some time to raise the issue of severance pay and severance arrangements, which are very far from generous for Members of Parliament although they are generous in other areas. However, we cannot stray on to those issues this evening.
1424
Our basic case is that the independent review body has clearly recommended that change twice. It has thought it right to return to that issue in 1995, in spite of the 1991 decision.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: The hon. Lady rightly drew attention to the fact that the SSRB has twice considered that and reached that conclusion. The legal advice that we have been given as trustees—and I wish to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) as chairman of the trustees—is that we would be failing in our duty if we did not bring that matter before the House now, and we are unanimous, as trustees, that the House should consider that and, I hope, vote for the amendment.
Mrs. Taylor: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I am happy to accept all the recommendations of the SSRB, including the recommendation that is the subject of the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe.
On behalf of many hon. Members, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the trustees on the work that they have done. I thank them for giving us the opportunity to vote for the amendment this evening, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before any debate continues, may I point out that there is an inaccuracy in the tabling of the amendment? It should read "Line 4" rather than "Line 2". I think the sense is clear, but I say that for the sake of accuracy.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Madam Deputy Speaker, I did preface my speech by reading the amendment and emphasising that it was the amendment at line 4. Thank you very much.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Right.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Newton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the decision that has just been made, I shall certainly not seek a Division against the motion as amended. Obviously, under those circumstances, it would not be appropriate to proceed with laying the draft regulations, which were drawn up on the basis of what I had proposed to the House. Obviously, there are some complications that need to be tackled, as I sought to make clear in my speech, and the appropriate course now is for me to undertake further consideration and consultation and return to the trustees and the House as soon as possible.
Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House endorses the proposals for changes in Members' pension scheme benefits to increase the death in service gratuity to three times the Member's annual salary, to allow Members to nominate individuals, institutions and trusts to receive the death in service gratuity, to apply the existing accrual rate of fiftieths to all service for currently sitting Members in respect of their future pension entitlement, with appropriate augmentation for those who have been making up the shortfall voluntarily, and, when the Pensions Bill is enacted and relevant Regulations under it made, to establish a formal dispute resolution procedure as recommended in the SSRB Report on the Parliamentary Pensions Scheme laid on Thursday 30th March (Cm 2830).

Parliamentary Pensions

  COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 121 (Committee of Privileges) be amended, in line 5, at the end, by inserting the words 'and to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House'.—[Mr. Knapman]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 19th July:

  (1) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Tony Newton relating to Standards in Public Life not later than three hours after the first such Motion has been entered upon, such Questions including the Questions on any Amendments to those Motions which she may have selected and which may then be moved;

  (2) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 (Sittings of the House), the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister shall lapse three hours after it has been entered upon;

  (3) any Lords Message which may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour; and

  (4) the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Knapman]

  MEMBERS' INTERESTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Andrew Mitchell be discharged from the Select Committee on Members' Interests and Sir Archibald Hamilton be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Knapman]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Motions 15, 16 and 17 can be taken together, if there is a member of the appropriate Committee to do so. I think not. In that case, we go on to the Adjournment.

Recreational Vehicles (Green Lanes)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman]
10.33 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I rise breathless, having been caught unawares by the sudden end of business. Between my gulps of air, I welcome the opportunity provided by the debate to return to a subject that I have raised with successive Ministers during the course of several years. I do so without apology because the subject is important in its own right and of increasing concern to many people. I refer to the appalling damage inflicted each year on hundreds of miles of the unmetalled green lanes of our countryside. The problem is nationwide. Environmental damage to and the fate of the Ridgeway, Old street in Berkshire, Denton track in Cambridgeshire, Pilgrim's way in Kent and, to a lesser extent, the Harrow way and Weston Patrick track in my constituency, have attracted national attention. Those are only a few of many instances.
Many green lanes are old drove roads or drift ways, along which sheep and cattle were driven to market long before the invention of motorised vehicles. Great stretches of those ancient green lanes are reduced to muddy quagmires in wet weather and rendered almost impassable by ruts—sometimes up to 2 ft deep even in dry weather.
As for the culprits, the private landlord is by no means entirely innocent, but the main culprits are four-wheel drive, off-road vehicles and trail bikes. The increase in annual sales of 4×4s has been phenomenal. In 1984, only 8,000 were sold. Last year, sales are estimated to have exceeded 60,000. The problem seems destined to increase as the years pass, unless firm action is taken soon.
I acknowledge the responsible attitude of the Land Access and Recreation Association—LARA. Not all 4×4 owners and certainly not all 4×4 clubs are irresponsible, but too many off-roaders are ruining our ancient green lanes. Most damage is done by unclubbable rogues. They must be stopped. To compound matters, under existing legislation they are entirely within their rights to pursue their pastime on all designated byways unless the highway authority has imposed a traffic regulation order. Existing legislation allows off-roaders to commit the environmental equivalent of rape and pillage.
The underlying cause is to be found in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. To be fair, that legislation was framed before off-roading became so popular and it was not designed to deal with today's problem. Nevertheless, the 1981 Act compels county councils to reclassify all rights of way as footpaths, bridleways or byways open to all traffic. It eliminated the former category of ruts—roads used as public paths. Nationwide, many thousands of miles of tracks still have to be reclassified. At the present rate of progress, that will take decades. Hampshire, for example, has approximately 2,250 miles of rights of way. So far, only 550 miles have been reclassified.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, if historic vehicular use can be established, the right of way must be declared open to all traffic—even if vehicular use has not been continuous and predated the combustion engine. One green lane in Hampshire has been declared open to all traffic at the end of the 20th century only because horse-drawn Army vehicles used it during the Napoleonic

1427
wars. Moreover, until 1981, under the Countryside Act 1968, councils could impose a test of suitability that gave them powers to impose restrictions on vehicles wishing to use byways. Tragically, that power has been taken from them.
The 1968 Act required amendment. It favoured people who wished to extinguish public rights, not those who sought to control vehicles. It was felt that the test of suitability was a threat to ancient rights of way, but that was before the advent of the off-roaders. Paradoxically and contradictiously, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 reclassification process contains no provisions for protecting species that other parts of the Act seek to safeguard.
The Government's reply to criticism has not yet been as positive as many of us would like. The Government suggest that counties can and should use traffic regulation orders to limit access. But at £4,000 a go, and taking Hampshire as an example, that would mean that limiting access across the county could cost the county council £300,000.
Nor did a traffic regulation order save the Ridgeway in 1992. Objections to the traffic regulation order led to a public inquiry. At that inquiry the inspector dismissed the county's application.
The Government have said that road closures can be enforced by the highway authority under section 116 of the Highways Act 1980, either entirely or subject to the reservation of a footpath or bridleway along the route. The Government have said also that individuals or organisations can ask the highway authority to apply to magistrates for closure. But under section 117 of the Act, the cost of initiating the process has to be borne by the highway authority. All costs go to the individuals or organisations that goad the highway authority into action. That is a mightily effective deterrent.
Meanwhile the Department of the Environment word processors churn out a standard paragraph in reply to letters of concern. It states:
"We have considered very carefully whether to propose changes in the law. However, there appears to be no consensus in favour of fundamental changes to the legislation. We have therefore decided against any such action at present."
I hope that the debate will help to bring about a change in the Department's thinking.
As for the remedy, there are many suggestions. Not all of them are mutually exclusive and I recommend them to my hon. Friend. Some people suggest that a legal distinction should be drawn between motorised and unmotorised vehicles, a distinction that already exists in our driving licence regime, and that discretionary suitability test powers should be returned to the counties. Others argue for a legal distinction not between motorised and unmotorised vehicles but between rights of way the surface of which can withstand use by motorised vehicles at all times and others which may need protection for some or all of the year.
The recently formed pressure group, the Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement—it is known as GLEAM—argues that motorised vehicles other than those requiring access to land or property should be banned from vulnerable byways unless allowed by a traffic enablement order, effectively the reverse of a traffic regulation order. It is further suggested that some traffic
1428
enablement orders could be seasonal—for example, banning off-roaders between October and May when the ground is soft and easily damaged.
Yet another suggestion is that in the reclassification process only evidence of continuous use by motorised vehicles for at least 20 of the past 40 years should be considered relevant.
The problem can surely only intensify as time passes. There are ideas for a solution and the need for action is irrefutable. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the issue seriously. The preservation of our ancient green lanes demands that positive action is taken with the minimum further delay.
10.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on securing time for a debate on a subject in which he has great interest. He may know that the Select Committee on the Environment has recently chosen to examine the environmental impact of leisure activities on the countryside. The Government are well aware of the level and nature of current concern about recreational vehicles, as witnessed by debates on the Environment Bill. I shall make some general points in the hope of overcoming some general misconceptions, as well as taking on board my hon. Friend's particular concerns.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend referred to the report on tourism and leisure produced by the Environment Select Committee, of which I have the privilege to be a member. He will be aware of the considerable amount of evidence that we have received on the subject, which states that the present law is not working. I do not wish him to prejudge the report, but will he give it careful consideration, and reflect on whether the present mechanism can be amended in any way?
Mr. Clappison: The Government will give careful consideration to that report before making their response in due course. I intend to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, that there are already appropriate means of addressing the matters that he has brought to my attention.
"Green lane" is a term of art rather than law. It is seen as covering all unsurfaced tracks in the countryside, although not all of those will be legally open to vehicles. Some will carry public rights only on foot, or on horseback, and others may be only private tracks. Some will already be recorded on definitive maps of rights of way; others may form part of the network of unclassified county roads in rural areas. Yet more may simply be shown as "white roads" on ordnance survey maps.
I am aware of concern, through correspondence and through the media, about damage to green lanes. My Department was involved in an important conference on the issue, organised by Hampshire county council as long ago as 1989. There was significant interest in that conference, but local authority members attending it confirmed that actual problems were isolated, although they could be severe where they occurred.
Subsequent surveys of highway authorities and users have looked further at the evidence. One of the most recent was carried out by Berkshire county council. I

1429
believe that I am right in saying that it supported a view that has been presented to the Department of the Environment consistently over recent years: that most authorities are experiencing few problems of damage caused by recreational vehicles, and then only on particular routes. All the evidence suggests that incidents of damage are isolated and sporadic—although I acknowledge that where they do occur they can be serious, and expensive to repair. Furthermore, where damage occurred, recreational vehicles may not always be to blame; there is also evidence of damage by agricultural and other users.
Let me say a little about the procedures—about which we have heard tonight—for recording public rights of way on definitive maps. Definitive maps record public footpaths, which people can use on foot, and public bridleways, which people can use on foot and on horseback—and on bicycles. They also record byways open to all traffic, or BOATs, to which my hon. Friend has already referred. They are ways that the public have a right to use in vehicles, but which are mainly used by walkers and riders. They are most often unsurfaced tracks in the countryside, and many have historic origins—although they may originally have been surfaced for the vehicular traffic of the time, or may simply have lacked repair in recent years.
The duty to record BOATs arises principally from the decision made when definitive maps were introduced, in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, to include as roads used as public paths—the RUPPs also familiar to those versed in the subject—those ways which, while carrying public vehicular rights, were principally used as footpaths and bridleways, and hence should be brought to public attention. The term was misunderstood, however, largely because the Act and the accompanying instructions were perhaps not sufficiently clear about the ways that it was intended to record.
The Countryside Act 1968 therefore introduced provisions to address the problem; but, again, they were applied inconsistently and problems occurred. We reviewed the legislation radically in 1981 and, in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, introduced what I believe are now clear provisions. Those provisions require councils to review and reclassify all RUPPs to resolve legal uncertainty about the rights that the public have over them. We deliberately separated the ascertainment of rights—that is the term used in the Act—from a council's separate role of managing the use of such ways.
Even so, I recognise that the process of clarifying that legal uncertainty has not been easy. It involves careful evaluation of documentary evidence that is often conflicting. I believe, however, that the procedures that we have helped to develop for the consideration of objections deal with these complex matters in the fairest possible way. We have sought to make it clear that the purpose is to clarify rights that already exist, and that this is the issue that objections should address. The inspectors appointed by the planning inspectorate to decide opposed orders receive careful training. They are required to reach an impartial decision on each order, based on the evidence and representations. They are aware that the quality of documentary evidence will differ from case to case, and must be seen in the appropriate local context.
It has been argued that we should not now open up to modern vehicles ways that were dedicated for the use of carts and carriages. But it is a clear principle that the law
1430
does not distinguish between the means of propulsion. The modern network of roads has evolved in part from the network that was laid down in previous centuries. Simply because rights have not been exercised does not mean that the public have lost those rights.
We also realise that recognising rights comprises only part of the responsibilities of the local highway authority. It is responsible for maintaining the way, and it also has a clear role in managing use and resolving conflict. These are becoming particularly important roles as the pressures for countryside access increase and diversify.
We know that many of the ways reclassified as byways that are open to all traffic have seen little use by modern vehicles—nor are they likely to. Some may sustain a level of occasional use, others require better maintenance for the normal traffic of the parish. A number of applications to show routes as BOATs come from parish councils. We are satisfied that highway authorities have the tools at their disposal to carry out their responsibilities and deal with any problems that might arise. In particular, we have consistently emphasised the availability of traffic regulation order powers to highway authorities to regulate and control vehicular use on rights of way. They are sufficiently flexible to impose restrictions at the time most damage is likely to occur, or to separate users at various times during the week, where the issue is one of conflict. They can regulate all vehicles, or can distinguish between them. They do not inhibit essential access.
The first principle of effective management is to seek the co-operation of all those involved—and in this case, it will involve those organisations representing recreational vehicle users as well as landowners, local people and other users. While regulation is the backstop, negotiation can often provide a solution that all can accept. Organisations such as the motoring organisations' Land Access and Recreation Association have shown themselves prepared to accept voluntary restraints on use, and to persuade others to do so, and to publicise codes of conduct that take account of the needs of others and of the environment.
It would be wrong to paint too rosy a picture. There are problems. There are perceived difficulties among local authorities, for example, in seeking to impose traffic regulation in the countryside. Orders are seen as contentious and difficult to process and enforce. The Department of Transport has been looking at the procedures to see if they can be made simpler, and will be consulting shortly on revisions to the regulations. But we also need to ensure that authorities are made more aware that the powers can be used not just to regulate traffic in towns, but to improve amenity in the countryside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke mentioned environmental damage to the Ridgeway. I understand that in that case the Secretary of State for Transport decided not to make the traffic regulation order for very specific reasons. The problems on the Ridgeway are not solely related to recreational vehicles. The Secretary of State placed great emphasis on alternative voluntary means of reducing conflict. The Countryside Commission has taken account of a wide range of views in formulating a management plan, which will also be of use to other authorities in resolving conflict on byways in similar circumstances.

1431
Ministers in the Department of the Environment have been aware for some time of the growing wealth of experience among highway authorities in dealing with conflicts on rights of way. A number are developing sensitive techniques in maintaining unsurfaced tracks in a good condition for all users. Others have developed constructive dialogues with user groups, or have successfully used traffic regulation orders in particular circumstances.
We have therefore asked officials to undertake the preparation of a best practice guide to managing the use of rights of way by vehicles. This will draw on the experiences of local authorities, users and landowners, and publicise practical solutions for resolving difficulties. It will also include an assessment of the process of reclassification so that we can help ensure that the procedures work more smoothly. I believe that that will be an important step forward.
I am, nevertheless, aware of a groundswell of opinion that the legislation is inadequate, that we need to accommodate a test of suitability for every road used as a public path and that we need to provide a new class of highway from which mechanised vehicles are excluded or to impose an automatic weight limit on vehicles using BOATs. Some of the proposals are superficially attractive, but I do not believe that they are at present appropriate
1432
or necessary. I have described some of the powers and techniques already available at the local level—powers and techniques that have been used in Hampshire. I do not believe, on the evidence available, that it is possible to justify fundamental changes to the legislation. Nor do I believe, on the evidence, that authorities would welcome such fundamental changes. They are generally working constructively towards the millennium target of getting the whole of the rights of way network in good order by the year 2000 and this includes the vital task of bringing definitive maps up to date.
I shall be quite clear, however. I do not believe that authorities should tolerate the attitude of users whose enjoyment on public rights of way comes from making as much noise and mess as they can. Ancient highways are there to be enjoyed and they can be enjoyed by a wide range of users. They do not exist simply to be destroyed by thoughtlessness and intemperate use should not affect others' enjoyment. The place for that kind of excitement is not the public highway, but the purpose-built course.
Although I am not at present persuaded that further legislation is justified, I hope that I have assured my hon. Friend that we are working hard to improve procedures and to provide a measure of clarity in a complex and difficult area.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Crown Court Trials (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide a breakdown by Crown court circuit of the average length of time between an accused person being remanded in custody for trial at Crown court and the date on which the trial starts. [34826]

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

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 17 July 1995:
  WAITING TIME FOR CROWN COURT TRIALS The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about the average length of time between an accused person being remanded in custody for trial and the date on which the trial starts in the Crown Court.I am able to provide you with the following information for each Circuit and overall for England and Wales. These figures cover the 12 month period up to 31 March 1995:

  Midland and Oxford Circuit: 12.3 weeks

  North Eastern Circuit: 15.9 weeks

  Northern Circuit: 14.5 weeks

  Southern Eastern Circuit (London): 13.2 weeks

  Southern Eastern Circuit (Provinces) 14.2 weeks

  Wales and Chester Circuit: 8.8 weeks

  Western Circuit: 12.2 weeks

  England and Wales: 13.5 weeks

  Interdepartmental Working Group on Marriage
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give details of the terms of reference and membership of the interdepartmental working group on marriage, which the Government announced in their White Paper "Looking to the Future: Mediation and the Ground for Divorce". [35707]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The terms of reference for the interdepartmental working group on marriage, which is to be chaired by the Lord Chancellor's Department, are as follows.

  The interdepartmental working party on marriage will seek to identify:
  the needs of couples in relation to preparing for marriage and for guidance and support during marriage;
  the range of services currently available in this area, the extent to which their existence is known and how this knowledge might be increased; and
  862
  how existing resources might best be used to meet the needs of couples who are considering marriage or whose marriage is in difficulty.

  The following Departments will be represented on the group: the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, the Department of Social Security, the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Education and Employment, the Department of Health and the Welsh Office.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33562]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information has not been held centrally for the full period in question, and information prior to 1992–93 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. On the best information currently available details of external consultancy contracts for the years from 1992–93 are as follows:

  year

  Number of contracts

  Value £000's

  1992–93

  74

  3,455

  1993–94

  72

  1,224

  1994–95

  84

  1,640

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33464]

  Mr. Taylor
  No Department for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible has incurred any consultancy costs in connection with privatisation programmes since 1980.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [33444]

  Mr. Taylor
  This information has not been held centrally, and figures for the years before 1992–93 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. On the best information currently available, the five consultancy firms which have won the most contracts for the years from 1992–93 are:

  Consultants

  Number of contracts

  Value £000s

  1. Myriad Computer Services

  9

  190

  2. Peat Marwick

  7

  246

  3. TBV Consultants

  7

  122

  4. Price Waterhouse

  6

  353

  5. WS Atkins

  5

  164

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his
  863
  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, (i) Pannell Kerr Foster and its subsidiaries for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33912]

  Mr. Taylor
  This information has not been held centrally. On the best information currently available, the details for the Lord Chancellor's Department are as follows:

  Consultants

  Number of contracts

  Amount £000's

  Coopers and Lybrand

  2

  79

  Peat Marwick

  7

  246

  Ernst and Young

  1

  11

  Arthur Andersen

  nil

  nil

  Price Waterhouse

  6

  276

  Grant Thornton

  nil

  nil

  Stoy Haywood

  nil

  nil

  Robson Rhodes

  1

  3

  Pannell Kerr Foster

  nil

  nil

  The Lord Chancellor is now responsible for four agencies: the Court Service, Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office. Information relating to the Court Service is included in the figures above, as it became an agency only after the period in question; and information relating to the Public Trust Office is included up to the time it acquired agency status in July 1994. In respect of the Land Registry, the Public Record Office, and the Public Trust Office from July 1994, the question concerns operational matters on which the chief executives are best placed to provide answers. I have accordingly asked them to reply direct.

  Letter from David Thomas to Mr. Austin Mitchell dated 17 July 1995:

  CONSULTANCY COMPANIES
  In the absence of the Chief Executive, who is on leave, I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question on contracts let to specified companies for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95.
  The following contracts were let:

  Number of contracts

  Total sum £

  1993–94

  Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries

  1

  113,749

  Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries

  1

  19,960

  Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  864

  Number of contracts

  Total sum £

  Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries

  1

  13,920

  Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  1994–95

  Coopers and Lybrand and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Peat Marwick and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Ernst and Young and its subsidiaries

  1

  229,809

  Arthur Andersen and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Price Waterhouse and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Grant Thornton and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Stoy Hayward and its subsidiaries

  1

  60,395

  Robson Rhodes and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Pannell Kerr Forster and its subsidiaries

  —

  —

  Letter from Stella Hutcheson to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 10 July 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to you as part of the Lord Chancellor's Department's response to your Parliamentary Question, listed on 7 July 1995, regarding the cost of contracts awarded to various firms and their subsidiaries in 1993–94 and 1994–95.In 1994–95 Price Waterhouse were awarded a contract to provide management advice at a cost of £65,742.55.
  Letter from John Manthorpe to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 17 July 1995:
  CONTRACTS FOR PRIVATISATION, MARKET TESTING, MANAGEMENT ADVICE, ACCOUNTING, AUDIT CONSULTANCY AND OTHER SERVICES
  1993/94 AND 1994/95.I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to reply to your recent question about the number and total sum of contracts let out to a list of 9 consultancy companies in the years 1993/94 and 1994/95.One contract was let to Coopers Lybrand, in 1993/94, for a sum of £12,601.87.I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary, but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department 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. [33412]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  For the Department and agencies for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible, staff declaring any company shareholdings would have been dealt with in accordance with the established guidance. Records of the number of cases are not held centrally. Neither the Department nor its agencies have any staff who have declared any company shareholdings, or staff who have been advised to dispose of shareholdings, during the last five years.

  Crown Court Trials (Delays)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps can be taken against lawyers who cause delays in Crown court proceedings by failing to provide timely and accurate information. [33842]

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

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Peter Thurnham, dated 17 July 1995:

  CROWN COURTS TRIALS
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to the above Question about the steps being taken to reduce the time taken to bring cases to trial in the Crown Courts.Unfortunately, there will always be an element of delay in any court proceedings. For example, when fixing a date for trial account often needs to be taken of the availability of witnesses to attend court. However, the Court Service carefully monitors the speed with which cases move through the system and takes active measures to reduce avoidable delays.We have recently introduced a system of early plea and directions hearings in the Crown Courts. This scheme which is being phased into all Crown Courts this year will identify, at an early stage, cases in which defendants intend to plead guilty, and where a plea of not guilty is entered, will enable the judge to give directions about the preparations for trial. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced sentence discounts for defendants who enter early guilty pleas, which will reinforce the beneficial effects of the early plea and directions system.In addition to these measures we have progressively increased the number of sitting days in the Crown Court since the beginning of 1995. Over the same period there has also been a reduction in the number of outstanding cases by 13%.We are also introducing new systems to collect detailed information on the causes of delay and will be considering, in conjunction with the judiciary and the Crown Prosecution Service, what more can be done to reduce them.Finally, I am pleased to report that twenty-nine new crown court rooms are due to open by the end of 1996.
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps can be taken against lawyers who cause delays in Crown court proceedings by failing to provide timely and accurate information. [33842]

  Mr. Taylor
  Judges have powers to make wasted costs orders against lawyers. They may also make observations for the attention of the paying authority regarding the work for which the lawyer is due to be paid fees from legal aid.

  Muslim Marriages
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will ask the Law Commission to examine the law relating to the solemnisation of Muslim marriages, with particular reference to the need for solemnisation in a mosque to be followed by a registry office ceremony. [34324]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I have been asked to reply.
  866
  We see no need to invite the Law Commission to undertake such an -examination. A marriage in a mosque does not by law have to be followed by a register office ceremony. The law already provides for the solemnisation of a marriage in any building registered for the purpose under section 41 of the Marriage Act 1949, and there are over 100 mosques in England and Wales registered for marriages. The trustees or governing body of a building registered for marriages may also appoint, and certify to the Registrar General, an authorised person to register marriages at the building, so that a marriage registrar need not attend at the ceremony. The 1949 Act requires the use of words of declaration and contract, prescribed in the Act, by the parties to a civil marriage and in marriage in all faiths and religions—except, for ecclesiological or historical reasons, in the Anglican, Jewish and Quaker marriage rites.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Citizens (Repatriation from Australia)
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens have been repatriated at United Kingdom public expense from Australia in 1995. [34299]

  Mr. Hanley
  None.

  Mr. Viktor Kubeykin
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made by The Sunday Times to Ministers or officials about issuing a visa to Mr. Viktor Kubeykin, a retired KGB officer, to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [34546]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have asked the migration and visa correspondence unit to obtain the information requested and to let the hon. Member have a substantive reply as soon as possible.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he intends to make the Government of Indonesia about the rejection of the plea for presidential clemency of Sergeant-Major Bungkus who is expected to be executed; and if he will raise the issue of the treatment of Sergeant-Major Bungkus at the forthcoming consultative group for Indonesia meeting. [34712]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have received reports about the rejection of Mr. Bungkus's plea for clemency. Our embassy in Jakarta is seeking clarification from the Indonesian Government.

  Singapore
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made in the last three years of the level of judicial independence in Singapore. [34417]

  Mr. Hanley
  None. The independence of the Singapore judiciary is a matter for the Singapore Government.

  Africa (Peacekeeping)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the joint British-Nigerian proposals to the United Nations on peacekeeping in Africa. [34361]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  A copy of the Anglo-Nigerian paper on African peacekeeping has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34702]

  Mr. Hanley
  Diplomatic staff produced over 6,000 service reports for British firms in the year ended 31 March 1995. Chargeable services, targeted specifically at small to medium-sized companies, are subject to an independent survey of customer satisfaction. The most recent published information about the Department's commercial work abroad is contained in the Foreign and Commonwealth departmental report—available in the House Library, Cm 2802. This includes details of satisfaction rates.

  Visas (Moscow)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will investigate the circumstances in which Mr. Patrick Roche and Mr. Barnie Penrose obtained visas for people in Moscow; what types of visas were obtained and for whom; which post issued them; and to what extent Ministers or the permanent secretary were involved. [34545]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our embassy in Moscow is now aware of any visa applications which have been sponsored by either Mr. Roche or Mr. Penrose.

  Bosnia
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total gross cost and net cost of the Bosnian operation both in respect of aid and military cost to 31 March. [34492]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, to the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) on 5 July,Official Report, columns 262–63.

  Diplomats (Parking Fines)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish figures recording the number of unpaid parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions in London during 1994. [34431]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 2 May,Official Report, column 149.
  868

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library the statements issued by the British high commission in Australia about the film "The Maltese Double Cross". [34775]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information the United Nations special commission on Iraq has provided to Her Majesty's Government about equipment sent from the United Kingdom to Iraq which could be used for the manufacture of chemical warfare agents; [35144]

  (2) when the list of suppliers of equipment and chemicals exported to Iraq which were used in her chemical warfare programme will be made public (a) by UNSCOM or (b) by Her Majesty's Government; [35142]

  (3) when the information UNSCOM has collected about chemical warfare production in Iraq will be published in full; [35141]

  (4) what information Her Majesty's Government has received from UNSCOM about chemical exports to Iraq from the United Kingdom and other countries. [35143]

  Mr. David Davis
  UNSCOM inspectors have investigated a wide range of sites in Iraq at which British equipment and products have been found. UNSCOM policy is to give the names of supplier companies in confidence to the member states in which the companies are located. UNSCOM does not make this information public. Nor is it our practice to publish the names of such companies. However, any evidence of wrongdoing is investigated and, if appropriate, will be a matter for the courts.

  UNSCOM regularly publishes reports on its work, the latest of which—S/1995/284 and S/1995/494—have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the progress made by the international commission of inquiry into the deaths at the Kibeho camp in Rwanda; and if he will make a statement. [34666]

  Mr. Hanley
  The report of the independent international commission of inquiry into the deaths at Kibeho was published on 18 May. Copies have been placed in the Libraries in the House. We have welcomed the inquiry and called on all concerned to implement its recommendations fully.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the total amount of(a) useable and (b) set-aside capital receipts held by each local authority in England at 31 March. [33473]
  869
  Sir Paul Beresford
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 July 1995, c. 578]: Four local authorities in the south-east were omitted from the list provided. I am therefore placing a revised list of local authorities in the Library to the House.

  This also affects the totals for the south-east region which should have read "Usable Receipts £1,206 million and PCL set aside £2,912 million."

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the level of capital receipts held by each local authority for the latest year available and the total for each region and nationally. [34645]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list by region of the amounts of accumulated usable capital receipts and the amounts set aside as provision for credit liabilities for each English local authority at 31 March 1994 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The regional totals for these amounts are:

  Amounts held as at 31 March 1994 (£ million)

  Region

  Usable receipts

  PLC set aside

  South East

  1,206

  2,912

  South West

  162

  629

  East Anglia

  93

  323

  West Midlands

  117

  437

  East Midlands

  123

  508

  North West

  142

  489

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  79

  460

  Northern

  65

  225

  Miscellaneous authorities (all regions)

  74

  58

  Total

  2,061

  6,041

  The provision for credit liabilities includes amounts set aside from both capital receipts and revenue. Separate figures are not available.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33458]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is not held centrally by my Department and is obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Carbon Emissions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the performance of the Energy Saving Trust in meeting the reductions in emissions set out in the United Kingdom climate change strategy. [33998]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government are confident of meeting their commitments under the climate change convention. The trust estimates that the programme of activities already established and financed will save at least 0.3 million tonnes of carbon in 2000. Further schemes will make additional contributions, but they are not yet established.

  Construction Industry Board
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the membership of the Construction Industry Board; on what criteria members were appointed; and what is their salary. [34063]

  Mr. Clappison
  The board's membership is provided by the Construction Industry Council, the Construction Industry Employers Council, the Constructors Liaison Group, and the Government, each of whom may appoint four members; and the Construction Clients Forum which is entitled to appoint six members. The Secretary of State for the Environment is president of the board and Sir Michael Latham is chairman.

  Appointment of members is at the discretion of the nominating organisations, but they are expected to be senior representatives of their organisations.

  The Confederation of British Industry is a representative body and members are not paid salaries.

  Algae Blooms
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rivers, canals and lakes have been deemed a safety hazard to public health as a result of algae blooms in each of the last five years. [34627]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not held centrally.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34592]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: In the last 12 months, there were no redundancies in the core of my Department, nor in the Health and Safety Executive. In the Property Services Agency, there were 895 redundancies, of which 466 were voluntary. The total sum spent on these redundancies was £38,697,000.

  Town Centre Managers
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the support he intends to give to town centre managers. [33370]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Town centre management is a local activity, best carried out by local partnerships. I have, however, strongly supported town centre improvement and management through planning policy guidance note 6; through a good practice guide—"Vital and Viable Town Centres: Meeting the Challenge"; and through help for the Association of Town Centre Management in a number of its projects.

  Department of Employment Staff
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff employed in the former Department of Employment as a result of that Department's abolition(a) will be made redundant (b) will take early retirement (c) will be employed on a temporary contract instead of a permanent contract and

  871
  (d) will be employed on a part-time basis instead of a full-time basis; and if he will make a statement. [34658]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive and the health and safety policy and liaison section of the Employment Department transferred to the Department of the Environment on 5 July 1995.

  This has not had any impact on the number of employees employed or their conditions of service.

  Defective Housing
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will classify the privately owned Calder Homes houses at Angus close, Killingworth, North Tyneside as properties which are defective under section 528(1) in part XVI of the Housing Act 1985. [34807]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department has no evidence that this would be justified.

  Ozone
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has received from the Norwegian Meteorological Office as to the estimate produced by the photochemical model for Europe with regard to the likely effects upon levels of ozone in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom policy for reducing oxides of nitrogen. [35086]

  Mr. Clappison
  As part of the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme's work programme within the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe's Convention on Transboundary Air Pollution—UNECE-LRTAP—a photochemical model has been developed and is used as an aid policy dvelopment. Preliminary results show that ozone in the UK is indeed a transboundary problem and that the UK receives significant amounts of ozone from other European countries. As the UK reduces emissions of nitrogen oxides, levels of ozone may rise and then decline as further reductions in nitrogen oxide emissions are made. Because of the complesities associated with the formation of ground level ozone in Europe, the EMEP results will be developed and considered more fully within the UNECE with the aim of developing a European-wide strategy for ozone reduction.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the costs of running the Local Government Commission; what was the amount spent each year by the commission on research and consultancy; and if he will list the areas covered and the companies engaged for each year since 1990. [35095]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Local Government Commission was established on 1 July 1992. Its expenditure to date is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Total expenditure

  Expenditure on research and consultancy

  1992–93

  2.056

  0.532

  1993–94

  5.146

  1.281

  1994–95

  7.817

  1.004

  872
  The present budget for 1995–96 is £2,508 million; budget allocations, including those of consultancies are still being considered. The commission has engaged MORI, Ernst and Young, NOP Research Group Ltd., the Audit Commission, Succession Planning Associates, the London Research Centre and, for the current year only, Coopers and Lybrand on consultancies covering opinion research, staffing issues and financial appraisal together with other related matters.

TRANSPORT

  Derailments
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of derailments involving(a) passenger trains and (b) freight trains occurring in each year since 1990 to date. [34901]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate maintains records of accidents and incidents, details of which are contained in the annual report on railway safety. Copies are placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The table shows the number of derailments for passenger and freight trains.

  Figures for 1994–95 are expected to be published this December.

  Derailments 1990 to 1993–94

  1990

  1991

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Total

  Passenger trains

  26

  3

  23

  30

  29

  111

  Freight trains

  157

  43

  121

  175

  84

  580

  Total

  183

  46

  144

  205

  113

  691

  The figures for 1991 cover the period 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1991 only.

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the nationality of those foreign companies, organisations or individuals which have completed pre-qualification for tendering for a private rail franchise. [34910]

  Mr. Watts
  No.

  Transport Policy (Safety)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to include transport safety in the list of main questions in his consultation document "Transport: The Way Ahead"; and what factors underlay its initial exclusion. [34895]

  Sir George Young
  The broad theme of "Transport: The Way Ahead" is the balance in transport policy between promotion of economic growth, protection of the environment and support for personal choice. Transport safety can affect this balance: some of the issues are touched upon in the paper—see paragraphs 1.25, 2.25, 5.22 and 5.33.

  I would welcome any contributions which explored these issues further.
  873

  Road Congestion (Greater London)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's estimate of the annual cost to business of road congestion within Greater London. [34898]

  Mr. Norris
  No single figure can be quoted because there is no generally accepted norm against which any measure of congestion can be compared.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many parliamentary questions his Department has refused to answer for reasons of commercial confidentiality in each year since 1990 to date. [34902]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter of public record.

  Cyclists (Accidents)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of road traffic accidents involving cyclists indicating the number of fatalities, and the number of serious injuries in(a) Greater London and (b) the United Kingdom for each year since 1990 to date. [34906]

  Mr. Norris
  The information available is shown in the following table.

  Accidents involving pedal cyclists: Greater London 1990–94

  Accidents

  Severity

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Fatal

  19

  18

  20

  19

  16

  Serious

  650

  652

  567

  515

  511

  Slight

  3,940

  3,699

  3,740

  3,731

  3,931

  All severities

  4,609

  4,369

  4,327

  4,265

  4,458

  Pedal cycle fatalities and serious casualties: Greater London 1990–94

  Casualties

  Severity

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Fatal

  19

  17

  18

  18

  15

  Serious

  627

  629

  545

  493

  488

  KSI1

  646

  646

  563

  511

  503

  1 Killed or seriously injured.

  Accidents involving pedal cyclists: Great Britain 1990–94

  Accidents

  Severity

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Fatal

  267

  247

  212

  194

  184

  Serious

  4,486

  4,076

  3,905

  3,743

  3,966

  Slight

  21,971

  20,719

  20,845

  20,363

  20,915

  AH severities

  26,724

  25,042

  24,962

  24,300

  25,065

  874

  Pedal cycle fatalities and serious casualties: Great Britain 1990–94

  Casualties

  Severity

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Fatal

  256

  242

  204

  186

  172

  Serious

  4,344

  3,946

  3,787

  3,610

  3,828

  KSI1

  4,600

  4,188

  3,991

  3,796

  4,000

  1 Killed or seriously injured.

  Schoolchildren (Defective Transport)
  Mr. Malacolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by region the number of public service vehicles and minibuses carrying schoolchildren which have been found to be defective after random inspection in the last two years for which figures are available. [34795]

  Mr. Norris
  This date could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Transport how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the last 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34622]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: During the period 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995, there were 467 redundacies in the Departmental of Transport all of which were voluntary. The early departure costs met by the Departmental amounted to £,806,427.

  Computer Equipment Supplies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34563]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The top 10 suppliers of computer systems and equipment-hardware, pre-installed software and network products—in the financial years 1993–94 and 1994–95 obtained for the Department and its agencies were as follows:

  Value of orders placed 1993–94

  Company

  £000

  1. Dell

  1,845

  2. ICL

  1,000

  3. Talkdata

  300

  4. P and P

  125

  5. Technology PLC

  120

  6. ACT

  95

  7. Holdene

  80

  8. TBC

  78

  9. APS

  65

  10. Equanet

  50

  875

  Value of orders placed 1994–95

  Company

  £000

  1. Dell

  3,630

  2. ICL

  2,100

  3. Talkdata

  463

  4. APS

  142

  5. A K Marketing

  99

  6. Equanet

  93

  7. Phoenix

  63

  8. EDS

  46

  9. Rapid Recall

  45

  10. Advantage

  43

  Figures for earlier years, and further desegregation of types of computer spend, can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Red Route Roads
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide figures on the number of road traffic accidents occurring on roads classified as red routes and the number of accidents that occurred on the same routes prior to their achieving red route status. [34900]

  Mr. Norris
  The traffic director for London will be monitoring the performance of the red route network, including road safety, as the measures are introduced progressively over the next few years. He will be publishing summary extracts from the data in his annual reports as it becomes available.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many days were lost in sickness in the last 12 months by employees in his Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34621]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: Provisional data on the number of days lost in 1994 as a result of sickness is set out in the table. Information about the cost of the absences could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Days lost

  Percentage of working days

  Central Transport Group, Transport Road Research, Laboratory, Highways Agency, Marine Safety Agency Coastguard Agency.

  45,7723.07

  Driving Standards Agency

  23,757

  6.2

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  46,189

  5.42

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  363

  2.12

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  12,123

  3.64

  White Hart Roundabout, Northolt
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 12 July,Official Report, column 574, what is the completion dates for the phased traffic lights at the White Hart roundabout, Northolt, at the time when money was made available to the London borough of Ealing for their construction; and if he will make a statement. [34850]
  876
  Mr. Norris
  Funding for this scheme was through the local transport capital settlement for minor works. Such funding does not identify particular schemes, and leaves it to the local authority to determine its work programmes and priorities.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the results of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indictors by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34692]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy. The Government continue to help smaller companies by keeping inflation and interest rates low and by reducing legislative and administrative and taxation burdens. They also provide direct assistance where appropriate.

  The second competitiveness White Paper announced in May 1995 outlines a programme of measures to assist the growth and competitiveness of the small firms sector.

  The Department's aim of a more efficient, safe and environmentally friendly transport system, using the market to offer the widest possible choice of transport users, will assist businesses of all sizes.

  My Department is, like others, systematically reviewing the regulations for which it is responsible to ensure that the unnecessary or over-burdensome regulation is cut back. When considering new regulations, we take particular account of the burden and cost those regulations impose on small business. We have recently completed a consultation on proposals to relax the regulation of signing for tourist destinations.

  Belgrave Road, London SW1
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will remove Belgrave road, London, SW1 from the priority—red—route network. [34415]

  Mr. Norris
  No. I would contemplate this only if strategic traffic in the area could be accommodated satisfactorily by improvements to Vauxhall Bridge road. I understand that the City of Westminster has decided not to proceed with the proposal to widen Vauxhall Bridge road.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of changes to the levels of air pollution caused by heavy lorry and other traffic on Belgrave road, London SW1 if Belgrave road is designated as a red route. [34414]

  Mr. Norris
  This is a matter for the traffic director, who is under a statutory duty to monitor the effect of the operation of red route measures. He is modelling emissions across the whole network based on traffic data to be collated before and after the implementation of measures.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the impact on
  877
  listed buildings in proximity to Belgrave road, London SW 1, by the designation of Belgrave road as a red route. [34416]

  Mr. Norris
  None. There is no reason to believe that the red route initiative will have any impact on listed buildings.

  Midland Main Line Service
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the percentage change in passenger services represented by the minimum requirements for the future franchised-out midland main line service. [34521]

  Mr. Watts
  The introduction of a passenger service requirement will not, in itself, represent any change to the level of services actually operated. Following franchising, I expect services on the midland main line to continue to improve in accordance with passenger demand. This assessment was supported by Midland main line's management team in its statement of 16 May.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has undertaken into the environmental impact of potential reduction in the midland main line passenger service. [34520]

  Mr. Watts
  None. No service reductions are planned.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of(a) total motor vehicles and (b) petrol-driven vehicles in the United Kingdom are fitted with catalytic converters. [34343]

  Mr. Norris
  At the end of June 1995, there were 4.85 million petrol-engined passenger cars equipped with three-way catalytic converters. This was equivalent to 21.85 per cent. of the total passenger car fleet which numbered 22.2 million at the end of 1994. A limited number of petrol-engined vans are also now equipped with three-way catalytic converters.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the earliest date that he expects all petrol-driven vehicles in the United Kingdom to be fitted with catalytic converters; and what plans he has to introduce further regulatory changes. [34344]

  Mr. Norris
  All new petrol-engined passenger cars since 1993 and all new petrol-engined light vans since October 1994 have had to be fitted with three-way catalytic converters. The penetration of such vehicles into the parc as a whole depends on the rate of replacement, which cannot be predicted with certainty. It is nevertheless expected that the great majority of petrol-engined vehicles on the road will be equipped with catalysts by the early years of the next century.

  Subject to statutory consultation and parliamentary approval, tighter controls on emissions from all vehicles in-service are to be introduced on 25 September 1995 to be followed, from 1 January 1996, by a further tightening for cars with advanced emissions control systems, such as three-way catalytic converters. Stricter emissions limits for new passenger cars will be introduced on 1 January 1997 and EC discussions on even stricter limits for the year 2000 have already begun.

  Bicycle Lanes, Rotherham
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to increase the provision of bicycle lanes in Rotherham. [34405]

  Mr. Norris
  The extent to which additional provision needs to be made for cycling on the highway, including the number of cycle lanes, is a matter for individual local highway authorities to determine. We are encouraging all authorities to improve conditions for cycling, and we offer them a wide range of advice and guidance.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors led him to advise bidders for the CTRL in the competition overview document that the required alternative bids which include a station at Stratford should assume that authorisation for the station is obtained by him and not as a result of procedures under the Transport and Works Act 1992. [34276]

  Mr. Watts
  The aim in the competition overview document was to obtain from each tenderer a range of required alternative bids involving a Stratford station. In order to simplify comparison with the reference bid, which was not to include a Stratford station, tenderers were asked to assume, among several other things, that it was for the holder of the competition, the Secretary of State, and not for them, to see that authorisation for a station was forthcoming. No guidance was given on the method of authorisation. In fact, decisions about whether there should be a station at Stratford, and, in that event, how it should be authorised, remain to be taken.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors led to the choice of 2030 as the date up to which the Government would not provide any subsidy or financial assistance to any further new railway for international passenger services between London and the channel tunnel as set out in the draft development agreement for bidders for the CTRL. [34274]

  Mr. Watts
  In formulating this provision in the draft development agreement, we aimed to provide comfort for the private sector promoter for the likely period during which he would be repaying primary financing and refinancing.

  London Underground (Crime)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will call for a report from the managing director of London Underground about changes in the level of crime on the London Underground in the last year and its relationship to reductions in staffing at stations and on trains; what new measures are going to be taken to reduce crime; and if he will make a statement. [34307]

  Mr. Norris
  I have no plans to ask for such a report. The security of passengers and staff is a top priority for London Underground Ltd. and I am satisfied that LUL takes full account of any potential impacts on passenger security when making decisions on staffing levels. The small increase in overall underground crime last year was largely due to an increase in pickpocketing offences; the incidence of violent crime fell. I understand that London Underground and the British Transport police have
  879
  several initiatives planned for this year with the aim of reducing further crime on the underground.

  Ministerial Visits
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of official ministerial visits undertaken by(a) London underground, (b) car, (c) rail and (d) air over the last 12 months, indicating the number of miles travelled and the total cost to his Department. [34897]

  Sir George Young
  Records are not kept of the modes of transport used on each official visit nor of the miles covered. Ministers may use a variety of modes when making an official visit or conducting ministerial business; travel by rail is generally preferred for official visits out of London. The cost of official ministerial visits undertaken by air and rail from 20 July 1994 to date was £80,897. In the same period, the cost of the Government car service for all ministerial business was £226,442 Separate records are not kept of costs of travel on London underground.

  Buses, London
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide figures on bus usage within Greater London for each year since 1990 to date. [34914]

  Mr. Norris
  The available data is provided in the table.

  Millions

  Year

  Passenger journeys

  1990–91

  1,178

  1991–92

  1,149

  1992–93

  1,129

  1993–94

  1,117

  Data for 1994–95 will be available in October.

  Rail Privatisation (Legal Advice)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current cost to his Department per day of legal advice relating to rail privatisation. [34899]

  Mr. Watts
  The average cost of legal advice is approximately £23,000 per working day, including VAT.

  Rails Signals (Danger)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of incidents of rail signals passed at danger for each year since 1990 to date. [34907]

  Mr. Watts
  The table shows the number of signals passed at danger since 1990. Figures for 1994–95 are expected to be published this December. By far the majority of trains passing signals at danger stop within the protected zone of the signal overlap.
  880

  Signals passed at danger (SPADS) 1990–1993–94

  Year

  Number

  1990

  895

  1991

  206

  1991–92

  944

  1992–93

  871

  1993–94

  905

  Total

  3,821

  The figures for 1991 cover the period 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1991 only.

  Airport Noise
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the airlines that have received fines for breaching noise restriction regulations at(a) London Heathrow, (b) London Gatwick, (c) London Stansted, (d) Birmingham, (e) Manchester, W Liverpool, (g) Edinburgh and (h) Glasgow airports, indicating the number of fines imposed and the total amount of the fines per airline in the last 12 months; [34913]

  (2) if he will list the number of fines imposed for breaches of noise restriction regulations at (a) London Heathrow, (b) London Gatwick, (c) London Stansted, (d) Birmingham, (e) Manchester, (f) Edinburgh and (g) Glasgow airports, for each year since 1990 to date. [34912]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State may set requirements for limiting noise at airports designated for the purposes of section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. The only airports so designated are Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

  The noise limits are 110 PNdB (97dBA) by day (0701–2300) and 102 PNdB (92dBA) by night (2301–0700).

  From 1 April 1993 at Heathrow and Stansted and from 1 May 1993 at Gatwick the airport companies have imposed financial penalties for breaches of the night noise limits and are progressively introducing financial penalties for the breaches of the daytime noise limits. Information on breaches of the noise limits and on the fines collected is provided by each of those airport companies to their respective airport consultative committees. A summary would be impractical because the information is provided on a different basis by each airport.

  At other airports noise mitigation measures are the responsibility of the airport operator.

  Night Flying Restrictions
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for(a) London Heathrow, (b) London Gatwick, (c) London Stansted, (d) Birmingham, (e) Manchester, (f) Liverpool, (g) Edinburgh and (h) Glasgow airports, the number of incidents of VIP exemption from night-time air movement restrictions for each year since 1990 to date. [34911]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State has set restrictions on night flying at airports designated for the purposes of section 78 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. These are Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.
  881
  Since 24 October 1993, the start of the 1993 winter season, movements granted VIP exemption are as follows:

  VIP Exempt Flights

  Heathrow

  Winter 1993–94

  4

  Summer 1994

  13

  Winter 1994–95

  8

  Summer (to 10–7–95)

  4

  Gatwick

  Winter 1993–94

  0

  Summer 1994

  0

  Winter 1994–95

  0

  Summer (to 10–27–95)

  0

  Stansted

  Winter 1993–94

  0

  Summer 1994

  0

  Winter 1994–95

  0

  Summer (to 10–7–95)

  0

  Information on the number of flights granted VIP exemptions before 24 October 1993 is not available.

  At other airports restrictions on night flights may be introduced voluntarily by the operator or may be imposed by planning conditions.

  Traffic Light Failures
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of incidents of traffic light failure in Greater London for each year since 1990 to date. [34909]

  Mr. Norris
  The numbers of all-out failures and confirmed faults affecting traffic signals in Greater London since 1990 are as follows:

  All outs

  All confirmed faults (including all out failures)

  1990

  4,724

  30,380

  1991

  4,380

  27,749

  1992

  5,645

  28,263

  1993

  5,721

  31,609

  1994

  5,907

  33,496

  1995 (6 months)

  2,569

  16,434

  There was a 21 per cent. increase in the number of signal installations on London's roads between January 1990 and June 1995.

  Number and value of contracts let during 1993–94

  Coopers and Lybrand

  Peat Marwick/ KPMG

  Ernst and Young

  Arthur Anderson

  Price Waterhouse

  Grant Thornton

  Stoy Hayward

  Robson Rhodes

  Parnell Kerr Forster

  Total number

  Total value £

  Privatisation

  —

  1

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  169,427

  Market testing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Management advice

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  906,809

  Accounting

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Audit

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Consultancy

  1

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8

  368,476

  Other

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  27,000

  Total

  4

  7

  1

  4

  16

  1,471,512

  Armed Forces Rail Travel Permits
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many British armed forces rail travel permits have currently been issued. [34896]

  Mr. Watts
  British Rail received 529,633 HM forces rail travel warrants from the Ministry of Defence in the year to 29 March 1995.

  Ms Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if British armed forces rail travel permits will continue to be valid on all parts of the current British Rail network following rail privatisation. [34915]

  Mr. Watts
  The existing arrangements for rail travel warrants will continue for at least a further three years. Future arrangements will be a matter for negotiation between the Ministry of Defence and the train operators.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [33430]

  Mr. Norris
  The five consultancy firms that have received most contracts over the last five year are(a) by number of contracts, W.S. Atkins Consultants Ltd.; the MVA Consultancy; Peat Marwick/PMG; PA Consulting Groups; Admiral; and (b) by monetary value, Hambros Bank Ltd.; Linklaters and Paines; the MVA Consultancy; Touche Ross and Co; McKenna and Co.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contracts and for what total sum were let out by his Departments and agencies for which he 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 Anderson 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. [33909]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is set out in the accompanying tables.
  883

  Number and value of contracts let during 1994–95

  Coopers and Lyhrand

  Peat Marwick KPMG

  Ernst and Young

  Arthur Anderson

  Price Waterhouse

  Grant Thornton

  Stay Hayward

  Robson Rhodes

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  Total number

  Total Value £

  Privatisation

  1

  —

  2

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  1,467,082

  Market testing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Management advice

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  44,365

  Accounting

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Audit

  —

  1

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  106,479

  Consultancy

  4

  6

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  342,713

  Other

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Total

  6

  8

  4

  —

  6

  —

  —

  —

  1

  25

  1,962,839

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by year of registration since

  Vehicles licensed at the end of 1994

  Public transport vehicles3

  Year first registered

  Passenger cars1

  Heavy goods vehicles2

  8 seats or less

  More than 8 seats

  All

  Pre 1970

  144,700

  500

  150

  940

  1,090

  1970

  16,400

  100

  40

  70

  110

  1971

  19,900

  200

  30

  130

  150

  1972

  31,400

  300

  40

  220

  270

  1973

  36,800

  400

  50

  700

  750

  1974

  28,300

  400

  60

  740

  810

  1975

  29,200

  500

  80

  1,030

  1,100

  1976

  37,500

  800

  140

  1,970

  2,110

  1977

  56,300

  1,000

  250

  2,430

  2,670

  1978

  102,300

  1,700

  490

  3,130

  3,620

  1979

  180,400

  3,400

  620

  3,950

  4,570

  1980

  262,300

  4,100

  820

  4,460

  5,290

  1981

  406,000

  4,300

  1,180

  3,730

  4,910

  1982

  705,400

  7,400

  1,570

  3,590

  5,160

  1983

  1,045,100

  12,300

  1,230

  3,670

  4,900

  1984

  1,203,300

  17,900

  1,700

  3,450

  5,150

  1985

  1,407,300

  24,200

  1,610

  3,210

  4,820

  1986

  1,539,500

  28,300

  2,300

  4,630

  6,930

  1987

  1,721,300

  36,200

  2,670

  4,570

  7,240

  1988

  1,948,300

  47,700

  3,420

  4,940

  8,360

  1989

  2,068,900

  52,500

  2,760

  4,970

  7,730

  1990

  1,823,400

  38,300

  3,000

  4,280

  7,280

  1991

  1,454,100

  26,100

  2,210

  3,030

  5,230

  1992

  1,491,700

  27,100

  2,020

  2,940

  4,960

  1993

  1,680,500

  31,700

  1,800

  3,610

  5,410

  1994

  1,759,000

  39,300

  2,230

  4,140

  6,380

  All

  21,199,200

  406,700

  32,460

  74,520

  106,980

  1 All vehicles with car body types irrespective of taxation class.

  2Taxation classes 1 to 9, including HGV, Trailer HGV, HGV Farmers, Trailer HGV Farmers, HGV Showman's, Trailer HGV Showman's, Restricted HGV, Restricted HGV Farmers, Restricted HGV Showman's.

  3 Taxation class 35, Hackney. From 1 July 1995 this tax class is replaced by class 34, Bus, for public transport vehicles with more than 8 seats.

  Night Flying (Helicopters)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 122, whether restrictions relating to night flights to and from (a) civil airports, (b) private airstrips, (c) military airfields and (d) heliports apply to police helicopters. [32395]

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend is responsible for certain noise mitigation measures, which include night flying restrictions, at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports only. At these airports, helicopters are not exempt from the night restrictions but specific police operations
  884
  1970, the number of heavy goods vehicles, passenger cars, and public transport vehicles currently licensed for road use. [34419]

  Mr. Norris
  The requested information is as follows:

  may be given a dispensation in appropriate circumstances. At all other airports, including heliports and private airstrips, the responsibility for noise mitigation lies with individual owners or operators. Restrictions on night flights may form part of planning approval. These arrangements apply to civilian aerodromes; at military airfields the responsibility lies with the Ministry of Defence.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making
  885
  information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as www.open.gov.uk and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months.[34686]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department is currently investigating the use of the Government "World Wide Web" server, particularly in relation to publication of the Drivers and Vehicles Licensing Agency and marine accident investigation branch. Recourse to interactive online publishing services such as the "World Wide Web" is one of the components of my Department's publishing strategy under the TIPS programme—transport information publishing services—which was advertised in the Official Journal in November of last year and for which procurement action is now under way.

  Overseas Ministerial Visits
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all overseas ministerial visits since 1 January 1993, the date of those visits, the names of the Ministers involved, the purpose of those visits, and the cost to his Department of those visits. [35276]

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [32280]

  Sir George Young
  The destination, duration and purpose of ministerial overseas trips involving public funds for each year since 1992 are listed. Total travel and subsistence costs for Ministers and accompanying private secretaries were £54,080 in 1993–94; £84,013 in 1994–95 and £9,056 so far in 1995–96. Detailed records of visits and associated costs for 1992 are not available.

  Information about the number and cost of accompanying officials is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Country visited

  Duration (days)

  Purpose

  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT

  1993

  Belgium

  1

  Aviation conference

  Belgium

  1

  Joint EC Transport and

  Environment Council

  Belgium

  2

  Transport Council

  Norway/Sweden

  3

  Fact-finding on congestion

  charging

  Luxembourg

  2

  Transport Council

  France

  1

  Paris Air Show

  Luxembourg

  I

  Transport Council

  USA

  5

  Meeting with US

  Transportation Secretary on

  aviation and fact-finding on

  highways

  Belgium

  2

  Transport Council

  1994

  Greece

  3

  Informal Transport Council

  Germany

  1

  Trilateral,

  German/French/British meeting

  Greece

  3

  Pan-European conference

  Luxembourg

  2

  EC Transport Council

  886

  Country visited

  Duration(days)

  Purpose

  France

  1

  Channel Tunnel—official

  opening

  France

  3

  European conference of

  Ministers of Transport

  Denmark

  2

  European Civil Aviation

  Conference

  Luxembourg

  2

  Transport Council

  USA

  1

  HM Ambassador, Washington

  Belgium

  1

  Transport Council

  France

  1

  EPS Eurostar

  USA

  5

  Fact-finding and export

  promotion

  Belgium

  1

  Transport Council

  France

  1

  Telematics conference

  1995

  Holland

  2½

  Fact-finding on cycling

  France

  1

  French and German Transport

  Ministers

  Belgium

  2

  Transport Council

  Switzerland

  l½

  Fact-finding on railways issues

  Japan/Korea

  8

  Meeting with Transport

  Ministers; fact-finding, export

  promotion and agreement

  signing

  Luxembourg

  1

  Transport Council

  MINISTER FOR ROADS AND TRAFFIC

  1993

  Holland

  2

  European Conference of

  Transport Ministers

  1994

  Italy

  3

  Fact-finding tour on motorway

  tolling

  MINISTER FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT

  1993

  Germany

  2

  Meetings with German

  Transport Ministry; export

  promotion

  France

  1

  French Transport Ministry

  China

  1

  Chinese Ministry

  France

  1

  French Transport Ministry

  France

  1

  Railspeed conference

  1994

  France

  1

  International station—Lille

  France

  1

  Channel tunnel—official

  opening

  MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS AND ROADS

  1994

  Germany

  3½

  German State Secretary and

  export promotion

  France

  1

  Chambers of Commerce and

  Bridge Designers

  France

  1

  Prometheus Ministers Day

  Germany

  2

  German State Secretary and

  motorway tolling trial site

  1995

  France

  2

  Informal Transport Council

  Austria

  2

  European Conference of

  Transport Ministers

  Germany

  2

  Centenary celebration of Kiel

  canal

  MINISTER FOR AVIATION AND SHIPPING

  1993

  Belgium

  1

  Transport Council

  Eire

  1

  Meeting with Irish Ministers

  Belgium

  1

  Transport Council

  France

  1

  Paris Air Show

  France/Holland/

  2

  European airports

  Germany

  Holland/Belgium

  1

  Transport Council/aviation visit

  887

  Country visited

  Duration (days)

  Purpose

  Hong Kong

  4

  Conference on aviation

  security; discussions on

  shipping

  Belgium

  2

  Transport Council

  1994

  France

  1

  Maritime safety; French

  Transport Minister

  Israel

  5

  Export Trade Mission

  Belgium

  1

  Maritime Safety and pollution

  France

  1

  Port conference

  Greece

  2

  Shipping exhibition

  Denmark

  1

  Danish Shipping Minister

  Japan

  2

  Kansai Airport Management;

  Transport, Trade and Industry

  Ministers; export promotion

  Denmark

  1

  Ministers of Paris

  Memorandum of

  Understanding Group

  France

  1

  P&O and Calais Chamber of

  Commerce

  Belgium

  1

  Transport Council

  1995

  France

  1

  Paris Air Show

  MINISTER FOR LOCAL TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY

  1993

  USA

  3

  Fact-finding on parking

  enforcement

  France

  1

  Paris Air Show

  Brazil

  5

  Conference on alcoholism and

  drug dependence

  Germany

  3

  Conference on traffic problems

  and solutions

  Singapore/Hong Kong

  9

  Fact-finding on public transport

  operations and congestion

  charging systems

  1994

  France

  1

  Channel Tunnel—official

  opening

  Portugal

  2

  Road Haulage Association

  Conference

  France

  1

  Paris; Ministry of Interior; The

  Paris Region Transport

  Administration

  Rail Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed restrictions are currently enforced on the railway line between Paddington and Plymouth; how long each speed restriction has been in force; how much longer each will be in force; what is the reason for each speed restriction; what steps are being taken to expedite repairs; and if he will make a statement. [34456]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack informs me that the total number of speed restrictions currently in force is 16. The restrictions have been in place between one and 15 months. The restricted speeds range from 20 to 60 mph and in each case the reason for the restriction is the condition of the track.

  Railtrack has a programme of maintenance and renewal in place to restore the original line speeds. Repair work for each restricted track section is in the hands of local maintenance and track renewal units.
  888
  I will write to my hon. Friend with further more detailed information.

TREASURY

  Department of Employment (Reorganisation)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the transfer of responsibilities from the former Department of Employment to other Departments to be completed; how much he expects this reorganisation to cost; and what provision for these costs has been made within this year's public expenditure survey. [34667]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The responsibilities have been transferred in accordance with the announcements made on 5 July. Consequential provisions will be made in a transfer of functions order in due course. The financial implications of the reorganisation will be discussed in the public expenditure survey.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) of 1 March 1994,Official Report, column 665, on income tax.[33904]

  Mr. Jack
  The change in tax by quantile group for 1995–96 compared with a 1978–79 indexed regime is in the tables. In table A, the comparison is hypothetical since, if an indexed version of the 1978–79 tax regime had prevailed over the past 15 years, the income base would not have grown as it has.

  Table A: Calculations using the 1995–96 income base

  Quantitle group of taxpayers under the 1978–79 indexed regime

  Number of taxpayers

  Reduction in tax

  Average reduction

  Per cent.

  Thousands

  £ million

  £

  Top 1

  300

  9,700

  38,000

  Top 5

  1,300

  13,500

  10,500

  Top 10

  2,600

  15,800

  6,100

  Bottom 50

  12,900

  4,500

  350

  All taxpayers

  25,700

  30,700

  1,200

  In contrast to these hypothetical figures, table B shows how the share of income tax actually paid by high income groups has risen since 1979, while the share of the income tax burden borne by low income tax payers has fallen.

  Table B: Calculations using the income base for each year

  Percentage

  Share of income tax in

  Quantile group of taxpayers

  1978–79

  1995–96

  Top 1

  11

  16

  Top 5

  24

  33

  Top 10

  35

  44

  Bottom 50

  18

  13

  All taxpayers

  100

  100

  889

  National Savings Bank (Current Account Transfer)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the process by which consultants will be selected (1) to conduct the proposed feasibility study into whether Post Office Counters should take over the National Savings bank's ordinary current account; and if he will make a statement; [33679]

  (2) what legislation would be required to transfer the administration of National Savings bank's ordinary current account to the Post Office; and if he will make a statement; [33645]

  (3) what is the time scale for the proposed feasibility study into the possibility of the National Savings bank transferring the administration of ordinary current accounts to Post Office Counters; when it is envisaged that this feasibility study will formally begin; and when he expects it to be (a) completed and (b) presented to ministers; [33646]

  (4) how much money has been budgeted to cover the costs of the feasibility study into the possibility of national Savings bank transferring the administration of ordinary current accounts to Post Office Counters; [33647]

  (5) what stage has been reached in the current feasibility study into the possibility of the national Savings bank transferring the administration of ordinary current accounts to Post Office Counters; and if he will make a statement. [33648]

  (6) if he will make it his policy to establish a joint department of National Savings bank/Post Office Counters Ltd. team to supervise or assist external consultants examining the possible transfer of the ordinary current account from the National Savings bank to Post Office Counters Ltd. [33680]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The feasibility study is looking at whether Post Office Counters Ltd., POCL, should market its own savings account. That part covering the options involving the National Savings, NS, ordinary account will be led by a joint POCL/NS team. The feasibility study has commenced and is expected to be completed towards the end of the year. Consultants to assist in the study will be appointed by competitive tender. POCL and NS are presently finalising the detailed terms of reference for consultants.

  The results will be considered by the boards of both organisations before recommendations are submitted to Ministers. The costs of the study will be met from within each organisation's current budget.

  Greenbury Report
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to receive a copy of the Greenbury report; when he plans to respond to any taxation matters it raises; and if he will make a statement. [35294]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Greenbury report was published today. In the light of its recommendations, the Government have decided to amend the tax treatment of executive share options so that any gain from the exercise of such options will be taxable as income rather than as capital gain. I propose to introduce legislation in the next 890
  Finance Bill to withdraw the income tax reliefs at present available to directors and employees participating in executive share option schemes which have been approved by the Inland Revenue. The withdrawal of the reliefs will take effect in relation to grants or exercises of options on or after today.

  The tax reliefs for approved all-employee savings-related share option schemes will not be affected by this proposal.

  Permanent Jobs (Creation)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many permanent jobs have been created in each year since 1981 net of losses and relocations. [34141]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: Information is available only for the net change in permanent employees and comparable information is available only from 1984. The information is given in the table:

  Net change in permanent employees in Great Britain:

  Spring of early year (thousands)

  Net change

  1984–85

  158

  1985–86

  88

  1986–87

  52

  1987–88

  654

  1988–89

  628

  1989–90

  217

  1990–91

  -354

  1991–92

  -589

  1992–93

  -275

  1993–94

  -11

  Note:

  Information prior to 1992 has not yet been re-weighted to take account of OPCS revised population estimates and hence there is a discontinuity in the series between 1991 and 1992.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  Northern Region (Average Earnings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average gross weekly earnings of(a) women and (b) men in (i) each standard planning region and (ii) each country area in the northern region in each year since 1979 (1) at current prices and (2) at 1979 prices and the proportion of women and men earning less than 68 per cent. of the national average gross weekly wage in each standard planning region and each county area in the northern region in each year since 1979. [34180]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: Analyses of average earnings of full-time employees in the counties of the northern region are published in part E of the new earnings survey reports. Tables 110 and 113 contain average gross weekly earnings for men and women respectively. Copies of the reports are available in the Library.

  The retail prices index is available in table 6.4 of the "Employment Gazette" and is now being published in full in the Central Statistical Office business monitor MM23.
  891
  Figures of the proportion of men and women earning less than 68 per cent. of the national average gross weekly wage in each standard planning region and each county area in the northern region cannot be produced for the years before 1986. To do so for the years since 1986 would incur disproportionate cost. Some relevant information can be found in tables 110 and 113, in the form of percentages with gross weekly earnings below three specified amounts.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the past 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and compensation. [34596]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: None.

  European Union (Contributions)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the gross and net contribution which the United Kingdom will make to the European Union in 1995; and what were the comparable gross and net figures in each of the previous 10 calendar years. [34423]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The Government's latest forecast of the United Kingdom's gross and net contribution to the European Community in 1995, with outturn figures for 1992 to 1994, are set out in the latest "Statement on the Community Budget", Cm 2824, published in April this year. Outturn figures for earlier years can be found in previous years' statements.

  Fixed Exchange Rates
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what considerations underlay his policy statement of 10 July in respect of the non-requirement of a two-year participation in fixed exchange rates as a prelude to entry to a single currency; and if he will make a statement. [34420]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: It is not clear how the exchange rate criterion in the treaty on European Union will be interpreted. The treaty was negotiated at a time when the exchange rate mechanism operated under very different rules from those in force today. The interpretation of the convergence criteria, including the exchange rate criterion, will be considered by the European Commission and the European Monetary Institute, when preparing their reports to the Council of Ministers under article 109j(1), and thereafter by the Council itself, when it assesses those reports under article 109j(2).

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is the aim of Her Majesty's Government to seek to rejoin fixed exchange rates. [34421]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The Government recognise the value of stable exchange rates but do not set target rates.

  Computer Equipment Supplies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and its agencies in the past five years indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34564]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The table shows the 10 top suppliers of computer equipment to Her Majesty's Treasury from the financial year 1991–92 to date.

  £ thousand

  Supplier

  Total value of contract (including. VAT)

  ICL (UK) Ltd.

  2,108

  IBM (UK) Ltd.

  1,672

  Compstand Ltd.

  1,307

  Viglen Ltd.

  1,195

  Anage Printing Systems Ltd.

  405

  Computacentre Ltd.

  397

  Tandon Pic

  232

  Olivetti (UK) Ltd.

  195

  P.C.S. Ltd.

  181

  Profile Computers Pic

  152

  Information for 1990–91 is not readily available and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. Her Majesty's Treasury did not have any agencies in the period reported above.

  Wage Levels
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the latest comparable figures, showing numbers and percentages of the working population in each European Union country who are earning on or below the equivalent of £2.50 per hour. [34577]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The number of people in Great Britain earning below £2.50 per hour is estimated to be around 800,000, based on the results of the winter 1994–95 labour force survey. This represents 4 per cent. of employees. Comparable figures for other European Union countries are not available.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years. [34776]

  The Prime Minister
  The information as requested is not available. It can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister what considerations underlie his policy with regard to minimum wage(a) in agriculture and (b) in other sectors; and if he will make a statement. [34997]
  893
  The Prime Minister
  The Government remain of the view that statutory wage fixing arrangements, wherever they occur, destroy jobs and prevent job creation. That is why we abolished the wages councils and are keeping the future existence of the agricultural wages board under close review. It is also why we will never introduce the nonsense of a national minimum wage.

  Royal British Legion
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations he has had from the Royal British Legion about the decision of its annual conference on the establishment of an ex-service affairs unit within Government; what reply he is sending; and if he will make a statement.[34392]

  The Prime Minister
  I have recently received a letter from the national chairman of the Royal British Legion on the question of establishing an ex-services affairs unit. I have asked my noble Friend Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish to consider the points made on reply on my behalf.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney-General what requests his Department has received to give further evidence to the Scott inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [32756]

  The Attorney-General
  Since 31 October 1994, when I last answered a question on this aspect, there have been additional requests for evidence in respect of two officials in the Departments for which I have ministerial responsibility. In all, seven officials from my Departments have given evidence to the inquiry at some time.

  Public Interest Immunity Certificates
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will review the practice of asking Ministers to sign public interest immunity certificates. [32757]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice).

  Crown Office, Edinburgh
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the arrangements made between his office and the Crown office in Edinburgh. [32758]

  The Solicitor-General
  My office and the Crown office in Edinburgh consult each other on matters where they share a common interest.

  Combat 18
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Attorney-General what further reports he has received about the activities of Combat 18. [32759]
  894
  The Solicitor-General
  The Law Officers have requested that they be kept closely informed of progress in this matter and have stressed the need for inquiries and for the subsequent consideration of the evidence to be speedily concluded.

  Asil Nadir
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 24 April, Official Report, column 341, what further measures he is taking to expedite the case of Asil Nadir. [32760]

  The Solicitor-General
  The case against Asil Nadir can proceed only when he returns, or is returned, to the jurisdiction. A warrant has been issued for his arrest and the Serious Fraud Office remains ready to proceed with the trial.

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to extend further the use of computers and other information technology by the Serious Fraud Office.

  The Attorney-General
  The use of computers and information technology has already brought real benefits to the investigation and presentation of cases by the Serious Fraud Office. Current projects include the development of improved document storage and retrieval systems.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent meetings he has had with the Serious Fraud Office to discuss City fraud. [32762]

  The Solicitor-General
  I frequently meet the director of the Serious Fraud Office to discuss matters of departmental interest, including particular cases.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will appoint a senior QC to inquire into allegations made to his Department by senior lawyers in respect of the accuracy of the information supplied by the Serious Fraud Office and its counsel to the Attorney-General to answer parliamentary questions on 17 December 1993. [35091]

  The Attorney-General
  No.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [32754]

  The Attorney-General
  The performance of the Crown Prosecution Service is monitored at regular meetings between the Law Officers and the Director of Public Prosecutions. The service handles about 1.5 million cases per year, with a conviction rate in the year to March 1995 of 97.8 per cent. in the magistrates court and 90.3 per cent. in the Crown court.

  Roger Levitt Case
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney General (1) if he will define the term "suggestion" as set out in his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), 9 December 1993, Official Report, columns 332–33, concerning the case of Roger Levitt; [35090]
  895
  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) 19 June, Official Report, columns 68–70, with regard to the meeting which took place on 5 November, comprising prosecuting counsel and the director of the Serious Fraud Office, to discuss possible pleas in the case of Roger Levitt, on what date and in what form possible pleas were communicated to the defence; and if they amounted, in whatever form they were communicated, to a suggestion that Mr. Roger Levitt might plead guilty to only some of the charges; [35089]

  (3) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swansea, East of 19 June, Official Report, columns 68–70, with reference to his statement about the Crown's likely attitude if Mr. Levitt tendered particular pleas, for what reasons this did not constitute a suggestion that Mr. Roger Levitt might plead guilty to only some of the charges; [35108]

  (4) pursuant to paragraphs 1.6 and 1.11 of Mr. David Cocks' evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, cited during the Committee's oral evidence session of 11 July, if a suggestion was made by the prosecution during discussions before 22 November 1993 that Mr. Roger Levitt might plead guilty to only some of the charges. [35088]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to the series of very full answers which I have already given and in particular to the sequence of informal discussions between counsel and prosecuting counsel's recollection of the circumstances surrounding and following the meeting on 5 November 1993 which have already been set out in my answers of 19 June 1995 to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)Official Report, columns 68–70, and of 28 June to the hon. Member for Warwickshire, South (Mr. O'Brien), Official Report, column 704.

  The word "suggestion" in my answers of 9 December 1993 focused on the nub of the question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall), which asked
  "When the Serious Fraud Office … first suggested to the counsel to Mr. Roger Levitt that he plead guilty to only some of the charges".—Official Report, 9 December 1993; Vol. 234, columns 332–33.
  This was understood, in the context of the other questions asked by my hon. Friend which were critical of the Serious Fraud Office, to carry the implication that the Serious Fraud Office had improperly taken the initiative from an early date, seeking, in words later used by leading counsel for Mr. Levitt, to throw in the towel. I was concerned to refute that allegation immediately. Had I at that date known of the full sequence of events to which I have referred above I would have taken account of it in my answer.

  The series of answers I have given to the House on this case give a full and fair picture of my understanding of the relevant events.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to the submissions received by his Department from(a) Jonathan Goldberg and (b) Sasha Wass in respect of the Roger Levitt case and the oral evidence heard by the Treasury and Civil Service Committee on 11 July, what assessment he has made of the accuracy of statements by (1) Mr. David Cocks and (2) Mr. Jonathan Fisher in respect of (i) telephone conversations on 21 November 1993 and (ii) the initial meeting on 22 November. [35087]
  896
  The Attorney-General
  Regrettably, the accounts given by prosecuting and defence counsel differ significantly and I do not consider that it is right for me to say more than that it is clear that they see the matter very differently.

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Attorney-General how many staff in his Department or its agencies have(a) declared any company shareholdings they hold or (b) been advised to dispose of shareholding in the last five years, indicating the companies concerned. [33413]

  The Attorney-General
  All staff serving in the Departments for which I am responsible are required to consult management about the desirability of acquiring or retaining any shareholding which might give rise to a possible conflict of interest. Comprehensive records are not held centrally of the occasions on which shareholdings are declared or required to be disposed of.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  N. M. Rothschild and Son Ltd.
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the latest estimate for the number of hours worked by N. M. Rothschild on providing advice on the privatisation of the coal industry; and when the contract is expected to end. [34429]

  Mr. Page
  N. M. Rothschild has, to date, worked approximately 37,500 hours on providing advice on the privatisation of the coal industry. In answer to the second question, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 21 February 1995,Official Report, column 109.

  Innovation and Technology Counsellors
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his Department's target date for the appointment of innovation and technology counsellors by all business links. [33555]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" announced that up to £4.3 million per year is available to allow all business link partnerships to provide an innovation and technology counseling—ITC—service. Through the appropriate training and education council, each business link has been invited to bid for funds to operate an ITC service, once its business link proposal has been approved by the business link assessment panel. Twenty-two business links already have innovation and technology counsellors and the target for all business links to have an ITC service is summer 1996.

  >Arms Exports (Iran)
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what exact date during the Iran-Iraq war Ministers in his Department first agreed that licences could be granted for exports to Iran when the applications were not accompanied by the required documentation. [33972]
  897
  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: No such policy decision was taken by Department of Trade and Industry Ministers.

  Oil and Gas platform Orders
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many fabrication orders relating to the United Kingdom continental shelf gas and oil industry have been allocated per company to United Kingdom-based fabrication yards in each of the past five financial years; and how many orders from operators in the United Kingdom continental shelf area have been allocated to(a) European Union countries and (b) Korea. [33324]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: Information on major platform orders for the calendar years 1990 to 1995, thus far, is contained in the table:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  AMEC

  1

  4

  3

  1

  0

  1

  Consafe

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Costain/TW

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Hi-FAb

  2

  5

  1

  1

  5

  0

  Lewis O/S

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  McDermott

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  McNulty

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  SLP (L)

  2

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  SLP (M)

  1

  2

  1

  2

  0

  1

  THC

  2

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  THOF (M)

  4

  2

  1

  3

  0

  2

  THOF (T)

  3

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1

  UIE

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  0

  Total

  17

  19

  9

  12

  9

  12

  Other EU

  5

  5

  3

  2

  1

  2

  Korea

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff are currently employed at the National Engineering Laboratory; and if he will make a statement on the detailed provisions which will apply to them in the privatisation of the laboratory. [34566]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Following the statement by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade on 14 April 1994,Official Report, columns 251–53, regarding the future of the National Engineering Laboratory, good progress has been made with the trade sale. I hope to be in a position to announce a preferred bidder at the end of this month or early next month and I shall write to the hon. Member. At this stage, it is not possible to say what will be the detailed provisions that will apply to the 234 staff currently at the laboratory, but the terms and conditions of staff who transfer will be preserved under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981.

  Small Firms (Financial Difficulty)
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance the Government provide for small firms that are facing short-term financial difficulties. [34502]
  898
  Mr. Page
  Small firms facing short-term financial difficulties would usually approach their bank or other finance provider for assistance. The Government provide assistance to business support networks through which small firms can seek advice appropriate to their circumstances.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many industrial tribunal cases were considered in each year since 1986, by region; and how many in each case resulted in a verdict of unfair dismissal. [34061]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The number of industrial tribunal cases—all jurisidictions—considered at a hearing, by region, in each year since 1986 is shown in the table. The number of successful unfair dismissal cases is also shown.

  Region (England and Wales)

  Number of cases heard

  Number of successful unfair dismissal cases

  1986–87

  Bedford

  675

  187

  Birmingham

  1,249

  297

  Bristol

  627

  147

  Cardiff

  589

  120

  Leeds

  1,411

  369

  London North

  1,067

  251

  London South

  1,855

  384

  Manchester

  1,774

  500

  Newcastle

  762

  110

  Nottingham

  660

  170

  Southampton

  592

  160

  Scotland

  1,823

  433

  Totals

  13,084

  3,128

  1987–88

  Bedford

  557

  176

  Birmingham

  899

  225

  Bristol

  552

  83

  Cardiff

  631

  95

  Leeds

  1,047

  247

  London North

  890

  201

  London South

  1,094

  260

  Manchester

  1,485

  350

  Newcastle

  492

  105

  Nottingham

  522

  125

  Southampton

  556

  157

  Scotland

  1,727

  368

  Totals

  10,452

  2,392

  1988–89

  Bedford

  460

  103

  Birmingham

  727

  172

  Bristol

  544

  138

  Cardiff

  476

  107

  Leeds

  843

  227

  London North

  947

  169

  London South

  992

  219

  Manchester

  1,239

  348

  Newcastle

  374

  76

  Nottingham

  465

  111

  Southampton

  572

  161

  Scotland

  1,384

  335

  Totals

  9,023

  2,166

  899

  Region (England and Wales)

  Number of cases heard

  Number of successful unfair dismissal cases

  1989–90

  Bedford

  550

  157

  Birmingham

  779

  158

  Bristol

  601

  109

  Cardiff

  761

  110

  Leeds

  1,249

  263

  London North

  678

  159

  London South

  1,184

  259

  Manchester

  1,339

  361

  Newcastle

  503

  115

  Nottingham

  558

  117

  Southampton

  716

  169

  Scotland

  1,311

  567

  Totals

  10,229

  2,544

  1990–91

  Bedford

  691

  177

  Birmingham

  828

  219

  Bristol

  697

  159

  Cardiff

  609

  124

  Leeds

  1,128

  277

  London North

  1,058

  236

  London South

  1,221

  202

  Manchester

  1,561

  374

  Newcastle

  522

  114

  Nottingham

  562

  122

  Southampton

  871

  198

  Scotland

  1,682

  328

  Totals

  11,430

  2,530

  1991–92

  Bedford

  862

  265

  Birmingham

  1,013

  269

  Bristol

  1,047

  213

  Cardiff

  880

  192

  Leeds

  1,644

  429

  London North

  952

  258

  London South

  1,593

  382

  Manchester

  1,999

  433

  Newcastle

  449

  130

  Nottingham

  892

  205

  Southampton

  1,141

  336

  Scotland

  1,382

  324

  Totals

  13,854

  3,436

  1992–93

  Bedford

  1,136

  338

  Birmingham

  1,621

  368

  Bristol

  1,254

  307

  Cardiff

  1,091

  245

  Leeds

  1,727

  460

  London North

  1,406

  377

  London South

  1,720

  444

  Manchester

  2,198

  569

  Newcastle

  1,047

  270

  Nottingham

  1,353

  360

  Southampton

  1,365

  353

  Scotland

  1,760

  453

  Totals

  17,678

  4,544

  1993–94

  Bedford

  1,765

  507

  Birmingham

  2,014

  533

  Bristol

  1,478

  384

  Cardiff

  1,442

  111

  Leeds

  2,351

  494

  London North

  1,817

  470

  London South

  2,329

  714

  Manchester

  3,261

  819

  900

  Region (England and Wales)

  Number of cases heard

  Number of successful unfair dismissal cases

  Newcastle

  1,382

  379

  Nottingham

  1,619

  436

  Southampton

  1,950

  461

  Scotland

  1,888

  479

  Totals

  23,296

  5,953

  1994–95

  Bedford

  1,586

  374

  Birmingham

  1,790

  352

  Bristol

  1,201

  248

  Cardiff

  1,346

  196

  Leeds

  1,827

  438

  London North

  5,328

  544

  London South

  2,249

  510

  Manchester

  2,879

  736

  Newcastle

  1,078

  252

  Nottingham

  1,329

  276

  Southampton

  1,870

  381

  Scotland

  2,400

  521

  Totals

  24,883

  4,828

  Fraud (Legislation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proposals he has for legislation under which the auditor duties for reporting material fraud to the regulators applicable in the financial sector will also apply to the corporate sector; [33925]

  (2) what proposals he has for legislation under which company auditors will have a statutory duty to detect and report material fraud to the regulators. [33926]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The rights and duties of auditors to report to regulators in the financial sector were set out in the auditing practices board's statement of auditing standards No. 620, issued in March 1994. In January 1995, the APB published two statements of auditing standards that clarify the rights and duties of auditors when reporting fraud or any other non-compliance with regulations. These are SAS 110, "Fraud and Error," and SAS 120, "Consideration of Law and Regulations". Copies of these documents are available for inspection in the Library of the House.

  Insolvency Practitioners (Regulation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the organisations responsible for regulating insolvency practitioners with the number of practitioners regulated by each and the number of practitioners disqualified by each. [33924]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is as follows:

  Regulating organisation

  Number of practitioners at 31 December 94

  Number disqualified/refused in year ended 31 December 94

  Chartered Association of Certified Accountants

  102

  2

  Insolvency Practitioners Association

  271

  2

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales

  924

  1

  901

  Regulating organisation

  Number of practitioners at 31 December 94

  Number disqualified/refused in year ended 31 December 94

  Institute of Chattered Accountants in Ireland

  78

  —

  Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland

  187

  —

  Law Society

  190

  —

  The Law Society of Scotland

  28

  —

  The Secretary of State

  151

  4

  The number of practitioners disqualified does not include those whose licences were surrendered voluntarily or applications for renewal were withdrawn in order to avoid proceedings which may have resulted in their disqualification.

  Caparo Judgment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what proposals he has for legislation under which company auditors will owe a duty of care to current individual shareholders and creditors; [34096]

  (2) what proposals he has for statutory reversal of the Caparo judgment. [34103]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have no plans to change the current state of the law, but am keeping the situation under review.

  Director General of Electricity Supply
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions he has had with the electricity regulator concerning the regulator's handling of price sensitive information; and if he will make a statement. [34279]

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for the Director General of Electricity Supply to decide how he handles price sensitive information.

  Particulate PM10 Pollution
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research has been commissioned by his Department into levels of particulate PM 10 pollution in rural areas; what were the conclusions; and if he will publish the results. [35024]

  Mr. Page
  My Department commissioned a limited series of measurements of airborne particulates at a single rural site earlier this year. The results are being prepared for publication in the near future.

  Science
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which Government Department is responsible for(a) the science budget, (b) science education, (c) policy to promote the public understanding of science and (d) funding the research councils.[34576]
  902
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The Office of Science and Technology's responsibilities for (a), (c) and (d) and its joint responsibilities with the Education Departments for post-graduate science education are unchanged with the office's transfer to the Department of Trade and Industry. The Government's commitment to science, engineering and technology, and to the support of the science and engineering base, remain as set out in the 1993 White Paper "Realising our Potential", and policies are targeted to ensure the maximum contribution to our national economic performance and quality of life.

  Systematic interchange between industry, scientists, engineers and science policy makers both in the public and private sectors will improve mutual understanding and allow each group to make its decisions against a better informed background.

  Bellerton Lane, Norton
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the individual plots of land adjacent to Bellerton lane, Norton, Stoke on Trent, sold by British Coal in the last 10 years; and who purchased each site. [34297]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for British Coal.

  Shipbuilding and Repair
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people were employed in shipbuilding and ship repair in(a) 1965, (b) 1970, (c) 1980, (d) 1985, (e) 1990 and (f) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [33681]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on employment in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry is available from the periodic censuses of employment. The table shows the number employed in this industry, for years where the information is directly comparable:

  Number of employees in employment in the shipbuilding and ship repair industry1 in Great Britain, in September of each year

  Number

  1981

  120,800

  1984

  90,200

  1987

  58,200

  1989

  51,200

  1991

  47,000

  1 Group 371 of the standard industrial classification 1980.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Duchy Accounts
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Duchy will be presenting to Parliament its next set of accounts. [35283]
  903
  Mr. Freeman
  The financial year for the Duchy's accounts has been changed from 30 September to 31 March. Audited accounts for the part-year period from 30 September 1994 to 31 March 1995 are therefore being presented today. In future, 12-month accounts to 31 March will be presented before the House rises for that year's summer recess.

  Occupational Health and Safety Agency
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what key performance targets he has set for the Occupational Health and Safety Agency for the current year. [35284]

  Mr. Horam
  The key performance targets for the Occupational Health and Safety Agency for 1995–96 are to break even in accrual accounting terms; to turn around, within 15 days, 85 per cent. of case referrals where no additional information is required and 58 per cent. within 40 days when additional information is required; to earn customer post-service satisfaction evaluations of 90 per cent. in the two highest categories; and to issue at least 95 per cent. of invoices error free.

  In addition, the agency has cost containment targets, details of which are commercially sensitive.

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff will be allocated to working in the offices and department of the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary; and what is the estimated annual cost of such staff. [34005]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply. I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 11 July 1995,Official Report, column 496 and to that which I gave the hon. Member for Gordon on 13 July 1995, Official Report, column 751.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which firms of consultants employed by his Department over the past year have been paid more than £1,000 per day.[33872]

  Mr. Horam
  My answer covers the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service, its executive agencies, Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Office of Information. In 1994–95 the following firms of consultants were employed on contracts costing more than £1,000 per consultant per day including expenses and VAT:Coopers and Lybrand; Domino Consultancy; Human Assets Ltd.; International Computers Ltd.; Moores Rowland; PA Consulting; Pearn Kandola; Price Waterhouse.

  Civil Servants (Travel Expenses)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the past five years; and what the saving would have been in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the current lowest rate. [34781]

  Mr. Horam
  These details are not kept centrally.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants when using their own vehicles for official business. [34780]

  Mr. Horam
  Departments and agencies are responsible for setting the rates of allowances to reimburse staff for travel by private vehicle on official business. Details of the rates are not collected centrally.

  Magistrates (Secret Societies)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many magistrates there are in the Duchy; and how many have declared they are freemasons or members of any other secret society. [34942]

  Mr. Freeman
  There are 4,200 magistrates in the Duchy area.

  No statistics are kept on the number of magistrates who are freemasons or who belong to other secret societies.

  Being a freemason or member of any society is neither a qualification nor a disqualification to becoming a magistrate.

  All magistrates take a judicial oath to dispense justice without fear or favour.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for how long it has been the practice for candidates for the magistracy in the Duchy of Lancaster to declare membership of secret societies. [34943]

  Mr. Freeman
  Advisory committees ask candidates for the magistracy about their outside interests. This has been the practice for many years.

  The overriding requirement is suitability for recommendation for appointment.

SCOTLAND

  Community Nurses
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) health visitors, (b) district nurses, (c) community psychiatric nurses and (d) school nurses were employed in each area of Scotland on 30 September 1993, and for the latest date available, expressed as whole-time equivalents and actual numbers: and if he will list the same information for student health visitors and student district nurses. [33257]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is shown in the tables:
  905

  Selected community nursing staff by health board as at 30 September 1993

  Whole-time equivalent

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Health visitors

  157.9

  90.7

  38.4

  42.8

  110.7

  90.2

  203.3

  306.9

  Health visitor1

  126.7

  88.7

  24.4

  27.0

  110.7

  83.6

  185.8

  289.3

  Health visitors with combined duties2

  31.2

  2.0

  14.0

  15.8

  —

  6.6

  17.5

  17.6

  District nurses

  205.4

  126.3

  51.4

  76.1

  132.2

  135.5

  213.9

  375.1

  District nurse1

  156.2

  126.3

  6.0

  45.6

  132.2

  116.9

  149.6

  357.5

  District nurses with combined duties2

  49.2

  —

  45.4

  30.5

  —

  18.6

  64.3

  17.6

  Community psychiatric nurse

  31.4

  27.0

  7.7

  19.0

  27.0

  26.2

  34.0

  45.6

  School nurse

  26.6

  20.9

  4.5

  7.6

  29.8

  13.0

  15.4

  55.8

  Student health visitors (number)3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  10

  Student district nurses (number)3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  13

  1 The figures for health visitors and district nurses probably include some staff without an HV or DN qualification working in these fields, probably in a supporting role.

  2 Health visitors with combined duties including district nursing and vice versa are included under both categories in the table, (i.e. double counted).

  3 The figures for student health visitors and district nurses are provided according to the health board where their training college places are located. Other health boards may have students in these colleges and cannot be assumed to be zero. Data are at 31 October.

  Selected community nursing staff by health board as at 30 September 1993

  Whole-time equivalent

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Health visitors

  85.1

  166.8

  212.2

  9.0

  13.0

  128.8

  8.1

  Health visitor1

  47.2

  157.8

  210.1

  4.0

  6.0

  109.8

  8.1

  Health visitors with combined duties2

  37.9

  9.0

  2.1

  5.0

  7.0

  19.0

  —

  District nurses

  165.1

  207.2

  240.3

  35.0

  24.3

  170.2

  29.7

  District nurse1

  49.8

  174.1

  239.0

  17.0

  5.8

  122.0

  —

  District nurses with combined duties2

  115.3

  33.1

  1.3

  18.0

  18.5

  48.2

  29.7

  Community psychiatric nurse

  19.0

  16.0

  61.0

  —

  2.0

  32.4

  6.1

  School nurse

  14.2

  41.0

  31.5

  —

  0.8

  20.9

  —

  Student health visitors (number)3

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Student district nurses (number)3

  —

  —

  15

  —

  —

  9

  —

  1 The figures for health visitors and district nurses probably include some staff without an HV or DN qualification working on these fields, probably in a supporting role.

  2 Health visitors with combined duties including district nursing and vice versa are included under both categories in the table, (i.e. double counted).

  3The figures for student health visitors and district nurses are provided according to the health board where their training college places are located. Other health boards may have students in these colleges and cannot be assumed to be zero. Data are at 31 October.

  Selected community nursing staff by health board as at 30 September 1993

  Number

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Health visitors

  174

  102

  40

  47

  123

  96

  225

  327

  Health visitor1

  142

  100

  26

  30

  123

  89

  207

  307

  Health visitors with combined duties2

  32

  2

  14

  17

  —

  7

  18

  20

  District nurses

  250

  151

  61

  100

  143

  154

  270

  458

  District nurse1

  195

  151

  10

  65

  143

  135

  199

  438

  District nurses with combined duties2

  55

  —

  51

  35

  —

  19

  71

  20

  906 907

  Selected community nursing staff by health board as at 30 September 1993

  Number

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Community psychiatric nurse

  32

  27

  8

  19

  27

  27

  35

  47

  School nurse

  35

  27

  6

  13

  36

  16

  27

  63

  Student health visitors3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19

  10

  Student district nurses3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22

  13

  1 The figures for health visitors and district nurses probably include some staff without an HV or DN qualification working in these fields, probably in a supporting role.

  2Health visitors with combined duties including district nursing and vice versa are included under both categories in the table, (i.e. double counted).

  3 The figures for student health visitors and district nurses are provided according to the health board where their training college places are located. Other health boards may have students in these colleges and cannot be assumed to be zero. Data are at 31 October.

  Selected community nursing staff by health board as at 30 September 1993

  Number

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Health visitors

  94

  181

  243

  9

  13

  140

  9

  Health visitor1

  54

  172

  240

  4

  6

  121

  9

  Health visitors with combined duties2

  40

  9

  3

  5

  7

  19

  —

  District nurses

  206

  239

  308

  38

  26

  210

  36

  District nurse1

  64

  204

  306

  20

  7

  158

  —

  District nurses with combined duties2

  142

  35

  2

  18

  19

  52

  36

  Community psychiatric nurse

  19

  16

  61

  —

  2

  33

  7

  School Nurse

  19

  47

  42

  —

  1

  34

  —

  Student health visitors3

  —

  —

  11

  —

  —

  9

  —

  Student district nurses3

  —

  —

  15

  —

  —

  9

  —

  1The figures for health visitors and district nurses probably include some staff without an HV or DN qualification working in these fields, probably in a supporting role.

  2Health visitors with combined duties including district nursing and vice versa are included under both categories in the table, (i.e.double counted).

  3The figures for student health visitors and district nurses are provided according to the health board where their training college places are located. Other health boards may have students in these colleges and cannot be assumed to be zero. Data are at 31 October.

  Selected community nursing staff by health board as at 30 September 1994

  Whole-time equivalent

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Health visitors

  150.1

  87.3

  38.8

  42.9

  111.8

  85.4

  199.7

  281.0

  Health visitor1

  122.8

  85.3

  24.8

  27.6

  111.8

  81.4

  181.5

  272.1

  Health visitors with combined duties2

  27.3

  2.0

  14.0

  15.3

  —

  4.0

  18.2

  8.9

  District nurses

  192.0

  136.6

  51.7

  75.1

  129.3

  134.1

  210.5

  376.4

  District nurse1

  149.7

  136.6

  6.5

  45.7

  129.3

  118.8

  140.7

  367.5

  District nurses with combined duties2

  42.3

  —

  45.2

  29.4

  —

  15.3

  69.8

  8.9

  Community psychiatric nurse

  34.4

  40.8

  12.7

  24.5

  24.6

  26.0

  30.3

  38.6

  School nurse

  29.0

  19.9

  3.5

  7.5

  28.9

  13.5

  15.5

  54.8

  Student health visitors (number)3

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  20

  Student district nurses (number)3

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  28

  1 The figures for health visitors and district nurses probably include some staff without an HV or DN qualification working in these fields, probably in a supporting role.

  2Health visitors with combined duties including district nursing and vice versa are included under both categories in the table, (i.e. double counted)

  3The figures for student health visitors and district nurses are provided according to the health board where their training college places are located. Other health boards may have students in these colleges and cannot be assumed to be zero. Data are at 31 October.

  908 909

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Health visitors

  82.3

  156.6

  210.1

  10.0

  16.0

  132.0

  9.4

  Health visitors1

  46.7

  149.6

  208.8

  5.0

  7.0

  110.2

  8.4

  Health visitors with combined duties2

  35.6

  7.0

  1.3

  5.0

  9.0

  21.8

  1.0

  District nurses

  162.8

  191.8

  246.5

  32.5

  27.8

  179.1

  30.1

  District nurse1

  53.5

  163.9

  245.2

  14.5

  7.3

  126.0

  —

  District nurses with combined duties2

  109.3

  27.9

  1.3

  18.0

  20.5

  53.1

  30.1

  Community psychiatric nurse

  20.0

  16.0

  58.5

  —

  3.0

  36.9

  6.3

  School nurse

  15.0

  42.0

  33.3

  —

  2.4

  20.0

  1.8

  Student health visitors(number)3

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  16

  —

  Student district nurses(number)3

  —

  —

  13

  —

  —

  12

  —

  1The figures for health visitors and district nurses probably include some staff without an HV or DN qualification working in these fields, probably in a supporting role.

  2Health visitors with combined duties including district nursing and vice versa are included under both categories in the table, (i.e. double counted).

  3The figures for student health visitors and district nurses are provided according to the health board where their training college places are located.

  Other health boards may have students in these colleges and cannot be assumed to be zero. Data are at 31 October.

  Selected community nursing staff by health board as at 30 September 1994

  Number

  Argyll and Clyde

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Fife

  Forth Valley

  Grampian

  Greater Glasgow

  Health visitors

  169

  95

  41

  48

  126

  92

  229

  302

  Health visitor1

  141

  93

  27

  32

  126

  88

  210

  291

  Health visitors with combined duties2

  28

  2

  14

  16

  —

  4

  19

  1l

  District nurses

  240

  172

  61

  110

  145

  156

  265

  457

  District nurse1

  193

  172

  11

  76

  145

  140

  188

  446

  District nurses with combined

  duties2

  47

  —

  50

  34

  —

  16

  77

  11

  Community psychiatric nurse

  35

  41

  13

  25

  25

  27

  31

  40

  School nurse

  39

  26

  5

  13

  36

  16

  27

  63

  Student health visitors3

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  36

  20

  Student district nurses3

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  28

  1The figures for health visitors and district nurses probably include some staff without an HV or DN qualification working in these fields, probably in a supporting role.

  2Health visitors with combined duties including district nursing and vice versa are included under both categories in the table, (i.e. double counted).

  3The figures for student health visitors and district nurses are provided according to the health board where their training college places are located. Other health boards may have students in these colleges and cannot be assumed to be zero. Data are at 31 October.

  Selected community nursing staff by health board as at 30 September 1994

  Highland

  Lanarkshire

  Lothian

  Orkney

  Shetland

  Tayside

  Western Isles

  Health visitors

  90

  171

  242

  10

  16

  145

  10

  Health visitor1

  53

  164

  240

  5

  7

  123

  9

  Health visitors with combined duties2

  37

  7

  2

  5

  9

  22

  1

  District nurses

  203

  220

  322

  36

  29

  220

  35

  District nurse1

  70

  191

  320

  18

  8

  164

  —

  District nurses with combined duties2

  133

  29

  2

  18

  21

  56

  35

  Community psychiatric nurse

  20

  16

  59

  —

  3

  38

  7

  School nurse

  20

  49

  45

  —

  3

  30

  2

  Student health visitors'

  —

  —

  10

  —

  —

  16

  —

  Student district nurses3

  —

  —

  13

  —

  —

  12

  —

  1The figures for health visitors and district nurses probably include some staff without an HV or DN qualification working in these fields, probably in a supporting role.

  2Health visitors with combined duties including district nursing and vice versa are included under both categories in the table, (i.e. double counted).

  3 The figures for student health visitors and district nurses are provided according to the health board where their training college places are located. Other health boards may have students in these colleges and cannot be assumed to be zero. Data are at 31 October.

  910 911
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a breakdown by area of the health visitors, district nurses and school nurses by each income band for September 1993 and the latest date for which information is available. [33258]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As the information requested is lengthy, I have arranged for copies of the tables to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Staff Opinion Polls
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which hospital trusts in Scotland have carried out staff opinion polls in the past two years; what were the results of each of these opinion polls; and if he will make a statement. [33993]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The findings of a 1993 national survey by the NHS management executive in Scotland are set out in "Framework for Action: What Those Who Work Within the NHS in Scotland Think 1993" a copy of which is in the Library. All trusts were asked to review the findings taking account of local circumstances and to develop, implement and report on action plans to tackle those issues identified as requiring action locally. From 1995 onwards the undertaking of such surveys is a matter for individual trusts.

  Health Visitors
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a breakdown by area of the population numbers per health visitor on September 1992 and September 1993 and for the latest date for which information is available; and what is the number of health visitors(a) per person under five and (b) per person over 65 years in each area. [33529]

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

  Population per Health Visitor1 2; whole-time equivalent at 30 September

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Argyll and Clyde

  3,054.1

  3,109.8

  3,223.6

  Ayrshire and Arran

  4,228.1

  4,202.5

  4,369.0

  Borders

  3,717.6

  3,527.6

  3,490.8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,286.1

  4,341.5

  4,299.4

  Fife

  3,104.7

  3,172.5

  3,149.4

  Forth Valley

  2,953.0

  3,152.5

  3,290.9

  Grampian

  2,630.4

  2,728.8

  2,810.9

  Greater Glasgow

  3,007.6

  3,102.1

  3,332.8

  Highland

  3,440.3

  3,400.7

  3,493.5

  Lanarkshire

  3,529.9

  3,469.7

  3,673.6

  Lothian

  3,546.1

  3,572.0

  3,624.2

  Orkney

  2,815.7

  3,293.3

  2,764.2

  Shetland

  2,369.9

  2,739.6

  2,288.0

  Tayside

  3,403.2

  3,388.4

  3,339.0

  Western Isles

  3,861.8

  3,644.4

  3,356.1

  1The figures for health visitors probably include some staff without an HV qualification working in this field, possibly in a supporting role.

  2The whole-time equivalent of health visitors used to produce the population rates includes staff with combined duties of either or both midwifery and district nursing. For such staff a proportion of their whole-time equivalent has been included. For example, for a HV/DN combined duty nurse the health visiting contribution is assumed to be half.

  912

  Health Visitors1 2per 1000 persons aged under 5 years; whole-time equivalent at 30 September

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Argyll and Clyde

  5.1

  5.0

  4.9

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3.7

  3.8

  3.6

  Borders

  4.6

  4.8

  4.9

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3.9

  3.8

  3.9

  Fife

  5.0

  5.0

  5.1

  Forth Valley

  5.4

  5.1

  4.9

  Grampian

  5.9

  5.7

  5.5

  Greater Glasgow

  5.1

  5.0

  4.7

  Highland

  4.5

  4.6

  4.5

  Lanarkshire

  4.3

  4.4

  4.2

  Lothian

  4.5

  4.5

  4.4

  Orkney

  5.2

  4.6

  5.5

  Shetland

  5.9

  5.0

  6.0

  Tayside

  4.8

  4.8

  4.9

  Western Isles

  4.2

  4.5

  5.0

  1The figures for health visitors probably include some staff without an HV qualification working in this field, possibly in a supporting role.

  2The whole-time equivalent of health visitors used to produce the population rates includes staff with combined duties of either or both midwifery and district nursing. For such staff a proportion of their whole-time equivalent has been included. For example, for a HV/DN combined duty nurse the health visiting contribution is assumed to be half.

  Health Visitors1, per 1000 persons aged over 65 years; whole-time equivalent at 30 September

  £000

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Argyll and Clyde

  2.3

  2.3

  2.2

  Ayrshire and Arran

  1.6

  1.6

  1.5

  Borders

  1.5

  1.6

  1.6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1.4

  1.4

  1.4

  Fife

  2.2

  2.2

  2.2

  Forth Valley

  2.5

  2.3

  2.2

  Grampian

  2.9

  2.8

  2.7

  Greater Glasgow

  2.3

  2.2

  2.1

  Highland

  2.1

  2.1

  2.0

  Lanarkshire

  2.4

  2.4

  2.3

  Lothian

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Orkney

  2.3

  2.1

  2.5

  Shetland

  3.3

  2.9

  3.5

  Tayside

  1.8

  1.8

  1.9

  Western Isles

  1.5

  1.6

  1.8

  1The figures for health visitors probably include some staff without an HV qualification working in this field, possibly in a supporting role.

  2The whole-time equivalent of health visitors used to produce the population rates includes staff with combined duties of either or both midwifery and district nursing. For such staff a proportion of their whole-time equivalent has been included. For example, for a HV/DN combined duty nurse the health visiting contribution is assumed to be half.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  BACUP Cancer Care
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to BACUP Cancer Care to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [35448]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee,
  913
  arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 20 November to Friday 24 November 1995.

  Photopasses
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what plans he has to make photopasses more readily identifiable, and if he will make a statement. [35325]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee has agreed to recommend certain revisions to make various categories of photopass more readily identifiable by differentiation of colour or superimposing a letter. Any new styles passes will be introduced by the Pass Office over the next six months:

  (a) Hon. Members:

  Green and white diagonal striped pass.

  (b) Permanent Staff (except Members' Research Assistants):

  Grey pass.

  (c) Temporary staff (except media):

  Yellow pass.

  (d) Media:

  Brown pass, with an orange "L" superimposed for those accorded Lobby status.

  (e) Members' Research Assistants:

  Grey or yellow pass as appropriate, with a red "R" superimposed. These passes have to be renewed annually.

  (f) Contractors:

  Blue pass, with a red "C" superimposed.

  The Committee will keep under review whether certain other categories of pass should be of an identifiable colour.

  All who work in the Palace of Westminster and in the parliamentary outbuildings must be in possession of a valid photopass, which should be worn whenever the holder is in the parliamentary estate.

  Passes cannot be issued until the necessary clearance procedure is completed and anyone taking on staff should allow sufficient time for the process to be completed before employment procedures are finalised. Clearances for individuals who are foreign nationals or who have lived abroad can take several weeks and some months.

  Hon. Members are reminded that passes issued to their secretaries and research assistants must be handed back to the Pass Office when their service with a Member ends.

  Members' Travel Expenses
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what has been the total cost of travel expenses claimed by hon. Members for each of the past five years by(a) car, (b) train and (c) other means of travel. [34777]

  Mr. Newton
  I am advised by the Fees Office that the information requested is as follows:

  (a) Car

  1990–91: £4,860,982

  1991–92: £5,682,276

  1992–93: £5,416,393

  1993–94: £5,832,266

  1994–95: £6,105,196

  914

  (b) Rail

  1990–91: £741,843

  1991–92: £876,121

  1992–93: £870,194

  1993–94: £927,020

  1994–95: £906,901

  (c) Other

  1990–91: £727,661

  1991–92: £719,779

  1992–93: £783,080

  1993–94: £875,511

  1994–95: £919,537

  Office Costs Allowance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members receive the office costs allowance. [34779]

  Mr. Newton
  I am informed by the Fees Office that 651 hon. Members receive the office costs allowance.

  Members' Car Allowance
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many hon. Members claim the rate under the hon. Members' car allowance scheme for(a) cars under 1300 cc (b) cars between 1300 cc and 2300 cc and (c) cars over 2301 cc. [31520]

  Mr. Newton
  The Fees Office has advised me that the information requested is as follows:

  (i) 6 Members claim all 3 rates (a) (b) and (c)

  (ii) 15 Members claim rates (a) and (b)

  (iii) 19 Members claim rates (a) and (c)

  (iv) 113 Members claim rates (b) and (c)

  (v) 478 Members claim only one rate

  The total number of hon. Members claiming under the Members' car allowance scheme is 631.

WALES

  Welsh Office: Highways Directorate
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to change the status of the Welsh Office highways directorate. [35733]

  Mr. Hague
  The highways directorate is responsible for managing and improving the motorway and trunk road network in an efficient and effective way. Following an options review, I have decided to seek further efficiency improvements within the existing organisational framework. In future, the directorate will be run more on next steps lines, in order to clarify responsibility and sharpen accountability. In addition, consideration will be given to market testing certain of the directorate's functions.

  Community Nurses
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many(a) health visitors, (b) district nurses, (c) community psychiatric nurses and (d) school nurses were employed in each area of Wales on 30 September

  915
  1993 and for the latest date available, expressed as whole-time equivalents and actual numbers; and if he will list the same information for student health visitors and student district nurses; [33260]

  (2) if he will publish a breakdown by area of the health visitors, district nurses and school nurses by each income band for September 1993 and the latest date for which information is available; [33261]

  (3) if he will publish a breakdown by area of the population numbers per health visitor on September 1992 and September 1993 and for the latest date for which information is available; and what is the number of health visitors (a) per under five and (b) per over 65 years in each area. [33262]

  Mr. Richards
  Reliable estimates of the numbers of nursing staff employed in specific occupational groups, such as those requested, are not available centrally.

  Based on service requirements indicated by work force plans, there were 33 student health visitors and 33 student district nurses in September 1993. The figures for April 1995 were 26 and 29 respectively.

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to establish a Welsh institution to undertake the functions currently carried out by the Meat and Livestock Commission, and if he will make a statement. [34993]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None. Tuberculosis

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many outbreaks of tuberculosis amongst livestock were recorded in Wales during(a) 1992, (b) 1993 and (c) 1994; and if he will make a statement. [35056]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the period 1992–94 the number of confirmed tuberculosis breadowns in livestock in Wales were as follows.

  1992: 37

  1993: 91

  1994: 269

  The figures relate to cattle only. There were no cases of tuberculosis in deer.

  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of the suckler cow premium scheme for 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34991]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of £20,920,338.Nitrate Sensitive Areas

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of the sheep annual premium scheme in 1994–95; what proportion of the United Kingdom figure this represents; and if he will make a statement. [35122]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of £113,300,000, which represented 28.6 per cent. of total United Kingdom expenditure.

  Nitrate Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what proportion of the United Kingdom's nitrate sensitive areas are situated in Wales; and if he will make a statement; [34968]

  (2) what proportion of eligible land in Welsh nitrate sensitive areas has entered the current scheme; and if he will make a statement; [34970]

  (3) what was the total value of payments made to Welsh farmers under the nitrate sensitive areas scheme in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34969]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no nitrate sensitive areas designated in Wales.

  Habitat Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of land were accepted into the habitat scheme in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34987]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No land was accepted into the scheme in 1994–95; the scheme did not become operational until 9 January 1995.

  Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the value of grants paid to farmers under the farm and conservation grant scheme in 1994–95; and what proportion of the total United Kingdom figure this represented. [35125]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of £5,250,000, which represented 13.7 per cent. of United Kingdom expenditure.

  Training
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many formal training days per member of staff are planned by his Department in 1995–96; and if he will make a statement. [34960]

  Mr. Hague
  Members of staff plan their training with their line managers. Records are not kept centrally.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many hectares of land in Wales are currently covered by environmentally sensitive area agreements; and if he will make a statement. [34988]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  A total of 84,710 hectares.

  Milk Producers
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of registered milk producers in Wales; if he will express this number as a proportion of the total number of registered milk producers in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [34975]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  On 1 July 1995, there were 4,915 milk producers in Wales. This represents 17.6 per cent. of those registered in England and Wales.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of States for Wales what proportion of his Department's budget on regional selective assistance specifically targets Wales; and if he will make a statement. [35011]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information relating to regional selective assistance in Wales is published each year in the Welsh Office departmental report. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Business Development Consortia
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many business link shops have been opened in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [34937]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The business link network operates in England only. In Wales, the eight business development consortia approved in January are working towards developing a business support network and I expect it to be operational within the next six months.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what is his estimate for the amount of expenditure which will be incurred in Wales during 1995–96 as a part of the rural economy scheme; and if he will make a statement. [34887]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Rural Wales benefits from a number of schemes including the strategic development scheme, regional selective assistance, European structural funds, and support from the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. Details of the expenditures are published in the Welsh Office departmental report.

  David John Edwards
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received regarding probate of the will of the late David John Edwards of Talybont, Ceredigion; and if he will make a statement. [35483]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No representations have been received.

HEALTH

  Infertility
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy in respect of the recognition by the World Health Organisation of the condition that requires in-vitro fertilisation and/or gamete intra-fallopian transfer as an illness; and what guidance he has issued to health authorities. [33665]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is a matter for clinical judgment what treatment is appropriate for individual patients.

  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice health authorities located in the South-West and Wessex regional health authority area have sought from his Department about the most efficacious provision of infertility treatment and diagnosis in the last two years; and if he will make a statement; [34214]
  918
  (2) what contacts his Department has had with those district health authorities located in the South-West and Wessex regional health authority area about infertility treatment and investigation in the United Kingdom in the last two years; and if he will make a statement; [34264]

  (3) if he will list exceptions to his policy that NHS treatments should be provided in the most cost-effective manner with specific reference to infertility treatment; and if he will make a statement. [34256]

  Mr. Bowis
  Advice on the provision of infertility treatment is available to all health authorities and clinicians in:The Effective Health Care Bulletin on "The Management of Subfertility" (August 1992), published for the NHS management executive by a consortium of Leeds and York universities and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians.

  The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has also published advice in "Infertility—Guidelines for Practice", RCOG Press 1992. Copies of both publications are available in the Library.

  Health authorities in the South-West and Wessex RHA have not sought any particular advice from, nor been in contact with, the Department about infertility services over the last two years. Local health authorities are responsible for the provision of local health services, including the provision of infertility services. Decisions about the resources to be made available for these services must be left to individual health authorities as they are in the best position to determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women, have suffered from infertility problems for the last 10 years, by region. [34632]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not available.

  NHS Indemnity
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give consideration to the funding of legal claims to ensure that(a) purchasers and providers have access to insurance policies to indemnify themselves against claims and (b) budgets for patient services are not affected by the level of claims made against the unit; if he will consider any other schemes which will enable people with grievances against the national health service to have their complaints heard in whatever is the most appropriate manner with the most suitable redress and resolution being made available; and if he will make a statement. [33670]

  Mr. Malone
  My Department has no plans to fund legal claims made against national health service trusts.

  Pilot schemes using mediation as an alternative means of handling clinical negligence claims have been launched in two English regions. We hope that mediation will prove to be a less stressful, more cost-effective and quicker option than litigation in some clinical negligence cases. Also, in response to the Wilson report "Being Heard", published in 1994, my Department published in March 1995, "Acting on Complaints", which sets out plans for a simpler, fairer and more effective NHS complaints system that we are aiming to produce from April 1996. Copies of both documents have been placed in the Library.

  Feotuses
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of 5 July, Official Report, column 221, on what grounds he has decided that no action is called for in the light of the evidence on whether foetuses feel pain. [34076]

  Mr. Bowis
  The report has been made available to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. We shall keep this issue under careful review.

  Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research and findings his Department has carried out into(a) anonymous sero-testing reference samples MIF chlamydia/herpes serology, (b) comparisons between MCS 9406 UK calcipotrol solution and capasal in scalp psoriasis, (c) the treatment of patients suffering from chronic schizophrenia with open label seroquel, (d) a random and double-blind study of safety and efficacy of Tiagbire versus Carbamazapine as monotherapy in patients with partial seizures and (e) an MRI study of early childhood convulsions; what were the findings; and if he will make a statement. [34082]

  Mr. Bowis
  No research has been carried out on anonymised serum samples for chlamydia or herpes simplex, but the Department co-ordinates an unlinked anonymous prevalence monitoring programme in England and Wales for human immunodeficiency virus.

  Medicinal products for use in clinical trials are regulated under the Medicines Act 1968 and subsidiary legislation. The Medicines Control Agency acting on behalf of the Licensing Authority, keeps confidential records of all applications to conduct clinical trials. Information from these records cannot be disclosed in accordance with section 118 of the Medicines Act.

  Staff Costs, London
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the cost of(a) managers and administrators and (b) medical staff working in the national health service in the Greater London area in each of the last 10 years. [34105]

  Mr. Malone
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Alcohol
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response his Department will be making to the World Health Organisation's European alcohol action plan. [34446]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government's alcohol policies are set out in action against alcohol misuse, 1991, and in "The Health of the Nation".

  Ophthalmic Patients (Burnley General Hospital)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Medical Devices Agency will be publishing its report regarding the incident at Burnley general hospital in which ophthalmic patients each lost an eye; what plans 920
  he has to take action against the manufacturers or suppliers of the equipment; and if he will make a statement. [34544]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Medical Devices Agency has investigated the incident referred to and published a hazard notice, MDA HN 9503 May 1995, copies of which will be placed in the Library. The Medical Devices Agency is working with the manufacturers to ensure that improved instructions are provided to users of the devices.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the results of(a) his policies and (b) his Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if he will publish the performance indicators by which his Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34701]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department recognises the important role that small firms play in supplying health care products, including goods and services, whether for use in this country or for export. The policies adopted by the Department in support of the health care industries favour all companies equally. The Department does not collect any statistics specifically about small companies. An equally important and increasing role is played by independent firms and organisations providing residential and respite care and domiciliary and day care services. Many, but not all, such firms are small and encouraged by Government policies.

  Listeria
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many public interest immunity certificates he has signed in respect of documents relating to listeria in the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [34407]

  Mr. Bowis
  My right hon. Friend has never signed a public interest immunity certificate.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total number of cases of reported listeria(a) for each year from 1985 and (b) for the latest available date. [34222]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of cases of listeriosis reported to the Public Health Laboratory in England and Wales between 1985 and 1995 is as follows:

  1985: 149

  1986: 137

  1987: 259

  1988: 291

  1989: 250

  1990: 118

  1991: 130

  1992: 108

  1993: 106

  1994: 113 (provisional data)

  1995: 16 (provisional data for first quarter)

  Note

  These figures include a few cases from Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if
  921
  he will list the number of reported cases of listeria associated with pregnancy (a) for each year from 1985 and (b) for the latest available date. [34223]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of cases of pregnancy associated listeriosis reported to the Public Health Laboratory Service in England and Wales between 1985 and 1995 is as follows:

  1985: 59

  1986: 42

  1987: 105

  1988: 122

  1989: 117

  1990: 26

  1991: 33

  1992: 25

  1993: 20

  1994: 25 (provisional data)

  1995: 1 (provisional data for first quarter)

  Note

  These figures include a few cases from Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions his Department has held with the World Health Organisation regarding listeria in food in the last five years. [34231]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department maintains on-going contact with the World Health Organisation on food safety issues but has not held any specific discussions about food-borne listeriosis in the last five years.

  Radiation Tests (Compensation)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many claims for compensation his Department has received relating to radiation tests on humans since 1965; and if he will make a statement. [34477]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department is not aware of any such claims.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the last 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as "www.open.gov.uk" and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34678]

  Mr. Bowis
  A selection of departmental information sources have been made available on the Government world wide web server—"http://www.open.gov.uk./doh/dhhome.htm"—since 20 June, including details of its strategic aims and objectives, national health service developments, departmental publications, progress on "The Health of the Nation" initiative and telephone inquiry services. These Internet home pages, currently under trial for six months, are being revised as new information becomes available. Following the end of the trial, a decision will be taken on whether to extend the current range of information services made available over the Internet.
  922

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regular monitoring his Department requires by hospitals, trusts or health district of the occasions when, prior to cancellation of an operation, a patient(a) arrives at hospital but is not admitted to a bed, (b) is admitted but undergoes no preparation and is not prohibited from food and drink and (c) is prepared for an operation or is prohibited from taking food and drink. [34362]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. Trust are required to monitor the number of occasions operations are cancelled on the day the patient is due to come into hospital or after the patient has been admitted and the occasions when a new date is not given within one months of the cancellation.

  Infant Mortality
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the rate of infant mortality as a percentage of live births for each of the years(a) 1975, (b) 1979, (c) 1983, (d) 1987, (e) 1991 and the latest 12 months for which statistics are available. [34726]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is shown in the table.

  Infant mortality rate as a percentage of live births ' for the years 1975, 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991 and 1994, England and Wales.

  Year

  Percentage of live births

  1975

  1.57

  1979

  1.28

  1983

  1.01

  1987

  0.92

  1991

  0.74

  1994

  0.62

  Epilepsy Research
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what research his Department has carried out into a comparison of lamotrigine and valproate monotherapy in patients with primary generalised seizures; with what findings; and if he will make a statement; [34728]

  (2) what research his Department has carried out into epilepsy; with what findings; and if he will make a statement. [34729]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am not aware of any published or current research comparing lamotrigine and valproate in monotherapy in patients with primary generalised seizures.

  The main agency through which the Government fund medical research is the Medical Research Council, which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Visually Impaired People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for health which institutions and organisations currently provide training for rehabilitation and mobility workers for visually impaired people; how many places on such courses are presently available; and how these institutions and organisations are funded. [35008]
  923
  Mr. Bowis
  Training for rehabilitation and mobility workers for visually impaired people is currently provided by the university of Central England and by the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association. The university of Central England provides 16 places on the course for the diploma of higher education in rehabilitation studies and six on the course for the certificate of qualification in orientation and mobility with visually impaired children and young persons. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association provides 33 placed on its diploma of higher education in rehabilitation studies courses in England and six places in Scotland.

  I understand that the courses at the university of Central England are partly funded by the university with funds from the Higher Education Funding Council, supplemented by an annual grant from the Royal National Institute for the Blind, and also from income from student fees. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is a registered charity whose objects include promoting the welfare of all blind people. Courses are funded partly by the charity and also from income from student fees. Tuition fees for some students are met by local authorities, or their agents under contract to them for the provision of visual disability services. The Department's social services training support programme includes a specific sub-programme for visual disability training. Under the sub-programme, up to 70 per cent. of the tuition fees may be met by the Department of Health and the remainder by the sponsoring local authority.

  Renal Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the consultation period ended for the review of renal services; when his Department intends to publish these findings; and if he will make a statement. [35377]

  Mr. Bowis
  The renal review was an internal review for the Department of Health and it has not been issued for formal consultation. Ministers are currently considering the review.

  Smoking
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration his Department has given to the relationship between long-term smoking among women and the risk of developing breast cancer; what plans his Department has to introduce new warnings on tobacco products and advertisements informing female smokers of the risk of breast cancer; and if he will make a statement. [35264]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department of Health is aware of published evidence' that smoking seems to increase the risk of developing breast cancer to a modest extent among women who have smoked for more than 30 years.

  Government health warnings, which appear on all cigarette packets, include a statement warning smokers that smoking causes cancer. The Department of Health has no plans to change the health warnings.
  1 Cigarette smoking and breast cancer. Bennicke, K. Conrad, C. et al. BMJ Vol 310 pp 1431–1433, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Community Nurses
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a breakdown by region of the health visitors, district nurses and school nurses by each income band for September 1993 and the latest date for which information is available. [33251]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a breakdown by region of the population numbers per health visitor on September 1992 and September 1993 and for the latest date for which information is available; and what is the number of health visitors(a) per under five and (b) per over 65 years in each region. [33253]

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

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community nurses were employed by each health authority and, where relevant, by each trust within London in each year since 1987. [33252]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Care Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his assessment of the percentage of NHS beds blocked due to unavailability of community care services; and if he will make a statement. [34258]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for South Colchester and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) on 22 June, column 342.

  Drugs (Payments)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the figures for disbursements by the Prescription Pricing Authority in England for 1992–93 in respect of payments for drugs to dispensing doctors and drugs supplied by prescribing doctors in terms of the(a) net ingredient cost, (b) discounted cost, (c) VAT, (d) container allowance, (e) dispensing fees, (f) on costs and (g) in total. [34260]

  Mr. Malone
  Payments made by family health services authorities for 1992–93 were as follows:

  Payments made to Chemists and Appliance Contractors for prescriptions dispensed

  £000

  Net ingredient cost

  2,697,766

  Discounted cost

  2,448,332

  VAT

  5,731

  Container allowance

  18,817

  Dispensing fees

  463,987

  On cost

  111,175

  Total

  3,063,110

  925

  Payments made to Dispensing Doctors for prescriptions dispensed and items personally administered

  £000

  Net ingredient cost

  190,558

  Discounted cost

  177,189

  VAT

  30,890

  Container allowance

  1,140

  Dispensing fees

  26,239

  On cost

  20,007

  Total

  255,527

  Payments made to Non-dispensing Doctors for items personally administered

  £000

  Net ingredient cost

  37,145

  Discounted cost

  36,952

  VAT

  6,518

  Container allowance

  356

  Dispensing fees

  9,122

  On cost

  3,899

  Total

  56,859

  Immunisation (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will consider targeting immunisation vaccination for tuberculosis at high-risk groups; and if he will make a statement. [34262]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department's recommendation for Bacille-Calmette Guérin immunisation against tuberculosis are contained in the United Kingdom health departments' memorandum "Immunisation against Infectious Disease", copies of which are available in the Library. In addition to the schools' immunisation programme, BCG immunisation is already recommended for certain high-risk groups which include certain contacts of cases, immigrants from countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis and their infants wherever they were born, certain health care and veterinary staff and some overseas travellers.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress that has been made on the consultation and implementation of the Government's proposals for NHS dentistry as announced in April. [34257]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government are working closely with the General Dental Services Committee on the detailed development of the reform proposals that I announced to the House on 5 April,Official Report, columns 1213–15. We are making good progress and aim to move to implement the reform measures in due course.

  Long-term Health Care
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the percentage of the population requiring long-term health care for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available; what is his estimate of the 926
  percentage of the population requiring long-term health care for each of the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [34259]

  Mr. Bowis
  People with long-term health care needs are supported by a wide range of services purchased by the national health service, including in-patient hospital care, general practitioner and primary care support, and continuing care in hospital or an alternative facility. Information on the percentage of population receiving these services who have continuing health care needs is not aggregated centrally.

  Day Care (Elderly)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are issued by his Department to health authorities on what day care facilities should be provided for the elderly; and if he will make a statement. [34261]

  Mr. Bowis
  The national health service executive wrote to health authorities in February 1995 drawing their attention to two publications from the Royal College of Physicians and British Geriatrics Society entitled "Geriatric Day Hospitals—their role and guidelines for good practice" and "Clinical audit scheme for geriatric day hospitals". Health authorities were asked to ensure that these documents inform their strategic planning and purchasing processes for services for elderly people. Copies are available in the Library.

  NHS Organ Donor Register
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have joined the NHS organ donor register; and if he will make a statement. [34263]

  Mr. Bowis
  Since the national health service organ donor register was launched on 6 October 1994, over 1.5 million people have joined the register, of which around 400,000 of these were transferred from the existing lifeline Wales register. We shall continue to promote the NHS organ donor register and to support publicity campaigns for this important initiative to encourage organ donation.

  Food Safety
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions and advice his Department has been involved with regarding food safety issues with members of the medical profession in the last five years; [34227]

  (2) what discussions and advice his Department has been involved with regarding concerns over listeria in food, with members of the medical profession in the last five years. [34228]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department maintains on-going contact with the medical profession of food safety issues, including food-borne listeriosis. The Department also receives expert advice on microbiological food safety from the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food which includes members of the medical profession.

  Transplant Surgery
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in England and Wales are awaiting transplant surgery for each organ in each health region for the latest year for which information is available. [34646]

  Table 1: Number of patients on the national United Kingdom Transplant Support Services Authority transplant waiting list at 31 December 1994 by region of registration

  Organ

  Region

  Kidney

  Pancreas

  Kidney and pancreas

  Heart

  Lung

  Heart/Lung

  Liver

  Northern and Yorkshire

  471

  0

  15

  35

  78

  20

  16

  Trent

  431

  0

  0

  33

  10

  1

  0

  Anglia and Oxford

  317

  0

  2

  21

  10

  37

  14

  North Thames

  837

  0

  3

  102

  71

  111

  20

  South Thames

  573

  1

  0

  22

  1

  0

  14

  South West

  441

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  484

  0

  3

  14

  7

  1

  36

  North West

  573

  2

  19

  43

  16

  15

  0

  Wales

  92

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  4,219

  4

  45

  270

  193

  185

  100

  Table 2: Number of patients on the national United Kingdom Transplant Support Services Authority transplant waiting list at 12 July 1994 by region of registration

  Organ

  Region

  Kidney

  Pancreas

  Kidney and pancreas

  Heart

  Lung

  Heart/Lung

  Liver

  Northern and Yorkshire

  469

  0

  17

  43

  86

  17

  17

  Trent

  433

  0

  0

  41

  12

  1

  0

  Anglia and Oxford

  359

  0

  2

  13

  11

  30

  24

  North Thames

  855

  1

  6

  107

  74

  110

  23

  South Thames

  595

  1

  0

  29

  2

  1

  34

  South West

  468

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Midlands

  509

  1

  7

  19

  6

  5

  38

  North West

  578

  0

  14

  43

  21

  11

  0

  Wales

  108

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  4,374

  4

  48

  295

  212

  175

  136

  Medical Graduates
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department holds on the numbers of(a) doctors and (b) nurses who do not take on NHS posts after completing their training. [34786]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department or the NHS executive hold on(a) managerial and (b) general practitioner posts that are vacant. [34783]

  Mr. Malone
  None. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 12 June,Official Report, column 361, about general practitioner vacancies.

  Consultants (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants have taken early retirement in each region in each quarter over the last five years. [34787]
  928
  Mr. Bowis
  The tables show the information for the year ending 31 December 1994, and the same information as at 12 July 1995. There is considerable variation between the numbers waiting in each region because heart, lung and liver transplants are funded supra-regionally.

  Mr. Malone
  Regional information is not available centrally.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in each region waiting(a) more than six months for an out-patient appointment and (b) more than 18 months for in-patient or day care treatment belong to (i) general practitioner fundholder practices and (ii) non-general practitioner fundholder practices. [34825]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in each region belong to(a) general practitioner fundholder practices and (b) non-general practitioner fundholder practices. [34894]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 15 March,Official Report, columns 579–80, and to the

  929
  reply I gave the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 24 May, Official Report, columns 595–96.

  Nursing Posts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by region the number of nursing posts in each specialty that have been vacant in each of the last three years. [34782]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information on the number and rate of nursing vacancies in the national health service is collected by the Office of Manpower Economics and is reproduced in the reports produced by the Review Body for Nurses, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings the Medicines Control Agency has recently held with(a) health food manufacturers, (b) consumers organisations, (c) pharmaceutical companies and (d) nutritional therapists to discuss European companies and policy on dietary supplements; and what plans he has as a result to change his Department's policy on the forthcoming European Commission consultation document on dietary supplements. [35096]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Medicines Control Agency has not, and does not, hold meetings with any organisations to discuss policy on dietary supplements as its regulatory responsibility is for medicinal products.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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.

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: The total expenditure on computer consultancy by the Department and its agencies in each of the last five years was:

  1990–91: £10.25 million

  1991–92: £12.57 million

  1992–93: £13.65 million

  1993–94: £13.25 million

  1994–95: £14.51 million

  Expenditure over the next five years will depend on future requirements and the outcome of a market-testing exercise presently being undertaken by the Department.

  NHS Staff
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the total number and how much money has been expended on administrative staff, including general and senior managers and clerical and secretarial staff, in each of the last five years(a) in total and (b) by district health authority, family health services authority, regional health authority, and his Department. [26285]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 25 May 1995]: The available information of health authorities will be placed in the Library. For the total numbers of staff for the last five years, I refer the right hon. Member to the statistical
  930
  bulletins, copies of which are in the Library. For the total costs of staff for the year 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93, I refer the right hon. Member to the health and personal social services statistics for England 1994 edition, copies of which are in the Library. The total cost of staff as requested for 1993–94—provisional—is £2,277,566,000.

  Data on staff numbers for district health authorities cannot be provided for 1989 and 1990 because the aggregate figures collected for those years do not identify staff in DHA headquarters separately. The 1993 figures cannot be provided because some DHA HQs could not be disaggregated from the whole DHA figure. No data are available for 1991 or 1992 because the figures for DHAs, regional health authorities and family health services authorities cannot be disaggregated.

  FHSAs were created in September 1990, replacing family practitioner committees. Since 1990, it has not been possible to identify the numbers and categories of staff employed by individual FHSAs. Details of the total number and the amount of money expended on administrative staff in my Department are provided in tables 12 and 13 of the Department's annual report, Command Paper 2812, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Auditors' Remuneration
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much(a) health authorities and (b) trusts have spent on auditors' remuneration in each year since 1992, by region. [34159]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: Information for 1993–94 is as follows:

  1993–94: Auditor remuneration (£000)

  Region

  Health authorities

  NHS trusts

  Northern

  1,607

  1,051

  Yorkshire

  1,133

  1,886

  Trent

  1,694

  1,772

  East Anglian

  587

  849

  North West Thames

  1,069

  1,939

  North East Thames

  1,044

  1,860

  South East Thames

  1,462

  1,807

  South West Thames

  1,108

  1,181

  Wessex

  1,149

  1,062

  Oxford

  1,122

  652

  South Western

  612

  1,259

  West Midlands

  1,999

  1,230

  Mersey

  631

  1,473

  North Western

  1,682

  1,016

  Note:

  1. The figure is the fee for auditing the annual accounts and returns plus value for money studies.

  2. The London postgraduate teaching hospitals (SHAs) are not included in the table.

  Source:

  Annual accounts of regional, district and family health services authorities and summarisation schedules of NHS trusts.

  Information for 1992–93 was presented on a different basis, and is therefore not comparable with 1993–94.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Cells
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of keeping prisoners in police cells(a) in each year since police cells have been used for this purpose and (b) in total. [34434]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Jack Straw, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of keeping prisoners in police cells (a) in each year since police cells have been used for this purpose and (b) in total.The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Total costs of holding prisoners in police cells—1981–82 to 1994–95

  Financial year

  £ million

  1981–82

  0.002

  1982–83

  3.4

  1983–84

  10.8

  1984–85

  3.4

  1985–86

  2.2

  1986–87

  6.2

  1987–88

  24.9

  1988–89

  64.9

  1989–90

  12.4

  1990–91

  53.1

  1991–92

  94

  1992–93

  98.5

  1993–94

  11.0

  1994–95

  16.0

  Total

  400.802

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total cost of holding prisoners in police cells per year by police force area for each year since 1987; [33478]

  (2) how many prisoner nights were spent in police cells for each year since 1987. [33479]

  Miss Widdecombe
  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 Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 17 July 1995.
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of prisoner nights spent in police cells for each year since 1987, and the total cost of holding prisoners in police cells per year by police force area for each year since 1987.Information on the number of prisoner nights spent in police cells before 1990 is not available. Information for each year since 1990 is given in table 1.932 Information on the cost of holding prisoners in police cells by police force area before 1994 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Details of costs by police force area for 1994 and the total costs of holding prisoners in police cells for the financial years 1986–87–1994–95 are given in tables 2 and 3.

  Table 1: Number of prisoner nights spent in police cells 1990–1995

  Year

  Number

  1990

  241,835

  1991

  375,625

  1992

  351,929

  1993

  9,796

  1994

  54,277

  19951

  34,106

  1Up to an including 15 June.

  Table 2: Total costs of holding prisoners in police cells—1986ߝ94ߝ95

  Financial year

  £ million

  1986ߝ87

  6.2

  1987ߝ88

  24.9

  1988ߝ89

  64.9

  1989ߝ90

  12.4

  1990ߝ91

  53.1

  1991ߝ92

  94.0

  1992ߝ93

  98.5

  1993ߝ94

  11.0

  1994ߝ95

  16.0

  Tablel 3: Cost of holding prisioners in police cells by police authority—1994

  Police Authority

  Cost £

  Greater Manchester

  10,898,576

  Merseyside

  1,059,605

  West Yorks

  347,704

  South Yorks

  724,563

  Humberside

  232,458

  Northants

  9,191

  Lancashire

  939,767

  Cumbria

  13,385

  Northumbria

  349,517

  Cheshire

  38,327

  Total

  14,613,093

  Total does not include £166,603 in respect of invoices awaiting approval.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of holding prisoners in police cells (a) per night and (b) in total, over the last 12 months. [33477]

  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 Ms Marjorie Mowlam, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of holding prisoners in police cells (a) per night and (b) in total, over the last 12 months, by police force area.Currently available provisional information is given in the table attached.933

  Table showing average cost of holding prisoners in police cells per prisoner night and the total cost from 1 June 1994 up to, and including, 15 June 1995 by police force area

  Police force area

  Average cost per prisoner night £

  Total cost £

  Greater Manchester

  277

  11,807,172

  South Yorkshire2

  1,746

  75,088

  Lancashire

  244

  400,914

  North Wales2

  1,272

  25,443

  Merseyside

  251

  116,907

  West Yorkshire

  Figures not available1

  Cheshire

  Figures not available1

  1 These areas have not yet submitted any invoices.

  2 The comparatively high average cost in these areas is caused by the fact that they only hold small numbers of prisoners on a sporadic basis.

  Police Compensation Payments
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid out by the Metropolitan police by way of(a) out of court settlements and (b) compensation in each year since 1984; and how much has so far been paid this year. [34647]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is set out in the table.

  Year

  Out of Court Settlements £

  Compensation £

  1984

  162,000

  15,000

  1985

  194,000

  14,000

  1986

  330,000

  47,000

  1987

  82,000

  11,000

  1988

  250,000

  104,000

  1989

  267,000

  232,000

  1990

  557,000

  188,000

  1991

  390,000

  21,000

  1992

  468,000

  203,000

  1993

  1,332 000

  53,000

  1994

  1,050,000

  84,000

  19951

  426,000

  50,000

  Notes:

  1 1995 figure to 30 june.

  Mary Druhan
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of the case of Mary Druhan of HM prison, New Hall; and if he will make a statement. [34512]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Representations submitted by Justice that Mary Druhan was wrongfully convicted are still under consideration and the Metropolitan police are making inquiries into a number of matters in them. When their report is received, the review of Mary Druhan's case will be concluded as speedily as possible.

  Ministerial Meetings (Police Representatives)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the last three dates on which he met(a) representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers and (b) representatives of local police authorities, excluding in each case meetings chaired by Home Office officials. [34389]
  934
  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend met representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers on 6 June, 29 June and 5 July 1995 and representatives of local police authorities on 17 February, 8 June and 5 July 1995.

  Stalking
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what date he hopes to publish the results of his Department's review of the law on stalking. [34797]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are looking at the anti-stalking laws of the United States and Canada to see if there are any lessons to be learnt from them.

  We are presently awaiting further details from these countries and therefore I cannot say when this examination is likely to be completed. We shall consider whether there is a need for a formal review of our legislation in the light of this examination and the examination of other evidence which has been provided to us by the national anti-stalking and harassment campaign among others.

  Child Witnesses
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department intends to take to reduce the trauma experienced by child witnesses in court following the findings of the Leicester university research into the effectiveness of the special provisions for child witnesses contained in the Criminal Justice Act 1991; and if he will make a statement. [34796]

  Mr. Maclean
  We are considering the findings of the report, and in particular whether the memorandum of good practice on video-recorded interviews with child witnesses should be revised to take account of them.

  IRA Prisoners (Visitors)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what new restrictions concerning visiting rights have been imposed on IRA prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons in Britain; what representations he has received concerning such restrictions; and if he will make a statement; [33946]

  (2) how many republican prisoners in Her Majesty's prisons have had visiting rights removed; if visiting by legal -advisers and consular visits are included; how many category A prisoners, including republican prisoners, now have closed visits; and if he will make a statement. [33944]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 12 July 19951: 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 Mr. Max Madden, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about visiting arrangements for IRA prisoners.935 No Republican prisoners have had visiting rights removed. A policy of closed visits for all exceptional risk category A prisoners was introduced on 19 June. There are currently 13 such prisoners, 8 of whom are Irish terrorists. There are a further 27 category A Irish terrorists not classified as exceptional risk who are therefore unaffected by this policy. Representations or inquiries have been received from a firm of solicitors, a member of the Irish Parliament, the Irish embassy and a member of the United Kingdom Parliament. The policy applies to all visits including legal and consular visits.

  St. Charles' Centre, Brentwood
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effects he expects the closure of St. Charles' centre, Brentwood, to have on the prison population. [33811]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 12 July 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what effects he expects the closure of St Charles Centre, Brentwood to have on the prison population.There will be no measurable effect on the prison population as a result of the closure of St Charles. The Home Office has placed no newly sentenced detainees at St Charles for the past twelve months and none of the existing occupants will be transferred to Young Offender Institutions.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, by Crown court circuit region, are on remand in custody awaiting trial in the Crown court. [34806]

  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. Stephen Byers, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many people, by Crown Court circuit region, are on remand in custody awaiting trial in the Crown Court.The available information shows that there were 4,224 untried prisoners in Prison Service establishments on 31 May 1995 in England and Wales who were committed for, or were in the course of, trial at the Crown Court. A breakdown by Crown Court circuit region is not available.
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average period of time for which a person has been held on remand in custody in prisons in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [34349]

  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 17 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what is the average period of time for which a person has been held on remand in custody in prisons in England and Wales during the last 12 months.936
  The information requested is given in the attached table.

  Estimated average time spent in custody for untried and convicted unsentenced prisoners, in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, June 1994-May 19951

  Type of custody

  Receptions June 1994-May 1995

  Estimated average number of days in custody4

  Untried2

  55,802

  59

  Convicted unsentenced3

  29,191

  39

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Time spent in custody before conviction.

  3 Time spent in custody after conviction before sentence.

  4 Estimated from number of receptions and average population in 1994–95.

  Assaults on Police
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been stabbed in the course of their duties by a person carrying a knife in the period from 1 January to 30 June within the Greater London area. [34763]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that during the period 1 January to 31 May 10 Metropolitan police officers suffered injury as the result of an attack with a sharp instrument. Figures for the period after 31 May are not yet available.

  Prison Boards of Visitors
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women are members of boards of visitors at prisons in England and Wales. [34765]

  Miss Widdecombe
  There are 923 men and 785 women who are members of boards of visitors at prisons in England and Wales.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of(a) men and (b) women of an ethnic minority background who are members of boards of visitors at prisons in England and Wales as at 1 July. [34345]

  Miss Widdecombe
  As at 1 July there were 83 men and 45 women of an ethnic minority background who were members of boards of visitors at prisons in England and Wales.

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the involvement of the Deputy Prime Minister in the work of his Department. [34034]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Prime Minister in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on 11 July,Official Report, column 496–97.

  Exclusion Orders
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders have been issued in each month of 1995. [34019]
  937
  Mr. Howard
  Three exclusion orders have been made so far this year; one in each of the months of January, May and June. Each was made on the expiry of an existing exclusion order. During the same period 20 orders have been revoked or allowed to expire; no order has been made against persons who were not previously excluded.

  Remission of Sentence
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what decision he has taken on the harmonisation of rates of remission on prison sentences between England, Wales and Northern Ireland. [34020]

  Mr. Howard
  There are no plans to change the present arrangements for the early release of prisoners in England and Wales. Arrangements for the early release of prisoners in Northern Ireland are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Prison Nurses
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what control and restraint training is given to nurses working in prisons in England and Wales. [34081]

  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 17 July 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about what control and restraint training is given to nurses working in prisons in England and Wales.The policy is that all new entrant nurses should receive initial control and restraint training at their prison establishment during the first weeks of their induction programme into the Prison Service. In addition, provision exists for centrally organised training in the security/control elements of prison nursing at the Prison Service College. The training is to the same standard as that applied to new entrant prison officers. Since February 1993, when the training policy came into effect, 296 nurses have completed the course and a further 75 are due to be trained by April 1996.

  Immigration Detainees
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were held as suspected illegal immigrants or deportees in police cells in the Metropolitan police district between 1 January and 30 June(a) for up to 24 hours, (b) for between 24 hours and seven days, and (c) for over seven days. [33997]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been achieved, in terms of projects and cash, by the private finance initiative in the past year. [34023]
  938
  Mr. Howard
  In the past year a range of projects has been taken forward. The present position on projects which are being developed, or are strong candidates, for funding through private finance, is as follows:

  Project

  Achievement to date

  Design, Build, Manage and Finance prisons at Fazakerley and Bridgend

  Tenders assessed, Contracts to be let shortly

  Design, Build, Manage and finance Secure Training Centres for Young Offenders: Gringley and Cookham Wood

  Tenders being assessed

  Design, Build, Manage and Finance three further Secure Training Centres

  Invitation to tender in preparation

  Police National Network

  Contract in place

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project

  In design

  Central development of IT projects for police forces

  In design

  Immigration Detention Accommodation:

  Gatwick

  In construction

  Heathrow

  In design

  Immigration and Nationality Caseworking Management Information System

  In design

  The capital value of these schemes is estimated at £1.2 billion.

  Corporate Manslaughter
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration has been given to the implications of the recent case in Hong Kong involving Ajax Engineers and Surveyors for the law covering corporate manslaughter in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [34304]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Law Commission is currently examining the law on involuntary manslaughter, including corporate manslaughter. We will consider the implications of this case together with the commission's recommendations when it produces a report.

  Libyan Bureau
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he was consulted by the appropriate overseas Government about the use of a property adjacent to the Libyan Bureau at 5 St. James's street by an intelligence organisation in 1984, details of which have been sent to him, and if he will make a statement. [33971]

  Mr. Howard
  I am unable to add anything to the exchange of correspondence between my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on the circumstances surrounding the death of WPC Fletcher.

  Staff (Shareholdings)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [33414]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 1 May,Official Report, column 93. The information is not readily available.

  Public Interest Immunity
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of the deceased in all cases of deaths in custody since 1987 in which public interest immunity was authorised; who authorised it; and for what reason. [33343]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested, which relates to deaths in police custody as well as Prison Service custody, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, in relation to prison custody, inquiries show that from 1992 to the present there was one occasion when a public interest immunity certificate was signed in connection with a death in prison custody. This was in connection with a prosecution for the murder of a prisoner where a certificate was signed by the Home Secretary in connection with certain security-sensitive material.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who authorised the public interest immunity in the case of Mr. Omasese Lumumba; and if he will make a statement. [33342]

  Miss Widdecombe
  So far as I am aware, no claim for public interest immunity was made in this case.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will indicate which five consultancy firms have received most contracts from his Department by(a) by number of contracts and (b) monetary value in the last five years for which figures are available. [33441]

  Mr. Howard
  Information on contracts that my Department has let to consultants in general for the period specified is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I am, however, able to provide information for contracts let to management consultants during the last two financial years. Information prior to 1993–94 is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The five management consultancy firms that have received most contracts from my Department during the previous two financial years are as follows:

  1993–94

  Coopers and Lybrand (x5) = 1st

  PA Consulting (x5) = 1st

  Price Waterhouse (x5) = 1st

  L. Massey (x3) = 2nd

  Vector Corporate Directions Limited (x3) = 2nd

  1994–95

  940

  Coopers and Lybrand (x6) = 1st

  Sema Group (x6) = 1st

  Price Waterhouse (x4) = 2nd

  Ernst and Young (x3) = 3rd

  KPMG (x3) = 3rd

  PA Consulting (x3) = 3rd

  Information on the five management consultancies that have received the most contracts from my Department in monetary value for 1993–94 is not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information for 1994–95, in monetary value order, is as follows:

  1994–95

  1. Sema Group

  2. Coopers and Lybrand

  3. Lazard Brothers

  4. Price Waterhouse

  5. Ernst and Young

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each of the last five years. [33567]

  Mr. Howard
  Information on contracts that my Department has let to consultants in general for the period specified is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. I am, however, able to provide the number of contracts let to management consultancies, including the overall cost, during 1994–95. For information prior to 1994–95 I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) on 23 March 1994,Official Report, column 223. The information for 1994–95 is as follows:
  During the 1994–95 financial year the Home Office let 72 contracts to management consultants at a total cost of £2,686,343.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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 and its subsidiaries, and (i) Pannell and Kerr Foster and its subsidiaries for privatisation, market testing, management advice, accounting, audit, consultancy and other services in 1993–94 and 1994–95. [33914]

  Mr. Howard
  For the period specified, information on the number of contracts let to each listed company for the specified consultancies and the total sum paid to each company by my Department is as follows:
  941

  1994–95

  Consultant

  Privatisation

  Market testing

  Management advice

  Accounting

  Audit

  Consultancy

  Other services

  Total sum

  Coopers and Lybrand and Subsidiaries

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  4

  2

  £392,763

  Peat Marwick and Subsidiaries

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  £62,102

  Ernst and Young and Subsidiaries

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  £170,178

  Arthur Andersen and Subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Price Waterhouse and Subsidiaries

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  £265,000

  Grant Thornton and Subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  Stoy Hayward and Subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robson Rhodes and Subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pannell Kerr Foster and Subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Individual contract values are not given on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.

  1993–94

  Consultant

  Privatisation

  Market testing

  Management advice

  Accounting

  Audit

  Consultancy

  Other services

  Total sum

  Coopers and Lybrand and Subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  £170,000

  Peat Marwick and subsidiaries

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  £142,500

  Ernst and Young and subsidiaries

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  £103,837

  Arthur Andersen and subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Price Waterhouse and subsidiaries

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  £329,071

  Grant Thornton and subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stoy Hayward and subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Robson Rhodes and subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  £20,610

  Pannell Kerr Foster and subsidiaries

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prisoner Transfers
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about his intentions for the movement of Northern Irish prisoners, currently held in prisons in Great Britain, to prisons in Northern Ireland. [33024]

  Mr. Howard
  The Criminal Justice Act 1961 provides for prisoners to request either permanent or temporary transfer from one United Kingdom jurisdiction to another. Requests for transfer continue to be considered on their individual merits under criteria announced to the House on 23 November 1992.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Privacy and Media Intrusion
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she will publish the Government's paper on privacy. [34066]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published the Government's response to the National Heritage Committee's report on privacy and media intrusion today.

  Millennium Fund
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) who will be deciding which of the long-listed projects for millennium funding should be short-listed; and what criteria they will be using; [34495]
  942
  (2) what criteria were used to identify millennium fund projects as viably not proven or not sufficiently distinctive; who decided those criteria; and who decided that the long-listed projects should be long-listed; [34497]

  (3) pursuant to the answer of 3 July, Official Report, column 22, in which parliamentary constituencies the projects which have gone forward to the detailed appraisal stage for millennium funding are situated; [34536]

  (4) when she expects to complete appraisal of the long-listed projects for millennium funding; and when she expects to announce all of the successful projects. [34496]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These are matters for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my replies in the Libraries of the House.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the items for which the issuing of export licences was withheld on the recommendation of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art during the half-year ended 30 June, specifying in each case the valuation, whether an item was(a) exported or (b) retained, listing for (c) the acquiring institutions; and if she will list those items for which licences have been withheld but the final disposal of which has not yet been decided, specifying in each case (i) the valuation and (ii) the relevant time limit. [34221]
  943
  Mr. Sproat
  The information is as follows:

  Description of item

  Valuation (£)

  Outcome

  A painting, 'A repentant Sinner turning away from Temptation', by Johann Liss, circa 1597—circa 1630)

  1,007,512.50

  Export licence application withdrawn.

  A painting, 'The Holy Family', by Giulio Romano, circa 1490–1546

  1,720,320

  Decision deferred until after 20 July 1995.

  A George III giltwood table designed by William Chambers, circa 1774–75

  95,160

  Acquired by The Courtauld Institute Galleries.

  An Egyptian temple lintel of the late 12th Dynasty

  109,042.50

  Acquired by the British Museum.

  A George II open armchair, circa 1727

  325,000

  Decision deferred until after 30 July 1995.

  A pair of George II walnut side chairs, circa 1731

  446,363

  Decision deferred until after 30 July 1995.

  A pair of George II open armchairs, 1740

  202,912.50

  Decision deferred until after 30 July 1995.

  A sculpture, 'Figure of a Huntress', by Richard James Wyatt, mid 19th century

  68,812.50

  Export licence granted.

  A George I bowl and cover, either a soup tureen or a christening bowl, 1725

  113,512.50

  Export licence granted.

  A painting, 'Judith with the Head of Holofernes' by Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1530

  314,662.50

  Decision deferred until after 9 August 1995.

  A full dress or mantua of ivory silk damask, circa 1755

  78,826

  Decision deferred until after 16 August 1995.

  The Coronation Bible of George III circa 1761

  350,000

  Decision deferred until after 13 September 1995.

  Works of Art in Lieu of Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the allocations made to public institutions in the United Kingdom during the half-year ended 30 June of individual works of art and museum objects pre-eminent for national, scientific, historic or artistic interest which have been accepted in satisfaction of inheritance tax, indicating, where applicable, the conditions and wishes expressed by testators or executors in the matter of allocation; and if she will list the works of art and museum objects which are still awaiting allocation, with the respective dates of their acceptance in satisfaction of inheritance tax. [34220]
  944
  Mr. Sproat
  The information that the hon. Member requested is as follows:

  Item

  To whom allocated

  Condition/wishes

  'Stonehenge' Watercolour by Turner

  Salisbury and South Wiltshire Museum

  Conditional

  Chattels at Calke Abbey

  National Trust

  Conditional

  Reference books relating to the Godman collection of Islamic Art

  British Museum

  Conditional

  Six sculptures by Naum Gabo

  Tate Gallery

  Conditional

  Silver Gilt Wine Fountain by de Lamerie

  National Trust

  Conditional

  Paintings by Chagall and Magritte

  Castle Museum, Norwich

  Conditional

  Paintings by Steen, van Ruisdael and Berchem

  Royal Scottish Academy, Edinburgh, on permanent loan

  Conditional

  Chattels at Nymans House

  National Trust

  Conditional

  Unallocated items

  Date accepted

  Painting by Francis Bacon

  25 April 1995

  Roundel by Foggini

  25 April 1995

  Amsterdam (Wreck Site)
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment she has made as to whether the Protection of Wrecks (Designation No. 3) Order 1974 in respect of the site of the vessel Amsterdam is being adequately enforced. [33335]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The Amsterdam is inspected as part of a rolling programme of regular monitoring of designated wreck sites by the archaeological diving unit under contract to the Department of National Heritage. The ADU plans to visit the site next month. Following its previous visit in 1991, it concluded that there was no evidence to suggest unauthorised interference.

  Rollerblading
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many accidents she is aware of that have been attributed to the sport of rollerblading in the latest available period. [34122]

  Mr. Sproat
  I am aware of only one fatal accident, which occurred last week in Hyde park.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to introduce controls over the sporting activity of rollerblading. [34124]
  945
  Mr. Sproat
  The Government have no plans to introduce national controls on in-line skating. Local authorities in England and Wales are able to make byelaws to prohibit or regulate the use of roller skates and similar equipment in parks and open spaces and on footways and carriageways. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is the confirming authority for such byelaws. In the royal parks, the agency has regulations prohibiting irresponsible and reckless behaviour by any park user.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Disability
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the grants given by his Department as overseas development aid to assist in the treatment and rehabilitation of disability. [32798]

  Mr. Hanley
  In 1994–95, we made grants of £985,000 through the joint funding scheme in support of 52 projects directly concerned with disabled people. In addition, providing assistance to people with disabilities forms an integral part of many of our programmes concerned with improving the health of poor people in developing countries.

  Animal Conservation (Africa)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent on animal conservation schemes in Africa in the current financial year. [32799]

  Mr. Hanley
  We plan to spend over £4 million in this financial year to help countries in Africa conserve and manage their wildlife resources more effectively.

  Aid Budget
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of gross domestic product has been allocated to overseas aid in the currently financial year. [32800]

  Mr. Hanley
  International comparison of aid flow figures are normally presented in relation to gross national product on a calendar year basis. In 1994, the latest year for which figures are available, UK net official development assistance was 0.31 per cent. of GNP.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of his Department's expenditure for the last 12 months for which data are available was spent on providing further and higher education in the United Kingdom for overseas nationals; and if he will make a statement. [32801]

  Mr. Hanley
  In the financial year 1994–95, the FCO spent £95 million on the provision of further and higher education in the United Kingdom for overseas nationals. This represented 2.6 per cent. of the total FCO budget of some £3.6 billion and supported nearly 13,000 students, The figures do not include various other training attachments for which figures are not centrally held.

  Trade Union Movement
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is giving the independent trade union movement in(a) Indonesia and (b) China. [32802]

  Mr. Hanley
  The British Government are not giving any assistance to the independent trade union movement in China or Indonesia.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about humanitarian assistance to Sudan. [32795]

  Mr. Hanley
  Britain is a major donor of humanitarian aid to Sudan. Since January 1991, we have provided over £92 million in emergency assistance, including about 140,000 tonnes of food aid and our share of EU actions.

  United Nations Population Fund
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has of the total value of the donations given by the UNFPA to population policies and organisations in China since 1979. [32007]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UNFPA has allocated US$152.453 million since 1979 for its activities in China.

  Non-governmental Organisations (Grants)
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amount of funding given by his Department to each non-governmental organisation, other than under the joint funding scheme or for emergencies, in each of the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 to date. [34146]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: Details of funds given to non-governmental organisations other than under the joint funding scheme or for emergencies in 1993–94 are shown in the table.

  Figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 to date are not yet available.

  ODA grants to NGOs 1993–94, excluding JFS and emergencies

  Agency

  Total

  ACORD

  70,001

  ActionAid

  308,151

  Action Around Bethlehem

  21,980

  Afghanaid

  117,074

  Aga Khan Foundation

  1,077,934

  AHRTAG

  49,157

  AMREF

  82,230

  Assoc Commonwealth Universities

  2,488,268

  Assoc Science Education

  70

  BESO

  908,370

  British Red Cross

  8,147

  British Trust for Ornithology

  1,852

  Business in the Community

  2,312

  CAFOD

  1,979

  Calcutta Tercentenary Trust

  10,000

  Canon Collins Ed Trust for South Africa

  48,591

  Canterbury Christchurch

  66,731

  CARE Britain

  1,308,146

  Charities Aid Foundation

  418,053

  Charities Evaluation Services

  2,120

  947

  ODA grants to NGOs 1993–94, excluding JFS and emergencies

  Agency

  Total

  Childhope

  10,000

  Christian Aid

  134,951

  Christians Abroad

  163,841

  CIIR

  1,700,001

  CONCERN

  141,415

  Consumer Research Laboratory

  24,123

  Cooperation for Development

  83,600

  Cranfield Institute for Technology

  72,383

  Disability Resource Team

  59

  Earthwatch Europe

  15,000

  Education for Development

  20,377

  Education Partners Overseas

  51,253

  Enterprise Europe

  8,169

  Family Planning Association

  275

  FARM Africa

  533,319

  Fauna and Flora Preservation Society

  6,000

  Feed The Children

  5,000

  FORUM

  10,000

  Freshwater Biological Association

  250

  Gurkha Welfare Trust

  162,598

  Health Unlimited

  14,400

  IBRA

  1,393

  Institute of Animal Health

  35,435

  Institute of Data Processing

  —

  Management

  27

  Scottish Education Action for Development

  30,002

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  39,905

  Scottish Vocational Education Council

  30,090

  Silsoe Research Institute

  648,260

  Skillshare Africa

  1,315,000

  Society General Microbiology

  7,000

  SOS Sahel

  212,504

  TACADE

  9,968

  Thomson Foundation

  167,391

  ODA emergency aid channelled through non-governmental organisations, 1993–94

  Agency

  Disaster relief

  Refugee relief

  Food aid

  Total emergency aid

  ACORD

  424,000

  615,000

  0

  1,039,000

  Action Aid

  1,126,830

  0

  108,033

  1,234,863

  Afghanaid

  0

  669,355

  0

  669,355

  British Red Cross

  6,337,773

  6,127,992

  0

  12,465,765

  British Refugee Council

  0

  10,000

  0

  10,000

  CAFOD

  703,605

  19,750

  984,044

  1,707,399

  Care Britain

  2,630,866

  0

  4,344,958

  6,975,824

  Children in Crisis

  100,000

  0

  0

  100,000

  Christian Aid

  2,359,787

  135,000

  4,742,937

  7,237,724

  Christian Childrens Fund

  40,000

  0

  0

  40,000

  Christian Outreach

  461,011

  221,000

  0

  682,011

  Concern

  849,462

  0

  0

  849,462

  Concern Universal

  0

  88,000

  0

  88,000

  Concern Worldwide

  270,000

  0

  0

  270,000

  Co-op for Development

  88,000

  0

  0

  88,000

  Cranfield Institute of Technology

  11,179

  0

  0

  11,179

  Emergency Logistic Practical Aid

  64,700

  0

  0

  64,700

  Feed the Children

  300,405

  0

  0

  300,405

  Food for the Hungry

  851,135

  0

  0

  851,135

  Goal

  403,356

  0

  0

  403,356

  Halo Trust

  681,958

  0

  0

  681,958

  Health Unlimited

  288,725

  100,000

  0

  388,725

  Help the Aged

  0

  100,000

  0

  100,000

  Helpage International

  38,670

  92,000

  51,690

  182,360

  Intercare

  110,000

  0

  0

  110,000

  Intermediate Technology Development

  197,820

  0

  0

  197,820

  International Extension College

  0

  100,000

  0

  100,000

  International Health Exchange

  118,640

  0

  0

  118,640

  International Refugee Trust

  0

  20,000

  0

  20,000

  Iraqi Civilian

  156,000

  0

  0

  156,000

  Joint Mission Hospital Equipment Board

  37,875

  0

  0

  37,875

  Kurdish Life Aid

  80,000

  0

  0

  80,000

  Medecins Sans Frontieres

  627,779

  0

  0

  627,779

  Medical Aid for Iraq

  100,000

  0

  0

  100,000

  948

  ODA grants to NGOs 1993–94, excluding JFS and emergencies

  Agency

  Total

  Traidcraft Exchange

  261,034

  Tropical Soil Bio Fert Programme

  30,001

  UNAIS

  842,797

  University of Aberdeen

  68,415

  University of Edinburgh

  122,985

  University of Glasgow

  62,500

  University of Strathclyde

  79,710

  University of West of England

  32,812

  Urban Aid

  46,500

  VSO

  16,607,347

  Water Aid

  195,017

  World Conservation Monitoring

  80,279

  World Conservation Union

  108,098

  World University Service

  377,656

  World Vision

  178,723

  World Wide Fund for Nature

  81,539

  YES International

  75,000

  Young Enterprise

  7,800

  Y-Care International

  50,000

  Total

  62,609,954

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amount of funding for emergencies given by his Department to each non-governmental organisation in each of the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 to date. [34147]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 14 July 1995] Details of emergency aid grants to non-governmental organisations for 1993–94 are shown in the chart. Audited figures for 1994–95 and 1995–96 to date are not yet available.
  949

  ODA emergency aid channelled through non-governmental organisations, 1993–94

  Agency

  Disaster relief

  Refugee relief

  Food aid

  Total emergency aid

  Medical aid for Palestinians

  114,074

  63,500

  0

  177,574

  Medical Emergency Relief International

  427,140

  0

  0

  427,140

  Mines Advisory Group

  50,625

  0

  0

  50,625

  MSI

  267,725

  83,565

  0

  351,290

  Ockenden Venture

  65,397

  224,950

  0

  290,347

  ODI

  25,144

  0

  0

  25,144

  Order of St. John

  0

  48,100

  0

  48,100

  Oxfam

  4,365,983

  175,000

  1,182,941

  5,723,924

  REDR

  45,300

  0

  0

  45,300

  Ryder-Cheshire Foundation

  0

  91,000

  0

  91,000

  Sandy Gall Afghan Appeal

  12,300

  0

  0

  12,300

  Save the Children Fund

  6,232,667

  216,500

  3,091,408

  9,540,575

  SCIAF

  93,585

  0

  0

  93,585

  Scottish European Aid

  5,000

  0

  0

  5,000

  Task Force Albania

  18,000

  0

  0

  18,000

  Tear Fund

  141,972

  0

  0

  141,972

  UK Committee for UNICEF

  6,923,848

  0

  0

  6,923,848

  UKJAID

  68,270

  0

  0

  68,270

  Warchild

  111,000

  0

  0

  111,000

  Water Aid

  29,342

  0

  0

  29,342

  World University Service

  0

  120,000

  0

  120,000

  World Vision

  1,224,272

  0

  1,336,693

  2,560,965

  Y-Care International

  29,938

  143,750

  0

  173,688

  Total

  39,711,158

  9,464,462

  15,842,704

  65,018,324

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amounts granted to United Kingdom non-governmental organisations by the European Union in the last three years for which figures are available(a) for projects in developing countries, (b) for development education and (c) for other projects. [34149]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: UK NGOs are eligible for funding under a variety of budget lines within the external chapter of the EC budget. Details of activities under these budget lines are provided in the Commission's annual report on co-operation with NGOs, which is deposited in Parliament and on which an explanatory memorandum is provided. Apart from the main co-financing line—B7–5010—the most significant budget lines are those for humanitarian and food aid.

  Available figures on grants to UK NGOs are set out in the table. These exclude grants of food aid to UK NGOs and also grants for activities in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

  Category of grant

  1992

  1993

  1994

  (a) Projects in developing countries under budget line B7–5010

  16.72 mecu (£14.08 million1)

  18.01 mecu (£15.16 million)

  20.89 mecu (£17.59 million)

  (b) Development education under budget line B7–5010

  1.89 mecu (£1.59 million)

  2.05 mecu (£1.73 million)

  1.92 mecu (£1.62 million)

  (c) EC humanitarian aid

  n/a

  18.76 mecu (£15.80 million)

  32.85 mecu (£27.66 million)

  1At July 1995 exchange rate £1 = 1.1877 ecu.

  n/a = not available.

  950
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amount of Overseas Development Administration joint funding scheme grant given to each non-governmental organisation, in each of the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 to date. [34148]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: Details of the joint funding scheme grants given to non-governmental organisations in each of the financial years 1993–94,1994–95 and 1995–96 to date are shown in the tables.

  JFS grants 1993–94

  Agency

  1993–94

  ACORD

  616,222

  ActionAid

  1,013,578

  Action Health 2000

  44,247

  ADD

  234,190

  Africa Now

  69,159

  Africa Resources Trust

  88,076

  Aga Khan Foundation

  124,130

  AHRTAG

  321,250

  Alternative for India Development

  56,463

  AMREF

  27,652

  APTT—Trust UK

  5,426

  Associated Country Women of the World

  2,990

  Birdlife International

  109,865

  Britain-Nepal Medical Trust

  20,145

  British Red Cross

  128,110

  Busoga Trust

  50,000

  CAFOD

  1,650,000

  Cambodia Trust

  234,360

  CARE Britain

  1,594,706

  Care for the Wild (UK)

  100,000

  Childhope

  95,918

  Christian Aid

  2,689,999

  Christian Outreach

  60,566

  CODA International Training

  197,252

  Commonwealth Human Ecology Council

  62,562

  CTUC

  112,830

  Concern Worldwide

  1,127,769

  Conservation Foundation

  16,879

  951

  JFS grants 1993–94

  Agency

  1993–94

  Cooperation for Development

  150,000

  Cusichaca Project Trust

  24,478

  Duke of Edinburgh Award

  22,935

  Durham Lesotho Link

  53,249

  Feed the Minds

  29,627

  Find your Feet

  26,961

  Food for the Hungry

  17,570

  Friends of ASSEFA

  40,561

  Friends of Conservation

  47,207

  Friends of Urambo apd Mwanhala

  9,532

  Gaia Foundation

  981

  Gordon Barclay Vietnam Fund

  9,266

  Halo Trust

  523,151

  Health Aid Moyo

  99,320

  Health Unlimited

  419,568

  Hedley Roberts Trust

  17,573

  Help the Aged

  37,269

  HelpAge International

  205,048

  Henry Doubleday Research Association

  10,959

  Holy Trinity Church

  29,650

  Ideas Aid International

  20,000

  India Development Group

  60,325

  Intercare

  40,895

  Intermediate Technology Development

  556,323

  International Christian Relief

  99,832

  King Mahendra

  32,013

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  37,050

  Leprosy Mission

  11,142

  Living Earth

  147,575

  Medical Aid for Palestinians

  55,106

  Money for Madagascar

  12,955

  Motivation

  44,308

  MSI

  870,719

  Nairobi Hospice Charitable Trust

  40,600

  NCH

  14,515

  Ockenden Adventure

  26,865

  Opportunity Trust

  50,627

  OXFAM

  5,500,000

  Plan International

  579,577

  Population Concern

  339,716

  Richmond Fellowship International

  26,924

  Rio Mazan

  13,353

  Royal Commonwealth Society

  172,939

  Ryder-Cheshire Foundation

  6,359

  Save the Children Fund

  3,760,000

  SCIAF

  102,243

  Send a Cow

  41,259

  Sid Vale Africa Link

  3,174

  Skillshare Africa

  222,550

  SOS Sahel

  225,430

  South African Townships

  60,000

  Southeast Asian Outreach

  45,000

  St. John Ambulance

  10,902

  Tear Fund

  83,639

  Toch-H

  10,376

  Traidcraft Exchange

  88,181

  Trax Programme Support

  16,447

  Tropical Health and Education Trust

  23,208

  TUIREG

  15,034

  Uganda Society for Disabled Children

  160,055

  UKFSP

  174,944

  UKJAID

  68,500

  University of Warwick

  29,450

  Urban Aid

  36,603

  VetAid

  86,265

  Village Services Trust

  8,950

  Vision Aid Overseas

  25,799

  VSO

  80,000

  War on Want

  116,533

  WaterAid

  847,942

  Womankind

  121,847

  World University Service

  155,091

  World Vision

  362,147

  952

  JFS grants 1993–94

  Agency

  1993–94

  WWF

  1,735,000

  Youth with a Mission

  45,252

  Y-Care International

  80,968

  Zimbabwe Trust

  262,790

  Zoological Society of London

  26,000

  Total

  30,520,546

  JFS grants 1994–95

  Agency

  1994–95

  ACORD

  778,312

  Action Health 2000

  51,382

  ActionAid

  1,216,346

  ADD

  137,290

  Africa Now

  147,691

  Africa Resources Trust

  100,000

  African Soc of International and Comparative Law

  23,750

  Aga Khan Foundation

  254,471

  AHRTAG

  392,487

  AMREF

  73,122

  APT Design and Development

  220,068

  APTT

  7,836

  Associated Country Women of the World

  13,891

  Association for Better Land Husbandry

  152,684

  Birdlife International

  165,425

  Britain-Nepal Medical Trust

  90,414

  British Red Cross

  105,820

  Busoga Trust

  98,715

  CAFOD

  2,010,000

  Calcutta Rescue Fund

  1,737

  Cambodia Trust

  79,134

  CARE

  1,479,791

  Care for the Wild (UK)

  50,000

  CHEC

  58,762

  Childhope

  100,930

  Christian Aid

  3,330,000

  Christian Engineers in Development

  24,690

  Christian Outreach

  99,368

  Church Missionary Society

  20,902

  CODA International Training

  178,960

  CONCERN

  916,972

  Concern Universal

  197,213

  Conservation Foundation

  9,189

  Cooperation for Development

  166,165

  CTUC

  113,492

  Cusichaca Trust

  23,668

  Durham Lesotho Link

  20,913

  Feed the Minds

  23,686

  Find your Feet

  9,100

  Food for the Hungry

  19,850

  Friends of ASSEFA

  38,197

  Friends of Conservation

  27,468

  Friends of Urambo and Mwanhala

  8,626

  Gordon Barclay Vietnam Fund

  7,663

  Harvest Help

  30,439

  Health Projects Abroad

  49,724

  Health Unlimited

  537,803

  Hedley Roberts Trust

  2,804

  HelpAge

  298,148

  Holy Trinity Church

  13,000

  Homeless International

  168,162

  IATP

  68,400

  ICEA

  7,902

  Ideas Aid International

  20,000

  Impact

  25,355

  India Development Group

  85,750

  Interfund

  84,669

  International Children's Trust

  67,897

  International Christian Relief

  54,166

  International Cooperation for Development

  124,813

  953

  JFS grants 1994–95

  Agency

  1994–95

  Islamic Relief

  59,946

  ITDG

  592,958

  Kerala Federation for the Blind

  6,072

  King Mahendra Trust

  78,368

  Lasallian Developing World Projects

  7,504

  Legal Assistance Trust

  60,000

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  55,012

  Leprosy Mission

  9,988

  Leprosy Mission (Scotland)

  23,760

  Living Earth

  169,595

  Medical Aid for Palestinians

  80,525

  Money for Madagascar

  10,625

  MSI

  964,982

  Nairobi Hospice Charitable Trust

  35,820

  NCH

  9,400

  New Hope Rural Community Trust

  2,955

  One World Action

  40,225

  Opportunity Trust

  78,453

  Overseas Records Management Trust

  99,634

  OXFAM

  6,000,000

  Panos Institute

  32,790

  Pattaya Orphanage Trust

  18,110

  Plan

  938,864

  Population Concern

  378,936

  Project Ploughshare

  39,999

  Richmond Fellowship

  6,640

  Rio Mazan

  14,742

  Save the Children Fund

  4,470,000

  SCIAF

  158,400

  Send a Cow

  29,300

  Sid Vale Africa Link

  1,415

  Sightsavers

  186,576

  Skillshare Africa

  207,335

  SOS Sahel

  264,770

  South African Townships

  66,000

  Southeast Asian Outreach

  84,959

  Tear Fund

  149,487

  Traidcraft Exchange

  56,000

  Trax Programme Support

  27,579

  Tropical Health and Education Trust

  64.948

  UKFSP

  200,963

  University of Warwick

  9,100

  USDC

  104,703

  VetAid

  85,739

  Village Services Trust

  10,870

  Vision Aid Overseas

  27,737

  VSO

  80,000

  War on Want

  70,584

  Water Aid

  884,809

  Wells for India

  21,592

  Womankind

  57,799

  WomenAid

  9,580

  World University Service

  150,346

  World Vision

  354,701

  WWF

  2,040,000

  YES International

  25,025

  Youth with a Mission

  17,140

  Y-Care

  150,968

  Zimbabwe Trust

  61,600

  Zoological Society of London

  32,000

  Total

  34,663,140

  JFS grants paid to date: 1995–96

  Agency

  1995–96

  Action Health 2000

  5,783

  ActionAid

  86,715

  Africa Now

  40,877

  African Soc of International and Comparative Law

  4,398

  Aga Khan Foundation

  81,089

  954

  JFS grants paid to date: 1995–96

  Agency

  1995–96

  Alternative for India

  47,124

  AMREF

  25,650

  APT Design and Development

  36,589

  Associated Country Women of the World

  4,356

  Association for Better Land Husbandry

  63,900

  Birdlife International

  4,762

  Britain-Nepal Medical Trust

  24,270

  Busoga Trust

  67,500

  CAFOD

  622,000

  CARE

  573,066

  CHEC

  16,883

  Christian Engineers in Development

  5,909

  Christian Outreach

  50,802

  CODA International Training

  134,900

  Cooperation for Development

  90,863

  CTUC

  12,535

  Friends of Conservation

  26,877

  Harvest Help

  18,080

  Health Unlimited

  231,923

  IATP

  3,620

  India Development Group

  4,357

  International Family Health

  17,636

  ITDG

  76,200

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  24,982

  Motivation

  54,758

  MSI

  92,363

  New Hope Rural Community Trust

  1,145

  Overseas Records Management Trust

  41,384

  OXFAM

  1,287,500

  Population Concern

  269,358

  Save the Children Fund

  1,122,500

  Send a Cow

  4,444

  Skillshare Africa

  74,893

  TUIREG

  12,429

  UKFSP

  48,575

  VSO

  21,511

  War on Want

  14,822

  Wells for India

  4,930

  World University Service

  25,363

  World Vision

  69,276

  WWF

  429,250

  Youth with a Mission

  2,226

  Y-Care

  11,446

  Total

  3,812,914

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit third world countries during the recess to discuss trade related to aid; and if he will make a statement. [33087]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no plans at present to undertake such visits.

  The overarching goal of the aid programme is to reduce poverty in developing countries by promoting genuinely sustainable development. It is in all our interests to have prosperous and stable trading partners.

  Women (Status)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the United Kingdom aid budget is spent on promoting the status of women. [32796]
  955
  Mr. Hanley
  In 1993–94 12.7 per cent. of the aid budget was spent on activities related to promoting women's status. This compares with 7.5 per cent. in the previous year.

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, columns 113–14, at what place the local training courses for officials from Government departments in East Timor were conducted; and who was engaged to carry out the training. [34311]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The training took place in Dili. It was carried out by a team of Indonesian officials from departments which were concerned with land use planning, and a member of a provincial university. A UK trainer from the Natural Resources Institute supported the team.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when his Department received a formal request from DTI to appraise his radio studios rehabilitation project in Indonesia; on what date his Department completed its appraisal of the project; whom his Department engaged to appraise the project; on what dates visits were made to the radio studios for the purposes of the appraisal and by whom the visits were made; at the time of the economic appraisal; what were (i) the "present value" of the benefits and (ii) the "present value" of the costs of the project; how the actual costs and benefits compared with those foreseen at the time of appraisal; what view his Department takes of the record in relation to freedom of expression of(a) the department responsible for the project, and (b) the project beneficiary; what factors were taken into account in assessing whether the project represented value for money; on what date the Treasury gave its consent to the project; on what date the project was approved by the sub-committee for aid and trade; on what date the project was approved by the Minister; what considerations caused his Department to separate the project from the Bandung TV studio project; what was (1) the approved cash cost and (2) the actual cost of the project; in what respect and to what extent the project benefited the poorest people in Indonesia; and what were (x) the projected completion date and (y) the actual completion date of the project; [34709]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 15 June, Official Report, column 631, in respect of the shortwave radio transmitters project in Indonesia, at what locations the high frequency transmitters were installed and if they included locations in East Timor; which Indonesian companies were involved; on what date his Department received from the DTI a formal request to appraise the project; on what dates site visits were made for the purposes of the appraisal; what sites were visited and by whom the visits were made; at the time of the economic appraisal, what were (a) the present value of the costs and (b) the present value of the benefits of the project and how the actual costs and benefits compared with those foreseen at the time of appraisal; if his Department carried out institutional appraisals in respect of (i) the Department responsible for the project and (ii) the project beneficiary, and what were the outcomes of those appraisals; what
  956
  factors were taken into account in assessing whether the project represented value for money; on what date the Treasury gave its consent to the project; in what respect and to what extent the project benefits the poorest people in Indonesia; what was (1) the approved cash cost and (2) the actual cost of the project; what were (x) the projected completion date and (y) the actual completion date of the project; and if he will place a copy of the project completion report in the Library; [25176]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 30 June, Official Report, column 802, which Indonesian companies were involved in the Ministry of Forestry radio communications system project in Indonesia; on what date his Department received from the DTI a formal request to appraise the project; on what date his Department completed its appraisal of the project; whom his Department engaged to appraise the project; on what dates site visits were made for the purposes of the appraisal, what sites were visited and by whom the visits were made; at the time of the economic appraisal, what were (a) the present value of the costs and (b) the present value of the benefits of the project and how the actual costs and benefits compared with those foreseen at the time of the appraisal; if his Department carried out an institutional appraisal in respect of the Ministry of Forestry and what was the outcome of that appraisal; what factors were taken into account in assessing whether the project represented value for money; on what date the Treasury gave its consent to the project; on what date the project was approved by the sub-committee for aid and trade; on what date the project was approved by the Minister; in what respect and to what extent the project benefits the poorest people in Indonesia; what was (i) the approved cash cost and (ii) the actual cash cost of the project; what were (1) the projected completion date and (2) the actual completion date of the project; and if he will place a copy of the project completion report in the Library; [35177]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 14 June, Official Report, column 567, which is the lead British company involved in the construction of the Samarinda power station in Indonesia; which Indonesian companies are involved; on what date his Department received from the DTI a formal request to appraise the project; on what date his Department completed its appraisal of the project; whom his Department engaged to appraise the project; on what dates site visits were made for the purposes of the appraisal and by whom the visits were made; to what extent his Department consulted local people affected by the project; at the time of the economic appraisal, what were (a) the present value of the benefits and (b) the present value of the costs of the project; at the time of the appraisal; what were (i) the social cost, (ii) the social benefits, (iii) the environmental costs and (iv) the environmental benefits of the project; if his Department carried out an institutional appraisal in respect of the Indonesian Electricity Authority and what was the outcome of that appraisal; what factors were taken into account in assessing whether the project represented value for money; on what date the Treasury gave its consent to the project; on what date the project was approved by the sub-committee for aid and trade; on what date the project was approved by the Minister; in what respect and to what extent the project benefits the poorest people in Indonesia; what is the projected completion date of the project; and if he will make a statement about his Minister's recent visit to the project. [35178]
  957
  Mr. Hanley
  Answers covering such a wide range of issues could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Policing
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what preparatory work he is doing on the structure and functions of the police before all-party peace talks. [33592]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There are two complementary processes currently in train dealing with policing in Northern Ireland. One involves a professional assessment of Northern Ireland's future policing needs in the context of continued peace and how the police service should meet those needs. The other is the continued development of proposals on the reform of relationships between the Government, the police authority and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, initiated by the publication in March 1994 of "Policing in the Community".

  Policing matters may be discussed with the Government at any time.

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were on action for community employment work schemes(a) in each of the last five years and (b) at present; and if he will publish his information on the sponsorship of these schemes by public and private bodies. [33594]

  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 7 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 number of people on ACE schemes.During the last five years the average number participating in the programme, including those who were funded under the Making Belfast Work Programme were:-

  1994/95: 9,562

  1993/94: 9,490

  1992/93: 9,658

  1991/92: 10,072

  1990/91: 10,050

  At 26 May 1995 occupancy during the first two months of the current financial year stood at 9,768.A list of sponsor organisations including those in the public, voluntary and community sectors which are responsible for implementing and managing the individual projects on which employment is provided is attached.ALPHABETICAL LIST OF ACE PROJECTS
  Project name

  ABB Community Scheme

  ACE Ventures

  Age Concern Newtownabbey

  Age Concern Strabane

  Age Concern (NI)

  Ainsworth Community Association

  Aisling Centre

  958

  All Saints Community Services

  Antrim Borough Council

  Antrim Community Enterprises

  Archdiocese of Armagh

  Armagh Diocesan Council

  Armagh District Council

  Armagh and District Community Projects

  Ballyarnett Racecourse

  Ballycastle Chamber of Commerce

  Ballymena Borough Council

  Ballymena YMCA Community Services

  Ballymoney Borough Council

  Ballymoney Community ACE Scheme

  Ballynafeigh Community Development

  Ballysally Residents Association

  Banbridge District Council

  Banbridge Heritage Development

  Bangor YMCA

  Bann ACE Scheme

  Beachcraft Trust Ltd.

  Belcoo and District Development Group

  Belfast Centre for Unemployed

  Belfast Exposed Photographic Group

  Bellaghy Community Projects

  Ben Madigan Environmental Society Ltd.

  Benburb Centre ACE Scheme

  Blind Centre for NI

  Bridge Trust

  Bridgeview Ltd.

  British Trust for Conservation Volunteers

  Bryson House

  Carmen Trust Ltd.

  Carrick Hill Community Development Project

  Carrickfergus Enterprises

  Carrickfergus Youth Services

  Castlederg and District Development Association

  Chinese Welfare Association

  Christian Fellowship Community Care

  Churches ACE

  Churchtown Area Community Association

  Cill Chluana Community Association

  City of Belfast YMCA

  Clanrye Abbey Developments

  Clogher Care

  Clonallen

  Coleraine Churches Action

  Coleraine Community Projects

  Coleraine Women's Aid

  Colin Glen Trust

  Community Action North

  Community Aid

  Community Relations in Schools

  Community Support Services

  Confederation of Community Groups

  Connswater River Conservation Committee

  Conradh Na Gaeilge

  Cookstown Community Renewal

  Cornerstone Care

  Corpus Christi Services

  Co-operation North

  Creation of Regional Employment

  Crossfire Trust

  Crossmaglen Community Association

  Cuan Mhuire Trust

  Derry City Council

  Discovery 80 Ltd. SHARE

  Divis Joint Development

  Donaghdee Community Workforce

  Dove House Resource Centre

  Down and Connor Youth Council

  Downpatrick and Area Inter-Church Caring Project

  Downtown Women's Centre

  Drumachose Development Project

  959

  Dun Uladh Cultural Heritage Association

  Dundonald Community Project

  Dungannon Development Association

  Dungannon District Council

  Dunlewey Outreach Centre

  Dunloy and District Residents

  Dunmurry Community Care

  East Belfast Community Development

  East Belfast Methodist Action on Unemployed

  East Belfast Presbyterian Community Care Project

  Ederney Community Development

  Elim ACE Central

  Elim ACE North

  Elim ACE South

  Enniskillen Community Development

  Euro Children

  Extern Organisation

  Falls Community Council

  Falls Womens Centre

  Farset

  Faughanvale Community Projects

  Fermanagh District Council

  Fintona Development Association

  Fisheries Conservancy Board

  Fold Housing Association

  Foreglen Community Association

  Foyle Day-Care Association

  Gingerbread NI

  Glen Community Parent/Youth Group

  Glencairn Community Development

  Glenmachan Community Project

  Glenravel Community Association

  Glens Community Services

  Glenshane Community Development Ltd.

  Glor Na nGael

  Grosvenor Environmental Society

  Guildhall Press

  Haven ACE Scheme

  Hillsborough Elim Council

  Hilltop Environmental Scheme

  Hilltown Community Association

  Horn Drive Community Centre

  Inner City Trust

  Irish World Citizens Organisation

  Jobquest Services

  Kilbraney Centre

  Kilcooley Environmental Project

  Killylea and Tynan Community Association

  King's Fellowship Community

  Larne Community Enterprises

  Lettershandoney Community Association

  Ligoniel Improvements Association

  Limavady Borough Council

  Limavady Community Development

  Lisburn Borough Council

  Loughgiel Community Association

  Lower Oldpark Community Association

  Maghera and District Community Association

  Magilligan Community Development

  Markethill District Community Association

  Maydown Ebrington Community Employment Project

  Melmount Community Care

  Middletown Community Development Association

  Monkstown Churches Community Project

  Mornington Enterprises Ltd.

  Mount St. Nicholas

  Mourne Community Association

  Mourne Workshop Trust

  National Trust

  NEELB (Coleraine Information Centre)

  Newcastle Community Projects

  Newcastle Society for Mentally Handicapped

  Newcraig Playgroups Association

  Newhaven Trust Ltd.

  Newhill Youth and Community Centre Association

  Newington/Cavehill Community Services

  960

  Newry and District Community Services

  Newtownabbey Community Group

  Newtownabbey Employment Enterprises

  Newtownards Community Workforce

  NI Chest Heart and Stroke Association

  NIACAB

  NIACRO

  NICOD

  North Down Borough Council

  North Queen Street Community Centre

  North West Centre for Learning and Development

  North West Tyrone ACE Project

  North and West Housing

  Northlands Centre

  Northways Community Association

  Oliver Plunket Youth and Welfare Scheme

  Omagh District Council

  Omagh Families Resource and Development Centre

  Orchardville Society for the Mentally Handicapped

  Parish of Magheralin

  Parish of Nativity

  Parish of St. Macnissi

  PHAB NI

  Phoenix YCP

  Portadown YMCA

  Presbyterian Church in Ireland

  Project Portadown

  Puzzles Playgroup

  Rathcoole Community Group

  Rathcoole Self Help Group

  Rathfrliand TARA

  Rosemount and District Welfare Rights

  Roslea GFC and Parish ACE

  Shalom House (Lamb of God)

  Shankhill Community Projects

  Shankill Road Mission

  Shankill Women's Centre

  Shankill and Glencairn Community Association

  Shankill and Oldpark Community Association

  Shelter NI

  Simon Community NI

  Sion Mills Area Trust

  South City Community Projects

  Springfields Charitable Association

  St. Agnes Community Concern Association

  St. Davog's Parish

  St. Eugene's Parish

  St. Georges Youth and Community Development

  St. Luke's (Twinbrook)

  St. McCartan's Parish

  St. Patrick's and St. Colman's Trust

  St. Patrick's Community Enterprise

  St. Patrick's Parish Keedy

  St. Patrick's Youth Club

  St. Teresa's Community Project

  STEP Ltd.

  Strabane Community Project

  Strabane District Council

  Strathfoyle Community Association

  Suffolk Community Services

  SVDP—Antrim Road

  SVDP—Coalisland

  SVDP—Cookstown

  SVDP—Craigavon

  SVDP—Kilrea

  SVDP—Lurgan

  SVDP—Strathroy

  SVDP—West Belfast

  Sydenham House

  Teemore Parish Council

  The 174 Trust

  The Barnabas Trust

  The Family Centre

  The Resource Centre

  The Somme Association

  The Ulster Society

  961

  Turf Lodge Enterprise Scheme

  Ulster Historical Foundation

  Ulster Peoples College

  Ulster Wildlife Trust

  Upper Ards Community Association

  VSB

  VSL

  Waveney Community Association

  We Care Third World Centre

  Welcome Trust (L.F.H.A.)

  YMCA Employment Services

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland where he publishes a list of approved training organisations; and what percentage of trainees under the jobskills programme are registered with public sector, private sector and other organisations. [35292]

  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 17 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.Details of approved Training Organisations are published in a Directory of Training Opportunities (formerly known as the Directory of Training Providers). This is a comprehensive guide to training opportunities and providers in Northern Ireland and is available from the Agency on request. The next Directory up-date will contain details of those Training Organisations participating in the Jobskills Programme. Meanwhile, a list of the jobskills approved Training Organisations is included in the Agency's 'Jobskills News' publication.The NT wide Jobskills Programme commenced on 3 April 5 and is therefore still in a build-up situation. The fo percentages reflect the trainees participating in the programm the end of June 1995.

  Public Sector: -13%

  Private Sector: -65%

  Other Organisations: -22%

  I hope that you find this helpful.
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the structure of funding for training organisations under the jobskills programme; how much of an organisation's funding is on the basis of registration of numbers; and how much on the basis of output related funding and trainee bonus. [35293]

  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 17 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 Jobskills Programme's funding arrangements take account of the variation in training costs between different occupational areas. Furthermore, the Programme's flexible funding structure is designed to encourage and enable trainees to progress into higher levels of training and, to provide incentives to both training organisations and trainees to attain targeted vocational qualifications.962 Payments are made to training organisations on the basis of occupied places, with 30% of their funding dependant on the achievement of full qualifications by trainees. On gaining their qualifications, trainees can qualify for a bonus of up to £400 and this is paid to them via the Training Organisations.I hope that you find this helpful.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what preparatory work he is doing on human rights issues before all-party talks in the peace process. [33591]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 July,Official Report, columns 518–19.

  I have invited the main parties to separate bilateral meetings to discuss the issues, including those relating to human rights, on which there needs to be agreement if a widely acceptable settlement is to be achieved.

  The effectiveness of existing measures is being kept under review, having regard, among other things, to the contribution that changes might make to a political settlement.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [33436]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  (a) by number of contracts

  Name of company

  Number of contracts

  Coopers and Lybrand

  235

  Touche Ross

  139

  Price Waterhouse

  123

  Ernst and Young

  80

  Capita

  71

  (b) by monetary value

  Name of company

  Consultancy fees and expenses £ million

  Coopers and Lybrand

  4.93

  Denton Hall Burgen and Wane

  1—

  Price Waterhouse

  1.93

  Rothschild and Sons

  1—

  Touche Ross

  4.47

  1 As Denton Hall Burgen and Warrens, and Rothschild have been employed only on one consultancy contract, details of the fees and expenses would breach commercial confidentiality.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost of the last five years. [33573]
  963
  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of contracts

  Cost £

  1990–91

  529

  7,610,744

  1991–92

  478

  12,938,631

  1992–93

  584

  8,570,192

  1993–94

  805

  12,124,283

  1994–95

  686

  5,625,185

  Undergraduates
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many undergraduates enrolled during the most recent academic year at(a) the Queen's university of Belfast and (b) the university of Ulster; and how many in each case came from (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) the Republic of Ireland. [33628]

  Mr. Ancram
  In 1993–94, the latest year for which information is available, there were 10,037 undergraduates enrolled at the Queen's university of Belfast, of whom 8,896 came from Northern Ireland and 537 from the Republic of Ireland. In the same year, there were 13,852 undergraduates enrolled at the university of Ulster, of whom 11,408 came from Northern Ireland and 1,679 from the Republic of Ireland.

  Department of Employment (Abolition)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes he will make to the responsibilities of his ministerial team and the Northern Ireland Office to reflect the abolition of the Department of Employment. [33659]

  Mr. Ancram
  There is no direct equivalent in Northern Ireland to the Department of Employment, although these functions are largely subsumed within the Department of Economic Development. There are no plans, therefore, to make any changes to the responsibilities of the NorthernIreland ministerial team and the Northern Ireland Office following the abolition of the Department of Employment.

  Firearm Thefts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [34188]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The information is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total

  Thefts of shotguns

  Thefts of shotguns from domestic premises

  44

  37

  54

  36

  54

  225

  Thefts of shotguns from non-domestic premises

  3

  2

  1

  4

  1

  11

  Total

  47

  39

  55

  40

  55

  236

  964

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total

  Thefts of other firearms

  Thefts of firearms other than shotguns from domestic premises

  21

  28

  21

  26

  43

  139

  Thefts of firearms other than shotguns from non-domestic premises

  18

  24

  10

  19

  29

  100

  Total

  39

  52

  31

  45

  72

  239

  Note:

  There may be incidents in which more than one type of firearm was stolen, eg a shotgun and a rifle. For the purposes of this analysts such incidents are recorded once under each heading.

  Firearms (Homicides)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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.

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The information is as follows:

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Totals

  Homicides involving shotguns

  Male

  0

  6

  11

  7

  6

  30

  Female

  1

  0

  3

  3

  1

  8

  Total

  1

  6

  14

  10

  7

  38

  Homicides involving firearms other than shotguns

  Male

  52

  62

  55

  59

  46

  274

  Female

  0

  7

  5

  2

  8

  22

  Total

  52

  69

  60

  61

  54

  296

  Compensation Agency
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the distribution of settlement times for claims to the Compensation Agency for(a) injury and (b) damage. [34367]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Compensation Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Denis Stanley. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from D. A. Stanley to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Minister of State, Sir John Wheeler, has asked me to reply, on behalf of the Compensation Agency, to your recent Question regarding settlement times for claims for criminal injury and criminal damage compensation in Northern Ireland.During 1994–95 the average time taken to reach a decision on criminal injuries claims was 65 weeks. This compares with a key performance target of 71 weeks.965 Over the same period the average time taken to decide criminal damage claims was 44 weeks compared with a key performance target of 40 weeks. Failure to reach this target can be attributed largely to a reduction in the number of criminal damage claims received following the paramilitary cease-fires. This reduction in new claims allowed the Agency to make significant in-roads into the clearance of older claims which inevitably led to an increase in the average time to decide claims.The Agency's performance against all the key performance and subsidiary targets is shortly to be published in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts for 1994–95.

  September

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Number

  WTE

  Qualified health visitors

  1993

  209

  191.9

  109

  100.2

  88

  80.5

  71

  64.9

  1994

  184

  166

  103

  93.5

  91

  82.4

  69

  63.2

  Qualified district nurses

  1993

  161

  157.0

  72

  69.2

  64

  63.2

  75

  72.3

  1994

  145

  139.8

  68

  64.9

  60

  59.2

  73

  69.5

  Qualified community psychiatric nurses

  1993

  71

  71.0

  19

  19.0

  17

  17.0

  15

  15.0

  1994

  68

  67.0

  20

  20.0

  16

  16.0

  19

  19.0

  Qualified school nurses

  1993

  38

  32.0

  21

  14.4

  16

  12.6

  19

  14.8

  1994

  46

  38.1

  21

  14.4

  18

  14.1

  19

  14.9

  Student health visitors

  1993

  8

  8.0

  —

  —

  7

  7.0

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  5.0

  —

  —

  Student district nurses

  1993

  2

  2.0

  —

  —

  3

  3.0

  —

  —

  1994

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  2.0

  —

  —

  Notes:

  The latest figures available relate to September 1994.

  WTE= whole-time equivalent.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a breakdown by area of the health visitors, district nurses and school nurses by each income band for September 1993 and for the latest date for which information is available. [33255]

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

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a breakdown by area of the population numbers per health visitor on September 1992 and September 1993 and for the latest date for which information is available; and what is the number of health visitors(a) per under five and (b) per over 65 years in each area. [33256]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  September

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Population number per health visitor

  1992

  2,842

  3,503

  3,270

  3,399

  1993

  3,178

  3,728

  3,337

  3,770

  1994

  3,620

  3,967

  3,267

  3,910

  966

  Community Nurses
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) health visitors, (b) district nurses, (c) community psychiatric nurses and (d) school nurses were employed in each area of Northern Ireland on 30 September 1993, and for the latest date available, expressed as whole-time equivalents and actual numbers; and if she will list the same information for student health visitors and student district nurses. [33254]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is as follows:

  September

  Eastern

  Northern

  Southern

  Western

  Health visitors per 1,000 population under five

  1992

  4.3

  3.5

  3.3

  3.0

  1993

  3.8

  3.2

  3.2

  2.8

  1994

  3.3

  3.0

  3.3

  2.7

  Health visitors per 1,000 population 65 and over

  1992

  2.3

  2.2

  2.4

  2.5

  1993

  2.0

  2.0

  2.4

  2.3

  1994

  1 7

  1 9

  2.4

  2.2

  Notes:

  The latest figures available relate to September 1994.

  1993 mid-year estimates for populations, which are the latest available, were used to calculate the 1994 ratios.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Intervention Grain
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) of 26 June,Official Report, column 528, if he will detail the steps he took to oppose subsidised grain prices to Spanish pig farmers. [34306]
  967
  Mr. Baldry
  The sale of stocks out of intervention is agreed through management committee procedure. The UK, along with certain other member states, argued strongly against the proposals but was outvoted on this occasion.

  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) of 28 June,Official Report, column 698, at what prices tenderers bought grain out of intervention. [34295]

  Mr. Baldry
  The results of the adjudication of the tenders for the sale of barley out of UK intervention destined for Spain are as follows:

  Date of adjudication

  Tonnage

  Selling price from intervention (ecu/t)

  (£/t)

  29 June 1995

  108,308

  122.49–124.30

  1103.01–104.54

  6 July 1995

  141,688

  125.41–125.61

  2105.84–106.01

  Conversion rates:

  1 1 ecu = £0.840997 (rate in force from 15 May 1995).

  21 ecu = £0.843954 (rate in force from 4 July 1995).

  These prices are lower than the normal sale price of 140.31 ecu/t (£118.42/t). The difference is intended to help the shipper meet the cost of transport from the UK port to Spain.

  Refrigeration (Listeria)
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been undertaken by his Department into the problems of poor refrigeration in households being insufficient to combat listeria in food; and what plans has he to ensure that new refrigeration units are fitted with thermometers. [34234]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A survey on the temperatures in domestic refrigerators was carried out by the university of Bristol on behalf of MAFF. The report "Consumer handling of chilled foods: A survey of time and temperature conditions" was published in October 1991. As a result of the survey, MAFF agreed with refrigerator manufactures and consumer groups to issue a "FoodSense" booklet "Keeping Food Cool and Safe".

  There are no plans to require new refrigeration units to be fitted with thermometers. However, the Ministry encourages manufactures to supply simple thermometers with the appliance instructions. The "FoodSense" booklet encourages consumers to use fridge thermometers and gives advice on where to place them.

  Listeria
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken by his Department to ensure that cook-chilled meals and ready to eat poultry carry sufficient labelling to warn customers that the produce must be re-heated to a sufficient temperature to reduce risks of listeria. [34235]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The food labelling regulations require that the labelling of prepacked foods should include instructions for use to enable appropriate preparation or use of the food. In addition, general advice to consumers that cooking food thoroughly, so that the temperature at the centre reaches at least 70 degrees 968
  centigrade for at least two minute, will kill most harmful bacteria that cause food poisoning, has already been published in the free "FoodSense" booklet on food safety.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place with the Department of Health to co-ordinate matters specifically relating to concerns over listeria in food in the last five years. [34226]

  Mr. Hogg
  The incidence of listeriosis has declined significantly since 1988, and there has been no call for specific discussions between Departments about listeria in food in the last five years. However, the issue of listeria routinely arises during wider discussions between Departments on microbiological food safety matters.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations his Department received regarding listeria in food(a) prior to and (b) following the guidelines issued by the Chief Medical Officer on 10 February 1989. [34229]

  Mr. Hogg
  Our records suggest that the bulk of such representations are directed to the Department of Health, which is generally in the lead in this matter. My Department has occasionally received correspondence, for example from trade associations.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions his Department has had with(a) farmers, (b) food processing companies and (c) consumer groups regarding listeria in food in the past five years. [34230]

  Mr. Hogg
  My Department has had discussions with these groups, and in particular the food processors, about the standard for listeria which is set by the EC milk hygiene directive.

  Food Safety
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions have taken place in the last five years with the Department of Health to co-ordinate matters concerning food safety. [34225]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department is in daily contact with the Department of Health at official level on matters of food safety. In addition, there are regular meetings at ministerial level.

  World Wide Web
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the work his Department has carried out in the past 12 months in making information about his Department available to the public via the Government world wide web server known as "www.open.gov.uk" and his plans and policies to make additional and new information available electronically on the server in the next 12 months. [34714]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food participated from the outset in the Government world wide web, server project. As a result, WWW users can access the UK food and farming in figures pages on the server to retrieve series of agriculture and food data drawn from the Department's major statistical compilations. There are additional pages with background
  969
  information about the Department's responsibilities, aims and objectives and contacts, including the MAFF helpline which has an e-mail number for communicating with inquirers over the Internet.

  The Department is aiming to build on the experience gained through its participation in this project by introducing a dedicated MAFF world wide web server. There are a number of security and technical issues still to be addressed but, when fully implemented, MAFF divisions will be encouraged and supported in the use of the system to disseminate a wider range of information about MAFF services, activities, contacts and publications to WWW users.

  Computer Equipment Supplies
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the top 10 suppliers of computer equipment to his Department and Agencies in the last five years, indicating the total value of the contracts received. [34548]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: In August 1991, a contract was awarded to Siemens Nixdorf Information Systems to supply my Department with a wide range of computer equipment. Since then, the company has provided the Department with nearly 95 per cent. of its computer equipment, at a total value exceeding £30 million.

  A number of other companies supplied the remaining few per cent., but these cannot be identified and ranked without considerable effort by the officials.

  Common Fisheries Policy (Withdrawal)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to seek to withdraw from the common fisheries policy and establish bilateral fishing deals with the relevant maritime neighbours; and if he will make a statement. [34393]

  Mr. Baldry
  Withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is not an option, either legally or practically. Our obligations as a signatory of the treaties of Rome and of Maastricht include recognition of the EC's authority to legislate for fisheries, and of that legislation's direct application in all member states. Because of the over-capacity of national fleets and the fact that fish stocks do not respect national boundaries, international co-operation on conservation management is essential. Our membership of the common fisheries policy ensures, through our involvement in the negotiation of technical conservation measures, that the fish we want to catch are protected while they are developing in other countries' waters. Without our participation in the common fisheries policy, the UK industry's access to export markets to other EU member states, worth around £550 million in 1994, would be called into question.

  Fish Stocks (Conservation)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to now reduce discards and improve the conservation of fish stocks by amendment of the common fisheries policy; and if he will make a statement. [34394]
  970
  Mr. Baldry
  The Council of Ministers has asked the Commission to bring forward proposals which address the discarding problem. The Commission has also accepted an obligation to review the technical conservation measures applicable in both western waters and the north sea. Within the UK, our industry has been invited to put forward constructive ideas for consideration by the common fisheries policy review group. I shall take forward the work of this group over the coming months.

  Welsh Universities (Economic Studies)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the value of economic studies commissioned by his Department from Welsh universities and colleges in 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [34891]

  Mr. Boswell
  My Department commissioned no economic studies from Welsh universities and colleges in 1994–95. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has commissioned work from these organisations.

  Civil Servants (European Commission)
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if officials seconded by his Department to work with the European Commission are required to promote and pursue the policies of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the availability of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements; what codes of practice apply to the employment of such officials by commercial companies or organisations following their secondment; and if he will make a statement. [35098]

  Mr. Boswell
  Officials seconded to the European Commission work for the Commission and have no role in promoting the Government's views. The normal business appointment rules apply to such staff as they do to all civil servants.

DEFENCE

  Astra
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a full statement on the findings of the Ministry of Defence police investigation into allegations of corruption concerning employees of the Astra group of companies; and if he will make a statement. [33526]

  Mr. Soames
  Four employees of the Astra group of companies were investigated by the Ministry of Defence police, who were inquiring into allegations of corruption. One was subsequently found guilty of two charges of corruption and received a custodial sentence.

  Murderers (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many convicted murderers are presently serving in Her Majesty's armed forces. [33623]

  Mr. Soames
  There are five soldiers serving in the armed forces who have been convicted of murder. In four cases, discharge procedures have been initiated. In two of these, action is in abeyance pending the outcome of appeals. In the fifth case, the solider concerned is a
  971
  Gurkha. The Army is obliged to discharge Gurkha soldiers in Nepal and that will be on completion of his custodial sentence.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances a solider who has served a sentence for murder can continue to serve in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [33624]

  Mr. Soames
  It is normal practice to discharge service personnel who have been convicted of murder unless there are exceptional circumstances. It would be for the appropriate service board of the Defence Council to decide whether the circumstances of an individual case merited retention.

  BMARC
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to give a substantive reply to the question from the hon. Member for Pendle on BMARC. [33700]

  Mr. Soames
  The investigation initiated by the deputy chief constable referred to in my answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark),Official Report, column 31, has not yet been completed. I shall write to the hon. Member when the outcome is known.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there will be an ethical review of the research conducted by his Department involving animals. [34998]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Experiments involving animals and conducted by my Department or its agencies are subject to a rigorous process of internal review and external control by the Home Office, in accordance with the requirements of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The experiments account for less than half of 1 per cent. of all experiments in the United Kingdom involving animals. Nevertheless, I am keen to adopt any additional measures that would serve to strengthen public confidence in the procedures that govern animal experiments in my Department and, to this end, I have agreed to establish an animal welfare advisory committee. The committee will comprise three independent members and will review animal care and welfare arrangements at establishments conducting experiments involving animals. The committee will advise the senior manager responsible for the establishment in which experiments take place and will, quite separately, make an independent report normally once a year, to the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser.

  I have placed a copy of the terms of reference of the new committee in the Library. Approaches will be made to three individuals who represent a range of interests related to the conduct of scientific experiments involving animals.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundancies occurred in his Department over the past 12 months; how many were voluntary; and what was the total sum spent on redundancy payments. [34589]
  972
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: During the financial year 1994–95, the latest period for which figures are available centrally, there were 3,058 redundancies in my Department. Our records do not distinguish between those who were made redundant compulsorily and those who volunteered for redundancy. The total sum spent on early retirement and redundancy in the same period was some £59 million.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days were lost in sickness in the past 12 months by employees in his Department(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34588]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The total number of days sick absence taken by staff in my Department between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1995 was 959,858. This figure relates to full-time non-industrial staff and includes weekends and public holidays as it is not possible in the time available to make adjustments for these. This is 3.18 per cent. of days worked. It is not possible to calculate the cost of this absence without disproportionate cost.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against his Department during the past 12 months; how many were successful; and what were the total costs including legal fees and' compensation. [34587]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: Fifty-five appeals against dismissal have been heard by the Civil Service Appeal Board since July 1994. In nine cases, the decision to dismiss was found to be unfair. Hearing reports have been issued on four of these cases and resulted in the payment of £7,160 to one appellant. Records of appeals to industrial tribunals by civilian members of my Department's staff are not maintained centrally. Compensation amounting to £8,000 has been paid to two appellants who appealed to industrial tribunals during the last 12 months. No legal fees were paid in the three cases where compensation had been paid.

  Cooks (Training)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many schools there are for the training of cooks; where they are located; and what is the number of cooks presently being trained at each school and the estimated running costs of each school for this year for each service. [34430]

  Mr. Soames
  Three sites provide training for service cooks. They are: HMS Raleigh in Cornwall; the Army School of Catering at St. Omer barracks, Aldershot and RAF Halton, near Aylesbury. At present, the Royal Navy has 49 cooks undergoing training, the Army 157 and the RAF 18 on courses ranging from apprenticeships to advanced trade training. The estimated running costs for each school are: catering training within the overall budget of HMS Raleigh, £850,000; Army School of Catering, £7.536 million; costs specific to Catering Training Squadron at RAF Halton, £215,000. The difference in running costs reflects the different constitution of the schools; HMS Raleigh and RAF Halton
  973
  are units within larger establishments and have the benefit of sharing overhead and support costs with their hosts, while St. Omer barracks is a stand-alone facility responsible for its own site and its attendant support.

  Arms Sales (Iraq)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military equipment used by Iraq in the Gulf war and subsequently discovered by the United Kingdom and its allies was(a) manufactured in the United Kingdom and (b) purchased from the United Kingdom; and from which companies it derived. [35094]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No comprehensive record was kept of the large quantities of Iraqi equipment captured by the allies during the Gulf conflict. However, some electrical items or components of British manufacture were found. Exports of defence equipment to Iraq are currently being investigated by Sir Richard Scott.

  Defence Animal Centre
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 532, what activities other than horse training take place at the Defence Animal Centre; and which other Government Departments use its services. [34790]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Animal Centre, DAC, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of DAC to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Colonel A. H. Roache to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question regarding activities other than horse training at the Defence Animal Centre.The Defence Animal Centre carries out the following activities for the MOD: procurement and training of dogs and horses; development of animal training methods; training of individuals in animal handling and management skills and provision of base veterinary support. The following other government departments use its services: Foreign and Commonwealth Office, HM Prison Service, Scottish Prison Service, HM Customs & Excise, Immigration Service, Jersey & Guernsey Police.I hope you find this information useful.
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 532, which animals in addition to dogs and horses are trained at the Defence Animal Centre giving (a) the number and (b) the costs for each category. [34791]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Animal Centre, DAC, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of DAC to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front Colonel A. H. Roache to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question regarding animal training at the Defence Animal Centre. The answer is that no animals other than horses or dogs are trained here.I hope you find this information useful.974

  Official Cars
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 532, how many senior officers can call on the official pool of vehicles; how many vehicles there are; and how many have been bought in the past five years; and at what cost. [34792]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Horses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 11 July,Official Report, column 532, how many horses are currently in service. [34793]

  Mr. Soames
  The Army, which is the only service to own horses at public expense, has 440 fully trained horses in service.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost of employing consultants in connection with privatisation programmes in which his Department has been engaged since 1980. [33466]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The only privatisation programme for which information on the use of consultants can be made available without disproportionate cost is that in connection with the proposed privatisation of the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth about which my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Defence made an announcement on 18 October 1993,Official Report, columns 39–41. Between 18 October 1993 and 12 July 1995, payments made to consultants in relation to their work totalled £7.1 million. Further costs have been incurred, but final details will not be available until invoices have been presented and payments agreed.

  Previous estimates given to hon. Members by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) gave a figure for "payments made or outstanding". The figure for payments outstanding included estimates which were higher than actual outturn costs. I can now report that costs reported in the previous answers were overstated by some £510,000. Therefore, the costs previously quoted as £7.2 million and £6.5 million are now known to have been £6.7 million and £6 million respectively.

  I have written to the hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark), for Plymouth, Devenport (Mr. Jamieson) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) to inform them of the revision to the figures which they were given in previous answers.

  Wrongful Dismissal
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 4 July,Official Report, column 184, if he will list the categories of information on legal costs for claims of wrongful dismissal by which his Department collates information. [34851]
  975
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  As my predecessor said in his reply of 4 July,Official Report, column 184, my Department keeps no central record of cases of wrongful dismissal and the Treasury solicitor's department would require details of individual cases before it could provide information on legal costs incurred by my Department in such cases. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. If, however, the hon. Lady has a particular category of wrongful dismissal or other type of claim on which she requires information, she should write to my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who will be happy to consider the matter further.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assumptions have been made in her current plans for nursery education vouchers for the redemption value of such vouchers; [34827]

  (2) if a nursery education voucher used in part or full payment for five half days a week at a playgroup will have the same value as a voucher used for part or full payment for the same period at a private nursery; and if she will make a statement. [34829]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The expectation is that a voucher worth around £1,100 will be exchanged for either a part-time place in a nursery class, nursery school, or private nursery establishment, or a full-time place in a reception class, or up to a full-time place in a playgroup. The detailed funding regime for playgroups will be considered further.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if pre-school playgroups and private nursery schools will be expected to achieve the same stated learning achievements if they are to be eligible for participation in the nursery education voucher scheme. [34828]

  Mr. Squire
  All institutions offering pre-school education in exchange for vouchers will be expected to work towards the same desirable achievements for children's learning.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment at what age a child qualifies for being funded for a nursery place by the new voucher initiative. [34469]

  Mr. Squire
  A child will become eligible for a voucher at the beginning of the first term after his or her fourth birthday.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance her Department gives on the appropriate adult-child ratio for nursery classes to be funded by the nursery voucher scheme. [34467]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Health are jointly consulting on whether the existing guidance on adult-child ratios remain appropriate for institutions registered to exchange vouchers for pre-school education.
  976
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) who will be responsible for the administrative costs of the nursery voucher initiative; [34466]

  (2) what she estimates will be the administrative costs of the nursery initiative for individual local education authorities the size of Ealing; [34470]

  (3) pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July, Official Report, columns 517–19, on pre-school education, what estimates she has for the total cost of running the voucher scheme. [34108]

  Mr. Squire
  The cost of issuing and redeeming vouchers is expected to be less than 1.5 per cent. of the value of the vouchers themselves.

  The administration costs are included in the £185 million of new money announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Because administration will be handled by a private sector company, the additional burden on local authorities is not expected to be significant.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will allow local education authorities to borrow extra capital specifically to fund the provision of extra nursery facilities in their areas. [34468]

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19, on pre-school education (1) what supplementary capital funding she intends to make available to those parts of the country which currently have the lowest levels of provision for four-year-olds; [34114]

  (2) what capital funding she intends to make available to facilitate the expansion of pre-school places for four-year-olds. [34115]

  Mr. Squire
  The private and voluntary sectors can raise any capital needed for expansion commercially on the strength of voucher income. In the maintained sector, local education authorities are free to determine their own priorities for capital expenditure. Local education authorities and their schools can also enter into arrangements with the private sector using the new freedoms provided by the private finance initiative.

  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she taking to protect the position of education authorities that have already made substantial provision for nursery education, so that their standard spending assessment is not to be disadvantaged in relation to authorities which have made little provision. [34498]

  Mr. Squire
  If their recruitment of four-year-olds is maintained at present levels, no LEA will be worse off under the proposed funding method for the voucher scheme.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19, on

  977
  pre-school education, which companies have been invited to tender for the administration of the voucher scheme; and which companies have submitted bids. [34106]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 6 July her decision to select, by competitive tender, a private sector company to issue and redeem the pre-school voucher. Advertisements inviting expressions of interest will be published shortly.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19, on pre-school education, (1) what provision will be made for children who would currently receive a full-time nursery place in the maintained sector; [34118]

  (2) if the Government will continue to give financial support to local education authorities to provide for threeyear-olds; and what plans there are to change the level of support for three-year-olds; [34107]

  (3) pursuant to her answer of 15 May, Official Report, columns 11–12, how a local education authority should meet the difference in the cost between the £1,100 voucher and a full-time place in an infant class. [34117]

  Mr. Squire
  The proposed funding method will recoup from local authorities a sum equivalent to the voucher value multiplied by the number of four-year-olds in maintained provision in each authority. This is only a part of total spending on under-fives, and allows local education authorities to continue to spend above the voucher value on full or part-time places for four-year-olds, and on three-year-olds, as they judge appropriate.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19, in respect of legislative change to implement her plans for changes in education for the under-fives, if there will be changes in the statutory instruments defining the qualifications of teachers in nursery schools and those relating to their premises. [34120]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Health will be jointly consulting on whether the requirements of the Children Act 1989, including those that relate to premises, remain appropriate for institutions which register to exchange vouchers for pre-school education.

  In addition, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Wales announced on 14 July their intention to consult on a new set of school premises regulations. These regulations apply to all maintained schools, including maintained nursery schools. They will continue to do so. My right hon. Friend made it clear that all essential health and safety requirements in the current regulations will be retained.

  My right hon. Friend has no plans at this stage to impose any new qualification requirements for staff in any institutions which register to exchange vouchers for pre-school education.
  978
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19, on pre-school education, what plans she has to enable provision over and above the value of the voucher to be provided for children with special educational needs. [34112]

  Mr. Squire
  Local education authorities will keep some of their existing funding for four-year-olds, and be able to spend more than the value of the voucher where needed to offer appropriate provision for pupils with special educational needs.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July, Official Report, columns 517–19, on pre-school education, what plans she has to bring school providers currently regulated under the Children Act 1989 under the inspection of the Office for Standards in Education. [34111]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend plans to introduce an inspection regime which will regulate standards of education at all institutions registered to exchange vouchers for pre-school education, including those institutions currently registered under the Children Act. She is consulting jointly with the Secretary of State for Health on the nature of the inspection regime.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she expects to take to ensure that levels of staffing in existing local authority nursery schools will not be prejudiced by the establishments of new nursery schools by a provider offering improved remuneration and conditions to those currently available. [34119]

  Mr. Squire
  Provided local authority nursery schools continue to recruit the same number of four-year-olds as they do now, in response to parental demand, they should not have their funding reduced. It is for the private and voluntary sector institutions to set their own rates of pay and conditions of service.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19, on pre-school education, by how much local authority standard spending assessment for under-fives education will be reduced once the full voucher scheme has been reduced. [34109]

  Mr. Squire
  The amount recouped from each local authority to contribute to funding the voucher scheme will be the product of the number of four-year-olds in maintained provision and the voucher value. For full implementation of the scheme, the amount recouped is likely to be in the region of £545 million.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her oral statement of 6 July,Official Report, columns 517–19, on pre-school education, what financial assistance will be made available to train teachers and staff for the expansion of pre-school places for four-year-olds.

  Mr. Squire
  Institutions which exchange vouchers for pre-school education will be able to use voucher income to invest in staff training to raise the quality of provision and to meet the needs of children and parents.

  Pupil-population Ratios
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list in descending order the number of pupils as a percentage of the resident population in each local education authority area on the most recent date when such numbers were estimated; and what consideration is given to such actual pupil-population ratios in the calculation of education standard spending assessments. [34485]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: The table compares the number of pupils aged five to 15 at August 1993 living in their area for whom local education authorities were financially responsible with their overall population aged five to 15 at June 1993. Precise ratios are difficult to calculate because the pupil and population data are estimated on different dates.

  Ratio of pupils to population

  LEA Name

  Resorted pupils aged 5–15

  Population aged 5–15

  Pupils as a percentage of population

  Tower Hamlets

  28,738

  28,662

  100.3

  Sandwell

  41,488

  41,653

  99.6

  Walsall

  38,135

  38,538

  99.0

  Doncaster

  42,372

  42,924

  98.7

  Birmingham

  150,327

  152,602

  98.5

  Rotherham

  36,034

  36,611

  98.4

  Liverpool

  67,165

  67,277

  98.4

  Tameside

  31,322

  31,859

  98.3

  St. Helens

  24,923

  25,377

  98.2

  Barking and Dagenham

  20,211

  20,608

  98.1

  Waltham Forest

  28,555

  29,124

  98.0

  Dudley

  40,751

  41,662

  97.8

  Wigan

  43,283

  44,334

  97.6

  Cleveland

  85,364

  87,520

  97.5

  Barnsley

  30,022

  30,921

  97.1

  Oldham

  33,141

  34,174

  97.0

  Knowsley

  25,061

  25,847

  97.0

  Wolverhampton

  34,450

  35,541

  96.9

  Havering

  30,493

  31,468

  96.9

  Lincolnshire

  77,514

  80,028

  96.9

  Bexley

  28,993

  29,938

  96.8

  Newham

  35,515

  36,674

  96.8

  Rochdale

  31,329

  32,366

  96.8

  Calderdale

  26,902

  27,796

  96.8

  Enfield

  33,938

  35,115

  96.6

  Sunderland

  43,086

  44,597

  96.6

  Bradford

  73,686

  76,385

  96.5

  Humberside

  121,466

  125,947

  96.4

  Staffordshire

  141,769

  147,227

  96.3

  Cumbria

  62,641

  65,237

  96.0

  North Tyneside

  25,581

  26,644

  96.0

  South Tyneside

  21,782

  22,689

  96.0

  Northumberland

  41,399

  43,140

  96.0

  Sheffield

  62,300

  65,074

  95.7

  Durham

  81345

  85,009

  95.7

  Bolton

  37,407

  39,119

  95.6

  Derbyshire

  122,602

  128,223

  95.6

  Wakefield

  42,676

  44,666

  95.5

  Cornwall

  61,135

  64,061

  95.4

  Lancashire

  192,358

  201,916

  95.3

  Essex

  201,510

  212,625

  94.8

  Nottinghamshire

  132,564

  140,082

  94.6

  Leeds

  91,239

  96,440

  94.6

  Kirklees

  53,250

  56,287

  94.6

  Manchester

  60,540

  64,012

  94.6

  Coventry

  41,219

  43,698

  94.3

  Bedfordshire

  76,165

  80,750

  94.3

  Cheshire

  130,548

  138,525

  94.2

  Isle of Wight Council

  15,298

  16,233

  94.2

  Bury

  24,392

  25,936

  94.0

  Gateshead

  25,152

  26,828

  93.8

  Leicestershire

  122,068

  130,211

  93.7

  Hounslow

  26,545

  28,326

  93.7

  Norfolk

  91,631

  97,821

  93.7

  980

  Ratio of pupils to population

  LEA Name

  Resorted pupils aged 5–15

  Population aged 5–15

  Pupils as a percentage of population

  Salford

  29,379

  31,383

  93.6

  Hillingdon

  29,472

  31,526

  93.5

  Shropshire

  54,649

  58,624

  93.2

  Wirral

  45,406

  48,722

  93.2

  Kent

  199,678

  214,440

  93.1

  Wiltshire

  75,256

  80,994

  92.9

  Brent

  32,059

  34,513

  92.9

  Sefton

  38,014

  40,931

  92.9

  Northamptonshire

  81,242

  87,524

  92.8

  Sutton

  20,841

  22,498

  92.6

  Cambridgeshire

  87,466

  94,449

  92.6

  Solihull

  26,189

  28,297

  92.6

  Isles of Scilly

  283

  306

  92.5

  North Yorkshire

  87,480

  94,596

  92.5

  Haringey

  24,628

  26,639

  92.5

  Devon

  124,886

  135,327

  92.3

  Trafford

  28,267

  30,723

  92.0

  Warwickshire

  61,565

  67,160

  91.7

  Glouchestershire

  67,259

  73,380

  91.7

  Greenwich

  28,973

  31,632

  91.6

  Redbridge

  29,337

  32,086

  91.4

  Dorset

  74,996

  82,064

  91.4

  Hampshire

  198,595

  217,914

  91.1

  Hereford and Worcester

  88,165

  96,984

  90.9

  Hertfordshire

  125,556

  138,140

  90.9

  Avon

  115,363

  126,966

  90.9

  Lewisham

  28,250

  31,119

  90.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  33,269

  36,710

  90.6

  Buckinghamshire

  88,271

  97,748

  90.3

  Stockport

  36,613

  40,589

  90.2

  West Sussex

  83,537

  93,215

  89.6

  Somerset

  58,119

  65,088

  89.3

  Suffolk

  79,690

  89,662

  88.9

  Islington

  18,907

  21,282

  88.8

  Berkshire

  97,221

  109,465

  88.8

  Bromley

  32,085

  36,276

  88.4

  Lambeth

  28,310

  32,178

  88.0

  Ealing

  33,738

  38,362

  87.9

  East Sussex

  76,631

  87,722

  87.4

  Croydon

  37,961

  43,868

  86.5

  Kingston upon Thames

  14,380

  16,732

  85.9

  Southwark

  25,625

  29,948

  85.6

  Harrow

  24,333

  28,774

  84.6

  Merton

  17,993

  21,303

  84.5

  Oxfordshire

  66,870

  79,347

  84.3

  Hackney

  23,720

  28,288

  83.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  12,455

  15,210

  81.9

  Wandsworth

  20,981

  25,944

  80.9

  Camden

  15,331

  19,000

  80.7

  Barnet

  32,046

  40,593

  78.9

  Surrey

  106,365

  136,266

  78.1

  Richmond upon Thames

  13,616

  18,924

  72.0

  Westminster

  10,892

  16,458

  66.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7,164

  12,986

  55.2

  City of London

  53

  167

  31.7

  Total

  6,188,810

  6,668,369

  92.8

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the area cost adjustment for each shire county for 1995–6 as a
  983

  Cost per pupil: Net institutional expenditure

  Pre-Primary/Primary 1993–94

  £

  Haringey

  2,236

  Wandsworth

  2,139

  Lewisham

  2,058

  Camden

  2,047

  Greenwich

  2,009

  Barnet

  2,006

  Hackney

  1,958

  Ealing

  1,915

  Harrow

  1,913

  Merton

  1,853

  Waltham Forest

  1,821

  Southwark

  1,806

  Hillingdon

  1,804

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,794

  Croydon

  1,793

  Barking

  1,790

  Hounslow

  1,784

  Enfield

  1,768

  Oxfordshire

  1,765

  Buckinghamshire

  1,735

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,728

  Essex

  1,724

  Rotherham

  1,723

  Newham

  1,708

  Surrey

  1,701

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,697

  Northumberland

  1,686

  Coventry

  1,684

  Sandwell

  1,681

  Suffolk

  1,673

  Walsall

  1,672

  Lancashire

  1,669

  Cumbria

  1,667

  Gateshead

  1,664

  Durham

  1,664

  Hertfordshire

  1,664

  Bradford

  1,654

  Nottinghamshire

  1,653

  Leeds

  1,647

  Oldham

  1,645

  East Sussex

  1,643

  Redbridge

  1,640

  Sutton

  1,639

  Bedfordshire

  1,639

  Havering

  1,636

  Brent

  1,633

  Leicestershire

  1,629

  Humberside

  1,621

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,617

  Calderdale

  1,607

  St. Helens

  1,605

  Derbyshire

  1,600

  Isle of Wight

  1,598

  Berkshire

  1,592

  Liverpool

  1,586

  Norfolk

  1,585

  Somerset

  1,583

  Hampshire

  1,583

  Bolton

  1,581

  Kirklees

  1,579

  West Sussex

  1,579

  Wakefield

  1,577

  Shropshire

  1,577

  Solihull

  1,574

  Sheffield

  1,573

  Bexley

  1,573

  Birmingham

  1,572

  Avon

  1,571

  North Yorkshire

  1,555

  Warwickshire

  1,555

  Wirral

  1,552

  984

  Cost per pupil: Net institutional expenditure

  Pre-Primary/Primary 1993–94

  £

  Manchester

  1,547

  Barnsley

  1,539

  Cornwall

  1,535

  Staffordshire

  1,534

  Cambridgeshire

  1,534

  Bromley

  1,525

  Gloucestershire

  1,523

  Northamptonshire

  1,522

  Wiltshire

  1,521

  Sunderland

  1,509

  Salford

  1,505

  Devon

  1,503

  Lincolnshire

  1,496

  Dudley

  1,490

  Knowsley

  1,485

  Dorset

  1,485

  Cheshire

  1,483

  North Tyneside

  1,469

  Stockport

  1,466

  South Tyneside

  1,463

  Cleveland

  1,461

  Sefton

  1,448

  Tameside

  1,442

  Wigan

  1,437

  Bury

  1,432

  Trafford

  1,428

  Doncaster

  1,425

  Kent

  1,397

  Wolverhampton

  1,357

  Rochdale

  1,307

  Average

  1,630

  Cost per pupil: Net institutional expenditure

  Secondary 1993–94

  £

  Isles of Scilly

  4,415

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,329

  Lambeth

  3,296

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,266

  Tower Hamlets

  3,157

  Haringey

  3,041

  Islington

  3,005

  Barnet

  2,952

  Wandsworth

  2,795

  City of Westminster

  2,739

  Camden

  2,716

  Hillingdon

  2,670

  Hackney

  2,617

  Lewisham

  2,614

  Liverpool

  2,613

  Greenwich

  2,583

  Ealing

  2,575

  Newham

  2,563

  Enfield

  2,531

  Waltham Forest

  2,526

  Redbridge

  2,526

  Conventry

  2,469

  West Sussex

  2,467

  Merton

  2,463

  Harrow

  2,439

  Southwark

  2,421

  Warwickshire

  2,420

  Nottinghamshire

  2,381

  Wiltshire

  2,379

  Barking

  2,355

  Shropshire

  2,354

  Sandwell

  2,349

  Lancashire

  2,347

  985

  Cost per pupil: Net institutional expenditure

  Secondary 1993–94

  £

  Bexley

  2,341

  Birmingham

  2,330

  Manchester

  2,328

  Lincolnshire

  2,322

  St. Helens

  2,315

  Stockport

  2,310

  Croydon

  2,309

  Norfolk

  2,309

  Wolverhampton

  2,300

  Wirral

  2,299

  Havering

  2,290

  Avon

  2,288

  Buckinghamshire

  2,286

  Essex

  2,286

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,284

  Hounslow

  2,282

  Walsall

  2,281

  Bromley

  2,280

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,280

  Oldham

  2,278

  Rotherham

  2,271

  East Sussex

  2,270

  Leicestershire

  2,263

  Humberside

  2,257

  Gateshead

  2,252

  Hertfordshire

  2,245

  Knowsley

  2,243

  Solihull

  2,217

  Cumbria

  2,216

  Salford

  2,215

  Surrey

  2,215

  Derbyshire

  2,214

  Berkshire

  2,214

  Kirklees

  2,207

  Sefton

  2,204

  Oxfordshire

  2,191

  Suffolk

  2,190

  North Yorkshire

  2,187

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,187

  Hampshire

  2,180

  Leeds

  2,164

  Calderdale

  2,162

  Cornwall

  2,160

  Devon

  2,157

  Trafford

  2,156

  Wakefield

  2,150

  Wigan

  2,141

  Somerset

  2,138

  Cleveland

  2,129

  Northamptonshire

  2,125

  Bolton

  2,119

  Sheffield

  2,119

  Sunderland

  2,114

  Durham

  2,114

  Cheshire

  2,106

  Bedfordshire

  2,103

  Barnsley

  2,101

  Dudley

  2,098

  Tameside

  2,095

  Gloucestershire

  2,084

  Northumberland

  2,083

  Kent

  2,079

  Staffordshire

  2,078

  Dorset

  2,065

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,038

  Isle of Wight

  2,027

  Doncaster

  2,022

  North Tyneside

  1,995

  Bury

  1,979

  Sutton

  1,978

  Rochdale

  1,974

  986

  Cost per pupil: Net institutional expenditure

  Secondary 1993–94

  £

  Bradford

  1,969

  Cambridgeshire

  1,956

  South Tyneside

  1,948

  Brent

  1,835

  Corporation of London

  0

  Average

  2,245

  Special Education Needs (Asthma)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children were given statements of special educational needs in the last five years for which figures are available; and how many of them were statemented because of asthma. [34528]

  Mr. Forth
  Information on the number of children with statements of special educational needs is contained in the table.

  Information is not collected on the number of children who received statements because of asthma.

  Total number of children with statements of special educational needs and number with new statements in England

  Position in January each year

  Survey year

  Total children with statements

  New statements1

  19902

  142,618

  24,898

  1991

  154,743

  26,519

  1992

  165,095

  30,847

  1993(3)

  176,698

  34,037

  19944

  192,308

  38,292

  1 Children with statement made for the first time during the previous calendar year.

  2 Excludes Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Wandsworth.

  3 Excludes Leicestershire.

  4 Excludes Derbyshire.

  Department of Employment (Sheffield Site)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guarantee she will give that staff employed at the former Department of Employment's Sheffield office will continue their work. [33519]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is expected that the Department will continue to operate from the Sheffield site, which performs a range of important functions.

  Training
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the number of Government-funded training for work placements, with title of scheme, each year since the introduction of the job creation programme. [34025]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is shown in the following table and covers all adult and youth programmes:
  987

  Number of adult and youth programme starts1 for each financial year from 1978–79 to 1994–95

  Great Britain, numbers

  Year

  Total for all programmes

  Community Industry

  Community programme2

  Enterprise allowance/ business start-up3

  Youth opportunities programme

  Voluntary projects programme

  Youth training4 5

  Training opportunities programme6

  Industrial language training scheme7

  Occupational training8

  Business training

  Employment action

  1978–79

  258,800

  6,700

  19.700

  —

  162,200

  —

  —

  70,200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1979–80

  338,400

  8,900

  22,400

  —

  216,400

  —

  —

  90,700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  469,200

  8,200

  18,400

  —

  360,000

  —

  —

  82,600

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  674,800

  9,000

  34,300

  —

  553,000

  —

  —

  71,200

  7,300

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  655,900

  8,900

  12,100

  2,500

  543,100

  —

  —

  72,600

  8,900

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  647,200

  9,600

  134,400

  27,600

  —

  —

  370,000

  80,100

  11,500

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  797,000

  9,500

  161,400

  46,000

  —

  63,000

  397,000

  —

  11,300

  58,200

  6,500

  —

  1985–86

  1,045,000

  9,500

  241,200

  60,000

  —

  71,500

  406,000

  —

  13,800

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  1,358,500

  9,800

  307,500

  86,800

  —

  80,300

  420,000

  —

  19,300

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  1,402,900

  9,800

  269,100

  106,300

  —

  105,600

  399,000

  —

  17,600

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  1,263,500

  10,800

  84,000

  98,500

  —

  88,200

  408,000

  —

  17,200

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  893,000

  —

  —

  78,000

  —

  —

  384,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  797,000

  —

  —

  60,000

  —

  —

  347,800

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  655,400

  —

  —

  50,000

  —

  —

  290,400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  22,000

  1992–93

  686,000

  —

  —

  41,000

  —

  —

  286,700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  67,000

  1993–94

  669,000

  —

  —

  40,600

  —

  —

  290,300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  655,900

  —

  —

  31,200

  —

  —

  303,700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Training Statistics.

  Notes:

  1Including second and subsequent starts.

  2 Includes Special Temporary Employment Programme (1978–79 to 1980–81). Community Enterprise Programme (1981–82) and Community Programme (1982–83 to 1988–89).

  3EAS was replaced by BSUS in April 1991 BSUS is a TEC delivered programme based on local needs.

  4YT/YTS figures may not correspond to earlier published figures due to periodical updating.

  5From April 1990 YTS became YT.

  Except for the following, all figures were obtained from the relevant Training Agency Branch/Section.

  6 Training Opportunities Programme (TOPS), up to 1979–80 from Annual Reports.

  7Industrial Language Training Scheme (ILTS), figures prior to 1987–88 from Annual Reports. Figures prior to 1981–82 are not available separately. ILTS was part of Training Within Industry (TWI) which was part of TOPS and comprised several smaller schemes. The ILTS figure is therefore included in the TOPS total for these years.

  8Occupational Training (OT), Business Training (BT) and Work Preparation (WP), figures from Annual Reports.

  The Youth Opportunities Programme was split into two parts, Work Experience (WE) included in the figures are a) Work Experience on Employers Premises (WEEP), b) Community Projects (CP) and Work Preparation (WP) included in the figures are (a) Short training Courses, (b) Remedial and Preparatory Courses (mainly work induction courses and young people's work preparation courses) and c) Assessment and Employment Induction Courses.

  Number of adult and youth programme starts1 for each financial year from 1978–79 to 1994–95

  Great Britain numbers

  Year

  Work preparation

  Old job training scheme

  New job training scheme

  Training for Enterprise

  Access to information technology

  Local grants to employers

  Self-standing work preparation

  Training linked to community programme

  Employment training/training for work

  Open tech

  National priority skills scheme2

  1978–79

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1979–80

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,800

  1983–84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,000

  8,000

  1984–85

  23,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,100

  —

  12,000

  6,000

  1985–86

  —

  54,800

  —

  20,300

  28,200

  53,300

  34,300

  20,600

  —

  20,000

  11,500

  1986–87

  —

  68,800

  2,100

  67,000

  32,200

  131,700

  48,800

  42,900

  —

  33,000

  8,300

  1987–88

  —

  49,200

  99,100

  107,000

  22,100

  123,500

  46,200

  41,400

  —

  —

  7,000

  1988–89

  —

  24,300

  50,700

  89,800

  —

  106,800

  27,900

  16,600

  238,600

  —

  2,100

  1989–90

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  431,000

  —

  —

  1990–91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  389,000

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  293,000

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  291,000

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  338,400

  —

  —

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  321,100

  —

  —

  Source:

  Training Statistics.

  Note:

  1Including second and subsequent starts.

  2National Priority Skill Scheme; prior to 1986 figures are from Annual Reports. The figure for 1984 has been estimated. The Youth Opportunities Programme was split into two parts.

  Work Experience (WE): included in the figures are a) Work Experience on Employers Premises (WEEP).b) Community Projects (CP) and Work Preparation (WP): included in the figures are a) Short Training Courses, b) Remedial and Preparatory Courses (mainly work induction courses and young people's work preparation courses) and c) Assessment and Employment Induction Courses.
  988 989
  Sir Peter Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide incentives to training and enterprise councils to encourage firms of under 50 employees to commit themselves to investment in people programmes. [34727]

  Mr. Paice
  Training and enterprise councils have some £55 million available in 1995–95 to help employers to move towards investors in people. Employers normally need to contribute to the cost on a matched funding basis but TECs have the discretion to exempt those with under 50 employees from this requirement. Almost 9,000 firms with under 50 employees are formally committed to achieving the investors in people standard. I will be considering proposals for performance targets for TECs for 1995–96 during the autumn.

  The Department has other provisions aimed specifically at training in small firms. Over three years from April 1995, £63 million is available through skills for small businesses to help 24,000 key workers in small firms to become training champions and train others in their firms.

  The competitiveness White Paper "Forging ahead", published in May 1995, includes £5 million for the small firms training challenge. A prospectus will be published shortly, seeking bids from group of small firms.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what consideration she has given to the introduction of a training levy; and if she will make a statement. [34952]

  Mr. Paice
  The introduction of a general training levy is not under consideration. The Government remain committed to deregulation—removed burdens on firms, not increasing them.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the achievements of(a) her policies and (b) her Department in helping small businesses over the last 12 months as against the previous 12 months; and if she will publish the performance indicators by which her Department monitors those achievements and the statistical results of such monitoring. [34704]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government recognise the crucial role played by small firms in the UK economy. Effective human resource management is crucial to the success of small firms. The Department funds training and enterprise councils to improve their commitment to developing their people through a range of measures.

  The numbers of organisations that have reached the investors in people standard are:

  May 1994

  May 1995

  Firms with less than 200 employees

  613

  1,394

  Firms with less than 50 employees

  371

  850

  Materials are available to help small firms achieve the standard. Over 8,000 organisations with less than 50 employees have made a formal commitment to achieving the standard.
  990
  The small firms training loans scheme was introduced last year. Some 1,500 loans are forecast this year.

  Over three years from April 1995, skills for small businesses will equip 24,000 key workers in small firms to train others in their firms and to help other small firms. In piloting the initiative, more than 50 firms were helped to train key workers.

  The competitiveness White Paper "Forging Ahead" outlined a programme of measures to assist the growth and competitiveness of the small firms sector. This includes £5 million for the small firms training challenge. The aim is to involve directly at least 1,000 small firms in exemplary projects. A prospectus will be published shortly, seeking bids from groups of small firms.

  The small firms lead body, supported by the Department, has been developing standards and qualifications appropriate to small businesses.

  In addition to these specific measures, large numbers of small firms continue to take part in other training initiatives such as modern apprenticeships, youth training and training for work.

  Departmental Redundancies
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the number of(a) total and (b) voluntary redundancies occurring in (i) the Department for Education and (ii) the Department of Employment over the last 12 months; and what was the amount of money spent on these redundancy payments. [34580]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: There have been no redundancies in either the Department for Education or the Employment Department over the last 12 months.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Ian McCartneyM
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many unfair dismissal cases were brought against(a) the Department for Education and (b) the Department of Employment over the last 12 months; how many cases were successful; and what were the total costs, both in legal fees and compensation. [34578]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: None and 29 respectively. No cases were successful. The total legal costs incurred were £22,554.47

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many sickness days were lost by employees of(a) the Department for Education and (b) the Department of Employment over the last 12 months, both in total and as a proportion of the number of days worked; and what was the cost of this absence. [34579]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 14 July 1995]: Information is not readily available in the form requested. The total number of working days lost to sickness during 1994 by employees of the Department for Education was 13,926, or 3.46 per cent. of the working days available. The total number of days lost to employees of the Employment Department for the 12 months up to the end

  991
  of March were 636,709, or 4.8 per cent. of the total number of working days available.

  The cost of this absence could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Part-time Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to ensure that students under 19 years attending further education courses part time will be adequately funded. [35064]

  Mr. Paice
  Last month, the former Employment Department and Department for Education, together with the Training and Enterprise Council National Council and the Further Education Funding Council, issued joint guidance to interested parties on their respective funding responsibilities for part-time students. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking to ensure that part-time students with learning difficulties are not disadvantaged by undertaking non-national vocational qualification programmes under the training credits scheme. [35063]

  Mr. Paice
  Youth credits provide access to youth training, which supports young people with learning difficulties in making progress towards qualifications agreed in an individual training plan and tailored to their individual needs. Additional support is provided to help both full and part-time trainees achieve their agreed training aim.

  Young People Leaving Care (Support Services)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what specific support services are made available by her Department for young people leaving care. [35013]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department works closely with the Department of Health to promote effective support to young people leaving care. There are specific provisions for this group in entitlement to income support and to youth training. Career services provide support for all young people, including those leaving care, in making informed career choices.

  Actively Seeking Employment (Warning Letters)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if a warning letter in respect of actively seeking employment is normally issued before a benefit disqualification; [33558]

  (2) in what circumstances a warning letter in respect of actively seeking employment will be issued. [33559]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  992
  Letter from D. Grover to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions concerning the issue of warning letters in respect of actively seeking employment.A warning letter in respect of actively seeking employment is not normally issued before a claim is referred for an adjudication decision. A warning letter is issued only when it is clear that a client has genuinely misunderstood what is expected of them and is in need of further advice on the requirement to actively seek employment.I hope this is helpful.

  Career Development Loans
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received on the refusal of banks to consider career development loans applications until six weeks before the start of training or education; and if she will make a statement. [34123]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department has not received any representations concerning any refusal of career development loan lending banks to consider applications until six weeks before the start of training or education. There is no policy to impose any time limit on consideration of loan applications. As CDL literature clearly points out, prospective applicants are advised to apply well in advance of the course start date as it may take two or three weeks before the banks are able to make a decision. Although CDL funds cannot be released more than one month in advance of the course start date, the banks can consider applications at any time. In cases where they consider an application more than one month before the course start date, the banks may ask the applicant to confirm that his details remain the same prior to the release of funds.

  Department of Employment Staff
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many staff employed in the former Department of Employment will as a result of that Department's abolition,(a) be made redundant, (b) take early retirement, (c) be employed on a temporary contract instead of a permanent contract and (d) be employed on a part-time basis instead of a full-time basis; and if she will make a statement. [34660]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The functions carried out by the former Employment Department will continue in the Departments to which they have been transferred. There may be some scope for rationalisation as a result of these changes but it is too soon to say what the effect will be. Our aim will be, if possible, to avoid compulsory redundancies, in the same way as the former Employment Department has achieved a reduction of over 4,000 staff in the last two years without compulsory redundancies.

  Department of Employment Programmes
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which programmes formerly undertaken by the Department of Employment have been transferred to other Departments; and which have been dropped. [34668]
  993
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The main responsibilities transferring from the former Employment Department to other Departments are:industrial relations policy and legislation, pay issues, redundancy payments, administration of industrial tribunals and sponsorship of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service to the Department of Trade and Industry;
  health and safety at work, including the Health and Safety Commission and Executive to the Department of the Environment;
  employment statistics and labour market surveys to the Central Statistical Office.

  All other functions of the former Employment Department including employment, training, labour market and equal opportunities will be undertaken by the newly created Department for Education and Employment.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many applications have been made for each element of assistance under the access to work scheme since June 1994; and how many and what proportion of these were successful; [34384]

  (2) what is the average amount paid under the access to work scheme (a) per applicant, (b) per element of assistance and (c) per region; [34385]

  (3) how many and what proportion of applicants refused assistance under the access to work scheme have subsequently appealed against this refusal; and what are the outcomes; [34386]

  (4) what is the average period between an application for assistance under the access to work scheme and the provision of assistance; [34387]

  (5) how many and what proportion of applicants for access to work have been from (a) people in employment, (b) people in self-employment and (c) people signing on as unemployed. [34388]

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

  Letter from R. M. Phillips to Mr. Roger Berry, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your questions about the Access to Work programme.The Access to Work programme was introduced in June 1994 to provide support to help disabled people overcome work-related obstacles caused by their disability so that they are able to compete for jobs and perform at work on an equal basis with non-disabled people.Provisional figures for the period 6 June 1994 to 31 March 1995 show that the number of items approved under each element is as follows—

  Number

  Special aids and equipment

  10,614

  Adaptations to premises

  111

  Personal reader service

  215

  Assistance with fares to work

  1,418

  Communicator support at interview

  288

  Support worker assistance

  432

  Adaptations to vehicles

  94

  Miscellaneous items of support

  289

  994
  Some disabled people will have received more than one element of assistance in the period. The personal reader support and assistance with fares to work figures do not include those disabled people who received support under transitional arrangements from previous schemes and did not transfer to Access to Work until April 1995.

  Statistics are not held centrally for the number of applications that were turned down in the period. However, we are currently undertaking a review of Access to Work and research to support the review will examine in detail the operation of the programme. A report of the research will be published in the normal way.

  The average cost per item of support and per Region is listed in the following table.

  Average cost per application by item

  £

  Assisted fares to work

  1,845

  Adaptations to premises

  5,897

  Adaptations to vehicles

  1,212

  Communicator support

  169

  Miscellaneous

  403

  Personal reader service

  5,857

  Special aids and equipment

  1,008

  Support workers

  497

  Average cost by region

  Region

  Spend £

  Beneficiaries

  Average cost £

  Northern

  729,133

  433

  1,684

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,470,175

  890

  1,652

  East Midlands

  1,633,242

  978

  1,670

  London and South East

  4,370,219

  2,126

  2,056

  South West

  1,324,317

  874

  1,515

  Wales

  664,951

  517

  1,286

  West Midlands

  1,560,407

  1,061

  1,471

  North West

  1,546,114

  1,275

  1,213

  Scotland

  1,116,383

  835

  1,337

  Total

  14,414,941

  8,989

  1,604

  These figures do not include support for 922 disabled people on transitional arrangements from the Personal Reader Scheme, which were dealt with by Head Office and are not appropriate to the Regional figure.Provisional figures for the year beginning April 1994 show that the average cost of support per application was £1,570 (includes the transitional cases).Placing, Assessment and Counselling Team (PACT) managers are responsible for monitoring the operation of Access to Work and therefore the detail of other information you asked for is not currently held centrally. However, the review and research mentioned earlier will give information in these areas. A report of the research will be published in the normal way.You may be interested to learn that three Employment Service Regions are piloting a formal operating agreement in which specific standards are set. The suggested standards are:

  PACT to complete within 3 weeks of application an action plan for 80% of applicants;

  PACTs to order within 2 weeks of completion of the action plan the agreed goods or services for 80% of all applicants;

  PACTs to follow up all cases where goods or services are not delivered within one month of completion of order;

  PACTs to follow up, by visit or telephone, 95% of applicants within 3 months of the delivery of the goods or services.

  Our intention is to extend this operating agreement to all Regions for the 1996/7 operating year, subject to the experience of the pilots.I hope this is helpful.

  Employment Service
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about the future of the Employment Service. [34626]

  Mr. Forth
  A prior options review of the Employment Service was completed in March this year. This concluded that the agency has significantly improved its performance since 1990; that it has a very important part to play in the effective operation of the labour market; and that it will perform a crucial role in implementing the jobseeker's allowance, which will be introduced next year. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) on 29 March 1995,Official Report, columns 641–42, by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Employment. This set out the Government's response to the review in full and confirmed the agency status of the ES.

  The ES, as part of the Department for Education and Employment, will provide as key element in our policies to improve competitiveness relating to the work force. By bringing together active labour market policy, education and training into one Department, we will build on the achievements in recent years which have helped to reduce unemployment.

  Jobfinder's Grants
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many jobfinder's grants have been awarded since its introduction in April(a) nationally and (b) by region; what is the average level of wage received and hours worked by each recipient of a grant; and what is the lowest level of wage rate per hour. [34808]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 17 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about Jobfinder's Grants.Jobfinder's Grant are one off payments, available to assist people who have been unemployed for over two years to return to work. The following table shows the number of Jobfinder's Grants awarded nationally and by Employment Service Region since the programme was introduced on 18 April (22 May in Yorkshire and Humberside Region, where a more flexible variant to the programme is being piloted) up to 7 July, the latest date for which figures are available.

  Jobfinder s grant

  Grants awarded (up to 7 July)

  National total

  1,898

  London and South East

  234

  South West

  175

  Wales

  115

  West Midlands

  295

  North West

  285

  Scotland

  149

  Northern

  163

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  92

  East Midlands and Easter

  390

  996 Information on the average level of wage received and hours worked by recipients is not available. The programme is designed to help very long term unemployed people overcome financial difficulties that could deter them from taking relatively low paid jobs. Checks are made that the gross pay in each case is below the specified upper limit of £150 per week (£250 per week in Yorkshire and Humberside Region).I hope this is helpful.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to which Department the staff investigating benefit fraud have been allocated following the abolition of the Department of Employment. [35217]

  Mr. Forth
  Investigations of benefit fraud remains a responsibility of the Employment Service, which has transferred to the new Department for Education and Employment. This position is currently under review and an announcement will be made shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Maxwell Pensioners
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the pensions of the Maxwell pensioners are now secure. [32775]

  Mr. Heald
  The £276 million Maxwell settlement achieved in March has secured the position of the overwhelming majority of Maxwell pensioners. This successful outcome has been made possible by the measures taken by the Government and Sir John Cuckney's exceptional work in arranging the settlement.

  Income Support
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over retirement age he estimates are currently not taking up income support payments to which they are entitled. [32776]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest estimate is that between 480,000 and 860,000 people over 60 who were entitled to income support did not take this up. This estimate is subject to the limitations of the survey data on which it is based.

  The most recent estimates of income-related benefits take-up were published on 20 January 1995 and are for the year 1992.

  Social Security Reforms
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the long-term effect on public spending of the social security reforms he has announced so far. [32777]

  Mr. Lilley
  Long-term savings from reforms announced so far will amount to £14 billion a year.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to make personal pensions more attractive for more people. [32778]
  997
  Mr. Heald
  The Pensions Bill, which has just completed its passage through Parliament, fulfils an election pledge to make personal pensions attractive across a broader age range. It makes it worthwhile for most current personal pension holders to maintain a personal pension throughout their working life.

  Order Book Fraud
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to reduce order book fraud. [32779]

  Mr. Lilley
  I have recently announced a comprehensive programme of activities, which combine to secure the benefit system through increased accuracy and control and greatly reduced opportunities for abuse. The programme will virtually eliminate all instrument of payment fraud.

  My Department takes order book fraud very seriously. Our investigators are increasingly effective at detecting and stopping fraud in this area. We will continue to bear down on fraud and abuse through increased use of information technology; more secure payment methods; and a robust system of verification for claims and payments.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of people in receipt of housing benefit in(a) council housing, (b) housing association properties and (c) the private rented sector. [32780]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  At the latest count in February 1995, the total number of people in receipt of housing benefit was 2,991,210 in council housing; 587,570 in housing association properties and 1,158, 990 in the private rented sector.

  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Local authority

  Housing association

  Other private

  February 1995

  2,991,210

  587,570

  1,158,990

  Source:

  Housing benefit management information system quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock count.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people he estimates will have to draw means-tested benefits as a result of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance and incapacity benefit. [32782]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We estimate that, at any one time, 75,000 claimants of income-based jobseeker's allowance would have been receiving unemployment benefit but not income support. A further 10,000 people would be entitled to council tax benefit because of the jobseeker's allowance changes.

  For incapacity benefit, we estimate that throughout its first year 240,000 people on average will receive both IB and income support; and that IS will be paid
  998
  on average to 35,000 people excluded from IB as a result of the new medical test.

  Disability
  Sir Michael Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the steps he is taking to reduce discrimination against disabled people. [32783]

  Mr. Burt
  The comprehensive measures in the Disability Discrimination Bill were drawn up following wide-ranging consultation. Throughout the development of the Bill's measures, my predecessor and officials have maintained continuing communication with business and employers' groups as well as with organisations of and for disabled people.

  These widely welcomed measures prove the Government's commitment to end discrimination against disabled people.

  Compensation Recovery Unit
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much had been recovered by the compensation recovery unit in the latest year for which figures are available. [32784]

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the operation of the compensation recovery unit. [32790]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The compensation recovery unit was set up in 1990 to shift the advantage of recovery to the taxpayer who lost out to the insurer under the old scheme. Just over £110 million was recovered by the unit in 1994–95—over £31 million from April to June 1995.

  State Pension
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent consideration he has given to the method of assessment of the state pension. [32785]

  Mr. Heald
  The state pension is uprated each year in line with prices, this reflects the commitment to increase all major benefits in line with inflation and is fully in line with the Government's commitment to help those in greatest need.

  Claimants' Partners (Working Hours)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether partners of unemployed benefit claimants will be able to work for up to 24 hours a week without losing entitlement to benefit. [32786]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Yes. From October 1996, we are increasing the number of hours which partners of income-based jobseeker's allowance claimants will be able to work from 16 to 24 hours a week. The number of hours a claimant's partner works will have no affect on entitlement to contribution-based jobseeker's allowance.

  Benefits Payments (Post Office)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has in respect of pensioners being able to choose to have their benefits paid through the Post Office. [32787]
  999
  Mr. Lilley
  Pensioners will continue to be able to choose to have their benefits paid directly into their bank or building society accounts by automated credit transfer, or to collect it at the post office.

  Plans to automate the system for paying benefit at post offices are well advanced. For customers, this will mean that order books and giros are replaced with a benefit payment card. Starting next year, this change is likely to be phased in over a period of two to three years. Pensioners and other benefit recipients will be informed of what is happening, and exactly what they will need to do, nearer the time when cards are to be issued to them. People who choose to be paid by automated credit transfer will not be affected by this change and will not need a benefit payment card.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners had incomes in the top half of the national income distribution in 1979 and in the last year for which figures are available. [32788]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1979, 23 per cent. of pensioners in the United Kingdom were in the top half of the income distribution before housing costs and 25 per cent. after housing costs. By 1992–93 these figures had increased to 30 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy to reduce delays in processing inquiries by both the public and hon. Members about the Child Support Agency. [32789]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The processing of inquiries from both the public and from hon. Members is a matter of high priority. The agency has channelled additional resources into this area and has made considerable progress in eliminating delays. A number of hon. Members have commented on a noticeable improvement in both the speed and the quality of replies which they receive.

  Occupational Pensions
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve the regulation of occupational pensions. [32791]

  Mr. Heald
  The Pensions Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. It will greatly improve the regulation of occupational pensions without imposing undue costs on employers or schemes. It provides a clear framework of statutory obligations on employers, trustees, scheme professionals and others involved with occupational pensions and underlines the fact that it is the trustees who are responsible for running schemes. It establishes a statutory minimum funding requirement to ensure the adequacy of pension fund assets, an occupational pensions regulatory authority with robust and wide-ranging powers, and a compensation scheme to cover the loss of funds dishonestly removed.

  These measures will increase confidence in occupational pension schemes and thus encourage people to build funded pension provision for their retirement.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent modifications he has made to family credit. [32792]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  From today, there will be a £10 increase in family credit for people working 30 hours or more a week. We estimate that 345,000 families will benefit from this increase, which will ensure that those working longer hours see a visible gain from their extra effort. This very substantial premium for full-time workers reflects the importance the Government attach to supporting families in work. Claimants who receive housing benefit and council tax benefit will receive the full value of the increase.

  Claimant Education and Training
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to ensure that the benefits system positively encourages claimants to improve their education and training skills. [32772]

  Mr. Burt
  The benefit rules allow people to improve their education and training skills. For example, people claiming unemployment benefits may study part time, as long as they remain available for and actively seek employment.

  Compensation (Absent Parents)
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to pay compensation to men who, through mistaken identity or maladministration, receive maintenance inquiry forms or other communications from the Child Support Agency in respect of children of whom they are not the father; and if he will make a statement. [31521]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Government do not accept that financial compensation should be paid in all cases to those incorrectly identified by the Child Support Agency as an alleged absent parent. However, the Child Support Agency can and does make ex-gratia payments to reimburse individuals who have incurred expenses as a result of having to correct the agency's error of identification. Requests for compensation are considered on their merits.

  Funds
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the population receives funds from his Department; and what was the percentage in(a) 1970, (b) 1980 and (c) 1990. [32950]

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

  Family Credit
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for take-up of the new child care disregards in family credit for(a) all families and (b) one-parent families, (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of potential claimants. [33475]
  1001
  Mr. Roger Evans
  At 30 June this year, a total of 19,460 families had received higher family credit awards as a result of the help with child care charges. Of these, 18,680 were lone parents and 780 were couples. These figures do not include renewal claims from families who received the help in their previous family credit award.

  No information about take-up among potential claimants is available at this stage. However, it is estimated that, in the long term, 150,000 families will benefit from the new help.

  Source
  Five per cent. sample of family credit awards made between 1 October 1994 and 30 June 1995. These figures do not include claims made by 30 June but decided after that date.

  Regional Benefit Rates
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce regional rates of unemployment and other benefits; and if he will make a statement. [34280]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have no such plans.

  Disability Discrimination Bill
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which Secretary of State will appoint members of the National Disability Council under schedule 4 to the Disability Discrimination Bill; [34050]

  (2) which Secretary of State the National Disability Council will advise under clause 34 of the Disability Discrimination Bill; [34047]

  (3) which Secretary of State will make arrangements for advice and assistance under clause 23 of the Disability Discrimination Bill. [34053]

  Mr. Burt
  The Secretary of State for Social Security.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which Secretary of State will review clause 8 of the Disability Discrimination Bill; [34052]

  (2) which Secretary of State shall issue codes of practice under clause 37 of the Disability Discrimination Bill. [34049]

  Mr. Burt
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which Secretary of State will request codes of practice from the National Disability Council under clause 35 of the Disability Discrimination Bill. [34048]

  Mr. Burt
  The Secretary of State for Social Security, after consultation with other Secretaries of State with an interest in the area to which the request relates.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which Secretary of State will issue guidance under clause 3 of the Disability Discrimination Bill. [34051]

  Mr. Burt
  The Secretary of State for Social Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  Back-to-work Bonus
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to include a back-to-work bonus in his reforms of the unemployment benefits. [32781]

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), on 13 June Official Report, column 494.

  Pensioner Households
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the percentage and number of one adult pensioner households who are mainly dependent on state pensions and benefits. [34824]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that there are 2.5 million one adult pensioner households who are 'mainly dependent on state benefits. This represents 74 per cent. of the total population of one adult pensioner households.

  Source:
  "Family Expenditure Survey", 1990–91 and 1992. Census figures for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 19911Figures represent those whose income comprises 50 per cent. or more of state benefits.

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was his most recent estimate of the average sum paid to(a) female pensioners and (b) male pensioners over their period of entitlement; and if he will make a statement. [33086]

  Mr. Heald
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Income Support
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what provision has been made for a trawl of overlooked cases regarding entitlement to severe disability premium; and if he will make a statement; [33820]

  (2) how many cases where severe disability premium should have been paid from an earlier date have been identified; what is the total figure in backdated income support payments made to these individuals and what is the average payment; what steps have been taken to ensure compensation payments are made to these individuals; and how much has been paid and what is the average amount. [33821]

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

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Peter L. Pike, dated 14 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the provisions which have been made for a trawl of overlooked cases regarding entitlement to severe disability premium (SDP), the number of cases where arrears of SDP have been paid and details of compensation in these cases.1003 A scan of the Income Support Computer System was undertaken over the weekend of 19/20 November 1994 and cases with potential entitlement to SDP were identified. Benefits Agency offices are currently examining the selected cases to identify those where an award of the SDP may have been overlooked and to pay arrears if appropriate.At the end of the exercise we will be able to provide an estimate of the number of cases involved and the amount of arrears paid. This will be based on a statistical sample taken from 26 offices within 25 Districts.Appropriate compensation will be considered on a case by case basis.I hope you find this reply helpful.
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been refused income support after failing the habitual residence test since its introduction in the Euston district office of Glasgow in each month since the test's introduction in August 1994;

  Annex A: Habitual residence test

  Euston

  August 1994

  September 1994

  October 1994

  November 1994

  December 1994

  January 1995

  February 1995

  March 1995

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  HRT EEA fail

  133

  217

  279

  197

  85

  129

  122

  102

  46

  49

  58

  HRT UK fail

  19

  54

  52

  53

  21

  33

  36

  15

  14

  36

  34

  HRT other fail

  165

  367

  382

  385

  347

  455

  132

  76

  50

  70

  51

  EEA—European Economic Area. UK—United Kingdom.

  Data are provisional and are subject to amendment.
  1004
  how many appeals have been lodged against the decision in each month since August 1994; and how many appeals have been won in each month. [33295]

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

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 14 July 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the operation of the habitual residence test (HRT) for Income Support customers of the Benefits Agency (BA) District Office in Euston.I have attached, at Annex A, a table giving details of the number of people from Euston District Office who have failed the HRT for each month from August 1994—June 1995.The BA does not routinely collect information about the number of HRT appeals nor the decisions of the Social Security Appeal Tribunal on these appeals. The information you requested, therefore, could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.
Lord Lindsay of Birker Lord Lindsay of Birker — Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Power Stations
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many of the United Kingdom's existing power stations will be time-expired by 2020; and what alternative sources of power they expect to have in place by that date to provide sufficient power.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the timing of closures of existing stations is a commercial matter for the companies concerned. There is a wide range of technologies available already to meet future electricity demand.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that there is a very limited number of stations, or types of stations, that can provide the type of energy that we are likely to need and that certainly no renewable form of energy is available? Therefore, does the Minister agree that we have the choice of coal, oil, gas or nuclear? Does not the noble and learned Lord think that nuclear is inescapable?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Viscount is aware, the nuclear review considered the costs and benefits of keeping the nuclear option open. It reached the view that it was reasonable to assume, even if no more nuclear power stations were
2
built—and at present they are certainly not competitive in price terms with other fuels—that the existing technology would not be lost and that the option to build nuclear power stations would be available for some time to come. It may be after the year 2010 that that option emerges as a realistic one. But certainly, on present calculations, there would not seem to be a commercial basis for so doing.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, do the Government have plans for replacing the present nuclear stations with renewable stations? As regards the stations which will be time-expired in 2020, what are the Government's plans for disposing of the consequences of having such stations?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, although there are changes to come following recent announcements on the use of the non-fossil fuel obligation, the emphasis with regard to renewables will be maintained. Indeed, through the application of that mechanism, it is expected that of the order of £150 million per year will be the cost to the consumer of ensuring that a wide base of renewables is available. That seems to be an important way forward. Following on the third order, going from the second one, it would appear that, encouragingly, they are becoming more competitive.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the whole of the provision of power for the United Kingdom will be left to private enterprise, according to the degree of profit that may be expected? Alternatively, do the Government have any foresight at all as to the power required for the country?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as my original Answer indicated, the timing of closures of stations and particular fuels used will indeed be a matter for the companies concerned. Following the nuclear review, it appeared that there was no immediate, present justification for the building of a new nuclear power station. It is always difficult to predict how prices will move in the future. I indicated in an earlier answer that

3
it is possible that some time after 2010 the matter might be reviewed. However, there does not seem to be any immediate proposal to do so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not that a matter for the companies concerned?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes, my Lords. I think I have now made it clear for the third time that it would not be a matter that the Government would advance.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I think my noble and learned friend has said that nuclear power is expensive. How does he square that with the fact that we are importing so much cheap nuclear electricity from France?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the generation of nuclear energy using nuclear power stations in this country is expensive and it is quite clear that gas is a cheaper option. So far as one can ever predict these things with any absolute certainty into the future, that appears to be the likely case. There continues to be access to large gas supplies; indeed the reserves now available are probably as great as they were in 1980.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in any future energy policy, will a great deal of attention be paid to conservation? Does the Minister agree that when building power stations, whether they be powered by gas or coal, due account should be taken to ensure they are small enough and localised enough to use the combined heat and power option?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that is certainly an attractive option where it can be introduced. The noble Lord will appreciate that there are a number of circumstances where just that approach is being taken. Similarly, where renewables are being introduced, in the main they tend to be on a rather smaller scale and one hopes that in those circumstances greater advantage can be taken of the generation beyond simply the production of electricity.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the House will permit me, will the noble and learned Lord be good enough to answer the second part of my supplementary question in which I asked what is being done to make sure that when the present nuclear reactors expire they do not become a menace to everyone around them?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to sit around for the later part of this afternoon when we discuss the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, he will appreciate that the one part that will remain within government control is the licensing and the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. However, we can doubtless expand upon that at length later this evening.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I interpret the noble and learned Lord's answer to be essentially that our generation is now entirely within the private sector. Therefore he seems to be saying that it is no business of the Government's at all; in other words, the Government have ceased to have an energy policy. Will he confirm that that is what he said and that that is now the
4
Government's position? Will he also confirm therefore that all the civil servants who used to work for his department in the energy division, who were previously, I believe, in the old Ministry of Energy, have left as well and that at least we have had some corresponding savings for the Government's abandonment of 50 years of policy in this area?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not accept that that is what I said. If that is what the noble Lord understood me to say, I must renew what I was saying. As regards the non-fossil fuel obligation, there is a clear continuing desire on the part of government to use that to stimulate the market in those renewable technologies which we hope in the years to come will increasingly play an important part in the provision of electricity in the United Kingdom. That remains clearly part of our obligation but otherwise, generally speaking, the selection of a particular fuel for the generation of electricity is indeed one for the companies involved.

Railway Passenger Franchise Bids
2.47 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will instruct the franchising director, in assessing the first bids for railway passenger franchises, to make a comparison in each case with the cost of British Rail continuing to run the services, and to publish the results.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): No, my Lords. Under the Railways Act these are matters for the franchising director.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that I am able on this occasion to restrain my gratitude for that Answer, even though it was hardly surprising? Why is that the case? This information must be readily available and would be useful and interesting in order to make it possible to follow the processes of thought of the franchising director, or perhaps he is affected by coyness on this subject.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I understand from the franchising director that, as part of his assessment of passenger franchising bids, he will be making a comparison between the bids and the cost of BR continuing to run the service, and therefore an instruction would not be necessary. The second part of my noble friend's Question concerns publication. The franchising director is unlikely to be able to publish the results of his comparison because much of the material involved would by its very nature be commercially sensitive.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not what has happened as regards the blocking of British Rail's application for a franchise indicate quite clearly that there is no accountability to Parliament on this issue; and that what the franchising director has done is quite

5
flagrantly to breach the will of Parliament, which was to enable British Rail to enter freely into applications for franchises which he is now evidently denying?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, I vehemently do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. Parliament, through the consideration of the Railways Bill as it then was, gave this responsibility to the franchising director. The question of whether or not British Rail should be allowed to bid for franchises is not something on which Ministers can instruct the franchising director. Indeed they are specifically excluded from being able to do so.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is it not clear that what the franchising director is now doing is to accept the Government's original arguments which were designed to disentitle British Rail from entering the franchising stakes? Is not Mr. Roger Salmon completely denying the will of Parliament in relation to the blocking of the franchise applications that British Rail has made, and is that not an absolute disgrace?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, it is not. During consideration of the Bill, British Rail was permitted to bid for franchises. However, the franchising director was given discretion to decide whether or not British Rail should be allowed to bid for specific franchises. The franchising director has exercised his discretion. That is not against the will of Parliament.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, in the light of the very large sums of money involved in these transactions and the allocation of the franchises, and the enormous impact which this could have on the travelling public, is the Minister really saying that the public or Parliament will never be allowed to know whether the bids of those allocated franchises were better, worse, more expensive or cheaper than those which would have been made if the Government had taken the advice of this House and allowed British Rail at least to have its bid considered?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the processes are firmly laid down within the Act. I have indicated that the Franchising Director has discretion. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that this is a commercial bidding procedure and it would not, therefore, be appropriate to publish information on a commercial procedure.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the ITV franchises were allocated on an open bid basis and we learnt how much the individual companies had bid to secure the franchises, can the Minister explain why in this instance the situation should be different? Is it because in this instance the public are disbursing rather than receiving money?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have procedures laid down within the Act for the allocation of franchises. Under the Act, that responsibility is given to the franchising director. The franchising director is exercising his responsibility in the way he feels is best to secure value for money and to secure franchises in the proper way. He has statutory responsibility under Section 5 of the Act. He also has objectives, instructions
6
and guidance from the Secretary of State. He is operating within those objectives, instructions and guidance.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us feel a good deal of doubt that, even supposing British Rail were able to compete for the franchises, the OPRAF staff would be able to understand the value of the different bids? Is the Minister aware that the officials in that office seem not to understand the importance of a network approach to providing rail services and that, when the importance of that network approach is pointed out to them, they ask the consultees—namely, local authorities which have no access to the relevant data—to provide details as to what parts of the network and which connecting stations are the most important? Under those circumstances, would OPRAF even be able to make a judgment as to the value of one bid against another were British Rail enabled to bid?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, of course it would. That is what the office has been specifically set up to do. There is no point in having a consultation exercise if one does not listen to the consultees.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will my noble friend convey to his right honourable friends the concern that Parliament ought to be in a position to understand what influenced a decision which in itself could have serious repercussions for the taxpayer? Since my noble friend has mentioned commercial confidentiality, will he ask British Rail whether it would have any objection to the information being published?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is not only British Rail which is involved in the process but all those other parties which are bidding. My noble friend requests that the process be made public. I have explained why the franchising director is unlikely to publish the information, on the grounds that he feels that the information is commercially sensitive.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the Minister said just now in an answer that the franchising director operated under the instructions and guidance of the Secretary of State. Will he tell the House whether the Secretary of State has provided any instructions and guidance with respect to allowing BR bids?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, as I explained to the House, under the Act the Secretary of State and Ministers are specifically prohibited from issuing instructions to the Franchising Director about whether or not British Rail should he allowed to bid for a certain franchise.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may return to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. He asked a direct question. If British Rail indicated that it was prepared for the information it had submitted to be made public, would that information be made public? Is the answer yes or no?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I have taken great pains to explain that this is a matter for the franchising director. The Act gives a specific role to the franchising director. There would be no point in having this set-up if Ministers immediately overruled every decision. This

7
procedure has been laid down by Parliament and that role and those duties have been given to the franchising director. There is the ability for the Secretary of State to offer objectives, instructions and guidance under certain circumstances and on certain matters. Those objectives, instructions and guidance have been given firmly, have been published and reside in the Library of the House.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister not realise that his noble friend is trying to prove the purity of the Government's motives and that all he is asking for is that these figures be published?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, of course I understand that my noble friend asks his Question with the best possible motives. It just happens that we do not necessarily agree with him.

Home Ownership: Government Proposals
2.55 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether and, if so, how the Prime Minister's plans to increase home ownership by 1.5 million are compatible with the Secretary of State for Social Security's plans to cut back income support for mortgages.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, 1.5 million additional households in home ownership over the next 10 years is considered to be a cautious estimate. It will be assisted by the growth of private mortgage protection insurance which will be generated by the income support for mortgage interest changes.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Secretary of State for Social Security, in his reply to the Social Security Advisory Committee, said:
"the Government believes that those taking on major financial commitments should ensure that they can sustain those commitments in the short-term if they are, for any reason, unable to work"?
Without wishing to argue with that, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether he accepts that that is a proposal to restrict home ownership to those for whom insurance is commercially profitable. Is that compatible with extending home ownership by 1.5 million?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to answer the last question first, yes. We are quite certain that insurance will be available to anyone who qualifies for a mortgage.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will it be possible for the Government to get involved with those local authorities which are not particularly anxious to see an increase in home ownership? In so far as this is a laudable scheme, does the noble Lord not agree that everybody who has some authority, particularly those local authorities which do not indulge, should be given more encouragement so to do?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, what have the Government against owner occupiers? Over the past two years they have reduced the mortgage tax relief from 25 per cent. to 15 per cent., thus putting up mortgage holders' costs considerably. Why is it that the Government are making a distinction between people who are buying their houses and those who are renting their houses? Why is it that those who are buying their houses have to take out insurance in case they become unemployed and those renting do not? It does not seem to me to be an encouragement to own one's own house if those who are renting their homes will have everything paid if they become unemployed without having had to insure themselves.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the obvious difference is that people who have bought their houses have taken on a very large and long-term capital commitment which does not go away, whereas those who are renting their houses are in a much more flexible financial situation. I am delighted that the noble Lord now supports the housing policies which we have advocated all along and which met so much opposition in their time from the Benches opposite.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, in order to cast further light on this problem, can my noble friend tell us how much the rate of interest charged on mortgages has been reduced over the period to which the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not have that figure. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, doubtless knows, it is by a substantial amount and by a great deal more than any increases from any other direction.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the Government are to achieve by the millenium the objective stated by the Prime Minister, we cannot be referring to new houses? Over 150,000 new houses a year would be required to achieve that objective. Is it not true that to achieve 1.5 million new owner occupiers requires the further dispersal of council houses through sales at enormous discounts, as has occurred in the recent past, and through the very desirable housing association accommodation? Bearing in mind those factors, why is that group of people being treated so favourably when the Government at present seem to have a vendetta against struggling owner occupiers?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to find "old Labour" present on the Front Bench; it seems to have disappeared from the Back Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, thinks that we are bearing down on home owners. The noble Lord, Lord Dean, from the Front Bench points in exactly the opposite direction.
We expect the trend in home ownership in this country to continue. There is every indication that that is what people want.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister answer my question about new construction? That is the issue. There is no way that a third of the figure referred to can be achieved under the Government's present building programme.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the proportion of people in this country who own their homes is increasing. We do not need to build new houses for them all.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, is correct in what he said about interest rates. Will the Minister, therefore, tell us why there is so much negative equity and the housing market is in a terrible state?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, house prices have gone down.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister may or may not be correct in his confidence in the private insurance industry. However, will he consider accepting the recommendation of the Social Security Advisory Committee that new forms of insurance should be in place before there is any removal of mortgage income support? Alternatively, is it not possible that he may be mistaken?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we are in very close contact with the insurance and lending industries. We are totally confident that the outcome which the noble Earl desires will he achieved.

Public Interest Certificates
3.2 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to bring forward proposals to improve the law relating to the issue (and waiver) of public interest certificates, signed by Ministers.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the law on public interest immunity has been developed primarily by the courts. Public interest immunity certificates are one of the subjects under investigation by Sir Richard Scott. The Government will take careful note of any conclusions and recommendations in his report.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. Is he aware that outside this House the phrase "public interest" is seen, probably in the words of Mr. Bernard Levin, as the most mendacious phrase in the English language? Is it not time, with the shambles which presently surrounds this law, with Ministers apparently able to switch it on and off at whim, that a new look is taken overall at the law of confidentiality so that some way can be found out of this trap? That situation has taken the whole issue into disrepute.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the courts have from time to time considered the subject at different levels and the law has developed. In consequence, Ministers have to take account of that in considering whether or not they should sign such a certificate. It is possible for people outside this House, and, possibly, people inside this House, to misunderstand the situation. However, I believe that the law has been laid down by courts, including this House in its judicial capacity, in terms that are reasonably plain.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that at the time of the appointment by the Prime Minister of Mr. Justice Scott to investigate these matters, the Prime Minister gave a rather firmer undertaking in regard to the result of that inquiry than merely, as the noble and learned Lord said, taking note of its findings?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has in mind. However, so far as I understand the position, the inquiry has been set up and, in regard to this subject matter—it is only one of the matters which concern the inquiry—I believe the correct position is that the Government should take note of the conclusions and have time to consider them.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord when the Scott Report is likely to be published. Will it be published this year perhaps?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the latest information that I have suggests that it will be "this year perhaps", to quote the noble Lord's own phrase. I think it likely that it will be this year.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, is there not a certain amount of confusion over public interest immunity certificates? As I understand the matter—I am sure my noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong—such certificates serve as an early warning system for the courts. Courts can overrule them or disregard them if that seems pertinent to the matter in hand.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my understanding of the position is that a certificate of this kind issued by a responsible Minister indicates that in his view the public interest requires that the documents should not be disclosed. There has been some modification of the test allowing the Minister to take account, in so far as he knows of them, of the issues raised in the particular case. However, the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether or not a certificate should preclude the production of the documents in court rests with the judge. The judge will weigh all aspects of public interest, including the public interest immunity, and the justice that is to be done between the parties in the case in question.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that there seem to be far more of these certificates now than there used to be? In my own experience, for what it is worth, they were rather a rare occurrence in courts. They now seem to be cropping up in case after case. Does the noble and learned Lord share the view that it is important that such certificates should not be used as an illegitimate cloak behind which Ministers can shelter in order to avoid disclosing matters which they ought to disclose but, because of a public interest immunity certificate, they think that they might not have to disclose?
Will the noble and learned Lord expand a little on what he said about the results of the Scott Inquiry? I take it from what he said that the Lord Chancellor and the Government do not rule out the possibility of legislation in this area.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I can categorically state that the Government would certainly not support the view that public interest immunity certificates should be used as an illegitimate cloak, which I believe was the noble Lord's phrase.
On the other hand, the underlying law under which documents are produced to the courts has itself developed considerably. One of the consequences is that far more documents are under consideration for disclosure, apart from questions of public interest immunity. When that occurs, it is not unnatural that there should also be a growth in the number of documents which might well qualify for public interest immunity. Therefore the growth to which the noble Lord refers—it is in particular in relation to criminal matters—has flowed, I believe to a substantial extent, from the underlying growth in the documents now produced as part of the criminal process.
Obviously it would not be wise to rule out legislation. We need to consider what Sir Richard Scott proposes and then decide whether it would be wise to bring any such matter before Parliament for legislation.

Business
3.9 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Greenbury Report. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who will, again with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on privacy.

Business of the House: Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, if the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill is brought from the Commons, Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Wednesday next to enable the Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House whether the Government propose to drop the ban that they have so far imposed on the debating of this important Bill, on which the House could contribute so much?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I say to my noble friend with, I hope, no risk of impertinence to him, that I would be deeply disappointed if this year had proved an exception and he did not rise to make the point which he has just made. I believe he knows the answer that I feel constrained to give him. The Companion is clear about what is the present convention of the House. Indeed, I believe I am right in saying that the
12
Companion also quotes precedent in that the last time a Consolidated Fund Bill was discussed substantively was in 1907, four years before the 1911 Act.
My noble friend will also know that the matter has been referred to the Procedure Committee. I wonder whether he will be content for us to wait until that committee has deliberated on it before raising the issue again.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am sorry not to have given my noble friend the Leader of the House notice of the question that I propose to ask. However, as he has been a Member of another place, the point will be familiar to him. As we now appear to be following the procedure in another place—willingly or unwillingly, and with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale dissenting—under which the Consolidated Fund Bill is taken on the nod, should we not follow the other part of the procedure in another place? Under it, the Leader of the House would rise and propose the adjournment of the House. That would then enable my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and anyone else so moved to debate any matter which took their fancy or convenience.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, one part of me is extremely tempted by my noble friend's suggestion. The whole House is used to listening to both my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, with keen interest and attention. It would be most agreeable if we were to create a new procedure which would enable us to listen further to both noble Lords.
However, I have to reiterate to my noble friend that however desirable the course of action which he proposes, there are two reasons why we should not accede to his request, at least before the Procedure Committee has had a chance to examine the situation. The first is that I am increasingly convinced that the procedures in your Lordships' House are often admirably suited to the way a second House of Parliament works. With the greatest respect to another place, we should only imitate it with some diffidence.
The second reason is that we are not known to be a revolutionary House as yet. If we were to accede to my noble friend's request, we would be overturning a habit which has lasted almost as long as a lifetime and returning to matters as they stood before 1907. I am not entirely against such an idea, as your Lordships will be aware. However, it would go against all precedent and certainly against the wishes of the late Lord Lloyd George.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would it be possible for the noble Viscount to give further consideration to the sensible proposals that have emanated from his noble friend Lord Cockfield? Will he bear in mind that the procedures of the House are flexible? Is he aware that, for example, should the noble Lord seek to move the adjournment of the House before this Parliament ends in order to move that the report on the Barings Bank disaster be discussed, he would receive the approval of the whole House?
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the Procedure Committee has been asked to look at the matter and I am sure that, as always, it will do as the House has requested. As regards the Barings Bank situation we await almost hourly the publication of the results of the inquiry. It will be interesting to see whether the prediction of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, turns out to be true.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. In answering it, my noble friend gave the impression—with the utmost courtesy—that he had heard the suggestion before. I put to him that repetition, very often necessary, does nothing to weaken a good argument. Had it not been for repetition, a warlike operation would still be going on around the city of Jericho!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, as always, the House is indebted to my noble friend. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has as yet circled the walls seven times or more than seven times. I should be the last to suggest that a good argument is necessarily undermined by repetition.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships' House has unexampled knowledge and experience to give counsel on financial and economic matters. There are three Consolidated Fund Bills a year generally and they give an opportunity for your Lordships to tender such counsel. When it has been suggested that they be used for that purpose, the suggestions have been brushed aside on the grounds that there are other opportunities. That may be roughly true on No. 1 and No. 3 Bills. No. 1 coincides roughly with the Budget Statement, the Finance Bill; No. 3 coincides roughly with the debate on the Queen's Speech. However, No. 2 is in quite a different category, and it is the one which we are discussing.
If we do not use the opportunity of the summer Bill to discuss financial matters, there is no such discussion between the spring and the late autumn when the Queen's Speech is debated. What is asked for is that the recommendation in the Companion should be altered to bring it into line with what is done in any case with the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bills, which are used for precisely the purpose we have been advocating.
I know that the matter is before the Procedure Committee. I also know that the discussion has been postponed and it is now too late to remedy that. However, noble Lords are entitled to ask that the point should be seriously considered in the light of the arguments that have been put forward and that something more than the objections which have so far been raised should be considered.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I am conscious that I am perhaps not following the established procedures of your Lordships' House by treating this discussion as an additional Question Time. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. I thought that I had looked round sufficiently to see whether anyone else wished to speak. However, with your Lordships' permission, I say to the
14
noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that, of course, we have a number of opportunities for noble Lords to display their expertise in economic and financial matters and to give their counsel in matters appertaining to the economy. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to wait for the opportunity, when it arises, for the Procedure Committee to examine the matter and make a report in due course to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Atomic Energy Authority Bill
3.20 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITIEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Atomic Energy Authority to make schemes for transfer of property, rights and liabilities if so directed]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("or schemes").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 7 and 8.
The purpose of these amendments is to ensure AEA Technology is sold as a single integrated business. On 14th March in another place, the Minister for Industry and Energy said:
"The Government agree that AEA Technology should continue to be managed as a single integrated whole".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/3/95; col. 707.]
Since then, there have been signs of backsliding. On 23rd March in another place it was said that if AEA Technology can meet its ambitious targets, its sale as a single independent entity may be achievable. If not, another option will have to be considered.
At Second Reading in this House on 19th May, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that the form of privatisation must depend on the performance of AEA Technology over, the next few months. He went on to say that the Government must satisfy themselves that the sale of the business as a single whole will best meet the needs and requirements of customers, particularly of government customers.
During the passage of this Bill many Members have spoken of the value of the synergy in this business. The more the business is fragmented, the more the synergy is lost. In this House at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, who has spent a lifetime in this industry, told us,
"In many ways, the enterprise is unique because of the multiplicity and diversity of skills on which it can call, which enable it to deal successfully with complex contracts.… The possibility of drawing on this resource of engineering and scientific skills gives it … synergy of a high order, which enables it to land and execute complex international contracts".—[Official Report, 19/5/95; col. 741.]
It was for that reason that the noble Lord asked that the enterprise should be sold as a whole and not be broken up. Indeed, this was the main point upon which he wished to concentrate.
In the same debate I spoke about how splitting up the business could be to the detriment of our science and technology base. I said that it would be contrary to the advice of the Office of Science and Technology in its Technology Foresight Report. That office is now combined with the noble and learned Lord's own department.
In reply, the Minister said that he wanted a test lasting a few months to see whether the business achieved its objectives. For such an important and complex business, can a test lasting a few months be a proper basis for this decision? AEA Technology announced on 14th June that it had met its sales and profit targets for 1994–95. But they included profits from disposals. Is that fact included in the Government's calculations?
The Government spoke of the importance of maintaining the support of the employees in this privatisation. There is no doubt that, if the company is to be privatised, the employees prefer unitary privatisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Sheffield, told us, customers prefer unitary privatisation, because they will benefit from the synergy. Perhaps the only people who will not benefit from this policy will be those who buy key parts of the business, possibly for short-term gain, and perhaps the financial institutions that handle a multiplicity of sales rather than one sale. At present it is unclear what is to be privatised. All there seems to be is the implication: "Leave it to us. Whitehall knows best". Unitary privatisation should be a matter of clarity, and should be made clear on the face of the Bill. For that purpose, I beg leave to move this amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As the noble Lord indicated, the amendments are designed to remove the Secretary of State's power to make more than one transfer scheme, and to ensure that property, rights and liabilities transferred under it go to a single successor company as defined in the Bill.
I hope that by the time I conclude the Committee will not continue to believe that there is an element of backsliding on the part of the Government. I hope that our position is clear, but perhaps I may take a minute or two to explain where we stand.
The policy decision behind the drafting of this Bill has indeed been to keep sales options open. In our view it is still too early to make irrevocable decisions about the form in which AEA Technology should be privatised. I repeat: if AEA Technology can meet the ambitious targets that it has set itself, then sale as a single independent entity may well be achievable. But if it does not, then other options may have to be examined.
I am encouraged that the noble Lord has such confidence in AEA Technology's ability to succeed as a single entity. He echoed the views of a number of other noble Lords. I am very well aware that the view in this place appears to be that a unitary sale is the preferred approach. My ministerial colleagues have already indicated in another place that this may well be
16
the best way forward. I very much share the hope that AEA Technology will indeed be sold as a unitary authority. Realistically, there may be no other option if the sale is to be achieved within, say, the next 12 to 18 months.
However, at this stage we cannot be certain that unitary privatisation necessarily represents the best way forward, and I hope that the Committee would agree that it would be foolhardy to put all our eggs in one basket. These amendments would close off all options and oblige us to follow a course of action which might not turn out to be in anybody's best interests.
I hope that the noble Lord will agree, on reflection, that it would be imprudent to limit our ability both to act in the best interests of AEA Technology as a business and to secure best value for money for the taxpayer.
I cannot therefore give the noble Lord the absolute commitment that he seeks, or indeed accept these amendments. As I said, the effect would be to close off all other options, no matter how much we might prefer the single entity option. It would oblige the Government to follow a course of action that might not turn out to be in the best interests of either AEA Technology or the taxpayer.
However, when the House returns to the Bill in the autumn—clearly it cannot do so at any earlier stage—for the Report stage, the position may well be clearer. We shall certainly have a much better idea as to how AEA Technology is performing, and how far other options might satisfy the Government's stated objectives for the sale. I hope with that proposal the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment. He should certainly not take it that in any sense at this stage we seek in any way to exclude the single entity option for which he argued so vigorously.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Before the Opposition Front Bench responds to the Minister's remarks, perhaps I may say a word from these Benches. First, we strongly support the case that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. Our preferred option is to maintain AEA Technology as a unitary body. We believe that the best way to do that, in the British interest, by way of preserving this very valuable national asset, would be by flotation. The case was made, and I shall not repeat it, for the advantages of synergy. This is a high-tech industry, in which the real capital is the brilliant people who work for it. By "synergy" we mean the kind of professional camaraderie that comes from that sort of body. It takes a long time for it to be built up and it can very easily be destroyed.
For those reasons, we on these Benches strongly support the case for maintaining the unitary character of the organisation and for flotation. The Minister very reasonably put his case to us and said that these matters will be considered further. In due course we shall come to further amendments on the Marshalled List to which we shall seek the Government's agreement not merely to reconsider the matter in the autumn but, if options are to be kept open, to have them reconsidered by Parliament at a much later stage before final decisions are taken.

17
In the meantime, I welcome the fact that the Minister is ready to look again at this matter in the autumn. However, we very strongly press the view that this is a national asset of great value to us and ought to be maintained as a single entity.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Peston: In joining the debate, I should first like to welcome the Minister's comments. Certainly, we look forward in the autumn to what one might call more and better particulars on this matter.
It has puzzled a number of noble Lords, and me in particular, that there is this very large, successful organisation—large in terms of capacity to carry out research and development—which is certainly very important. I find it very difficult to understand why its value would be maximised by not selling it off as a whole. In other words, separate from all other considerations, it seems to me obvious that, as an integrated whole, the organisation is worth more than it would be by selling it off in its separate parts. Without going ahead quite so strongly, the Minister seems to be saying much the same. Certainly, his honourable friend in the other place got very close to saying that.
Let me ask the Minister whether on that matter he is saying that the Secretary of State wants flexibility but he knows not what. Until one gets around to selling the body, it is best to have some flexibility just to be on the safe side. Is that the main part of the Minister's answer? Perhaps he could fill us in on that point in the autumn.
There was a separate question to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, alluded. It arises from the nature of the Bill. We did not fully appreciate a similar set of considerations with regard to the electricity privatisation Bill as has now arisen in terms of selling off the nuclear power side; namely, that having passed the Bill, the Government are under no obligation to come back to your Lordships with any of that matter. As I understand the situation, and the Minister will almost certainly confirm it, if this Bill is passed into law and then for one reason or another it turned out that AEA Technology was sold off in two parts, the Minister would simply say, "Well, that is in the Bill. We have the powers to do that and it is no longer your Lordships' business to query it". We can ask a Question or something of that nature. But in terms of a serious investigation of such a matter, this is our only chance to press the point.
I entirely accept the Minister's good faith in this matter but I hope that he understands that one of the reasons why we have pressed the point is that it is our only chance to do so. One day we shall simply be told, "Well, we have sold it off and thank you very much".
When governments bring forward skeleton Bills of this kind, one has to table amendments simply to clarify the matter. However, let me repeat my main reason for speaking, which is to thank the Minister for saying that he may have more to tell us in the autumn. We shall certainly have a chance, at least briefly, to exchange views on it at that time.
Lord Haskel: I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Peston that this Committee stage will be our only opportunity to find out exactly what the Government intend to do. This is virtually an enabling Bill and we need to discover the Government's intentions.
I also draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that in virtually every other privatisation the restructuring of the company has taken place before the Bill has come before your Lordships. In this case, the company has not been restructured and we do not know what will be privatised. That is why we must probe these matters.
One is left with the feeling that the Government will keep their options open and they believe that Whitehall knows best. From what the Minister said, I imagine that he will leave it to the City to decide what is best. Perhaps I may remind him that the City does not have a very good record on high technology companies. I hope that he will give these matters consideration. Obviously at Report stage we shall come back to this point. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Greenbury Report
3.36 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by the President of the Board of Trade. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the report of the Study Group on Directors' Remuneration, chaired by Sir Richard Greenbury, which was published today.
"The group was set up in January this year on the initiative of the CBI, in the wake of public concern about executive remuneration in some public limited companies. The Government supported the setting up of the group and we now welcome the publication of its report. We congratulate the group on a thorough, speedy and authoritative review of the issues. We welcome its recommendations in principle and strongly support the emphasis which the group places on the need for pay to be justified by performance.
"The group's report follows shortly after the report by the Select Committee on Employment on the Remuneration of Directors and Chief Executives of Privatised Utilities. While the Government will give a considered response to both reports when Parliament resumes after the Recess, the House will expect me to make some preliminary comments now and I willingly do so.

19
"Pay in the private sector is a matter for companies and their shareholders. The Greenbury initiative demonstrates that companies and institutional investors recognise the level of concern on this issue and are determined to act. There is no doubting the authority of the group's recommendations. The group's report vindicates the self-regulatory approach. It will deliver more effective, speedier results than legislation could achieve. Indeed, there has already been a perceptible change in some companies' attitudes to these matters.
"The Greenbury Report will be underpinned by action by the Stock Exchange. Its recommendations are addressed primarily to listed companies. It is appropriate therefore that the Stock Exchange should enforce them through the Listing Rules. The Government welcome the Stock Exchange's announcement this morning that it will do so.
"The Government have no intention of introducing a top people's pay policy. We do not begrudge top salaries for top performance. Our companies must compete at world level if our nation is to prosper. We must pay the rate for the job. Greenbury points out that although comparisons are difficult, total remuneration levels in the United Kingdom are well below American levels and broadly comparable with other European countries. The fastest way to drive our best talent abroad—in any field, not just business—would be to impose restrictions on earnings.
"There has been particular concern about windfall gains arising from share option schemes in the privatised utilities. The Government accept the group's recommendation that for newly privatised companies no share options should be made until at least six months, and preferably a year or more, after privatisation. The great success of virtually all the privatisations of recent years has been a feature of the strengthening of Britain's economy. Consequently, some share options have yielded substantial benefits to those who guided that success. But the huge achievements of the privatisation programme have brought dramatic benefits for consumers in terms of lower prices, more choice, better consumer-focused service and more investment, as well as a large and growing flow of revenue to the Exchequer through taxation.
"There are three recommendations for legislative action addressed to the Government. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced this morning that the Government will introduce legislation in the next Finance Bill to withdraw the income tax reliefs at present available to directors and employees participating in executive share option schemes which have been approved by the Inland Revenue. The withdrawal of the reliefs will take effect in relation to grants or the exercising of options on or after today.
"The second and third recommendations are for minor amendments to the Companies Act to remove overlap with the group's proposals for comprehensive disclosure, and to amend the Companies Act rules on the disclosure of the value of pensions benefits, when
20
they have been drawn up by the actuarial professional bodies. The Government will consider both recommendations carefully and quickly. We remain willing to consider other legislative back-up if experience shows it is needed.
"In summary, the Government welcome the publication of the Greenbury group's report. It is comprehensive and well judged. It will help ensure that pay is based on performance. It tackles specific problem areas with firm, fair and practical proposals. It is a package which meets today's needs and I believe it should be supported."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for repeating this rather short Statement made by his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place. The Greenbury Report is a CBI report. I start off with one or two rather obvious questions. Is the report available to your Lordships in the Printed Paper Office, or do we have to write to the CBI and buy it? The Statement says that there is no doubting the authority of the group's recommendations. I am sorry to hear that. I doubt the authority of the group's recommendations, a matter to which I shall return. But since this is said to be authoritative, does the noble and learned Lord know whether the committee took evidence on a large scale, and is it publishing a volume of evidence to support what it has said? If that is the case, can we see it?
The Government implicitly state that these remarks are the Government's first response to the Greenbury committee. They say that a considered response will be made to the report when Parliament resumes after the Recess. Can your Lordships be assured that that considered response will include a considered response made to your Lordships, so that we can look at this matter in considerable detail and not merely be the afterthought to the other place?
It is as well to recall why this committee was set up and what it was all about. It was set up because of extreme public distaste, expressed by many people across the whole of our society—but not least by the Prime Minister and certainly not least by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition—over an apparent desire on the part of certain senior executives to reward themselves to a degree, to put it as mildly as I can, that appeared to be rather unseemly. Others have made stronger statements but I shall say no more than that.
More recently, all kinds of commentators have remarked that workers—ordinary men and women—are asked to settle for pay increases little different from the rate of inflation—-in other words, very little in the way of real increases in pay—yet management, or some management, have not felt any obligation on their part to modify their demands to much the same set of numbers. Indeed, it is not merely that they have asked, "Please sir, can I have some more?"; but they have asked, "Please sir, can I have an extraordinary amount more?" In doing that they have given the lie to one of the main propositions on which the Government have based their

21
policies for a great many years. They argued that if they lowered the marginal rate of income tax—that was a central plank of the Government's policy from 1979 until recently—there would be no need for senior management or executives to demand massive pay increases because at those low marginal rates quite low pay increases would still yield very considerable net gains to them. It is apparent that, having lowered the marginal rate of income tax while raising other rates of tax for other people, that has not acted in any way to moderate pay demands.
The question that caused all this was: why should there be massive differences in the rates of increase of pay within firms in particular? That has become confused with a different question of pay differentials altogether—the question of why top management should be paid more than the least skilled worker. That is a classical question and the answer is to do with rewards for ability, for investment in education and training and for scarcity. The point that Greenbury was supposed to address—on what little I know, which is only what the Statement says, it does not seem to have addressed it at all—is not the question of why the differentials should exist but why the rates of increase of pay for senior executives should be of several orders of magnitude more than for ordinary workers. In other words, if differentials are set as they are—and we can argue about that—once that has been correctly sorted out, rates of pay, it seems to me and I think to almost all serious commentators, except in very special cases, should increase at about the same rate for everyone in the organization—top management, middle management, skilled workers and unskilled workers, bearing in mind that the firm itself is an integrated unit.
To take a specific case, I have no doubt that Marks and Spencer benefits enormously from having Sir Richard Greenbury. But I have to say that I think it also benefits from the person on the till who actually serves your Lordships and serves me. They are all part of the same organisation. I can see why Sir Richard Greenbury should earn more than the person on the till but I do not remotely see why his rate of pay should increase more than that of the person on the till as the general case. That is the matter that the report was meant to be about. In my judgment it does not seem to have been addressed.
In connection with these rates and increases in top people's pay, to argue that somehow they reflect their market value flies in the face of all reason. Are we to believe that in the privatised utilities these people's world productivity suddenly sky rocketed to the degree that it did? Is that what Sir Richard is asking us to believe? Is that what the Government are asking us to believe? I do not believe it. To take the best and most productive market in the world, the United States, I have looked and asked for evidence that any of these people has been remotely even thought of in head-hunting terms in that market. Incidentally, the Statement says—I was rather taken aback by this—that,
"total remuneration levels in the United Kingdom are well below American levels".
22
Jolly right they are! American GDP per capita and American productivity are far in excess of ours. It would be extraordinary if their remuneration levels were not higher than ours. What light is meant to be thrown on anything by that statement is completely beyond me.
There is a technical question to do with the privatised utilities. That was the origin of all this. It was pay in the formerly nationalised industries that caused all the fuss. The regulator exists in these industries because they retain monopoly power. The regulator is there to regulate the use of that monopoly power and to limit it as far as possible. What I do not understand—I have argued this and my noble friends have argued this for some years in your Lordships' House—is why the Government have set their face against the worst abuse of monopoly power that one knows about; namely, the use of monopoly power on the part of the management of those former nationalised industries to reward themselves. When we put down amendments to say, "Let the regulator have that as an area that he or she can look into", the Government steadfastly say no. That does not make sense to me.
The report favours self-regulation, but the report is an example of self-regulation. If one ever wanted to put up a case against self-regulation this report would be it. Can anyone really believe that the committee, which contained not a single independent element, would look harshly on its own rewards or the rewards of its friends? I must admit that until this matter came up I had no idea of the extraordinary interlinkages between those people. They all sit on each other's remuneration committees; they all know each other; many of them sit on the boards of several of the relevant firms. The idea that that somehow leads to an independent or rational outcome defies belief.
The other point that intrigues me is the obsession on the part of top management with relativities. It intrigues me because it reminds me of the worst days of trade union behaviour. It is exactly that with which the trade unions were always obsessed. There is a certain sense of schadenfreude, if I may use that word, to see the top management at least as obsessed as the trade unions were with "He is getting more than I am getting. Why?".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in the bad old days.
Lord Peston: My Lords, yes, in what were called the "bad old days". wish to make two or three further points. I understand that the group recommends the limitation of contracts for senior management to one year. That is a good point in the sense that, if management is rotten and does not perform, the cost of getting rid of it with a one-year contract is a good deal less than if it is a three or four-year contract. That is a good idea.
The question then arises of the special tax treatment of share options. I have two questions on that. My immediate response was that treating share options as income rather than as capital gains would make little difference to most people. We are talking of huge sums of money and most of those people will already have exhausted their allowances and would therefore be taxed in much the same way.

23
What puzzles me is that, whereas this morning's press, in discussing the leakages of this document, said that the Chancellor, in making the tax changes that he forecast for the Finance Bill, said that the yield would be £80 million, there is nothing in the Statement in that regard. It is a pity because it would throw some light on how much benefit has already been received by these people. Perhaps the Minister can say whether there is some reason why we have not been told how much the withdrawal of the income tax relief will yield to the Exchequer. If it is because the Treasury cannot do the sums quickly, perhaps we can be told when we will be given the answer to that question.
My last point concerns self-regulation. If there is to be self-regulation, it must be shareholder-led. The troublesome point about the Statement, although it may be dealt with in the report, concerns the fact that the people who are really responsible are the institutional investors. There are technical problems in relation to them becoming involved in detail because of insider trading and what they may learn. But do the Government have any proposals, by way of changing companies legislation, to encourage the investment institutions to take all these matters more seriously and to speak up on behalf of the small investor? After all, most of the investment institutions are investing on behalf of small savers, even though they themselves are very big. It would not be a bad thing if they took the whole matter more seriously.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. I shall confine myself to commenting on the Statement because I have not had the opportunity of reading the Greenbury Report and am not prepared to rely on leaks of reports—a practice which I believe to be deplorable.
We welcome certain aspects of the report. We welcome the fact that taxation changes will be made on the share options. That is a recommendation which my party made to the Greenbury group. We need to look at the whole question of pay for directors of privatised industries in a different way from the rest of genuinely competitive industry, particularly competitive industry on an international scale.
The privatised industries still contain many of the most unacceptable features of a monopoly, as many of us said that they would when privatisation took place. It has been and remains difficult to obtain any kind of real assessment of their performance. So many of the suggestions in the report rely on a confidence that one can measure performance. But how does one do that, especially if one is using the market as a major instrument for measuring success or failure, in a privatised monopoly? Those industries need to be approached differently from other industries.
Performance is hard to judge. If one is a monopoly and is free to put up prices, although limited to some extent by the regulator, but one can control most of the factors which lead to the final outcome, it is difficult to say that because profits have gone up that has been due to any one person's efficiency, be it at director or any other level. It has been possible to control what are
24
essential elements in obtaining a real measure of performance. That means that a quite different approach to regulation should be taken when considering the privatised industries as opposed to other industries.
I agree that institutional investors are extremely important in that regard. We discussed that in another connection at considerable length earlier this year and the role that they should play having regard to the great amount of money that they use and their potential power. That is something which needs to be examined. We should look at who should have decision-making power of that kind in the privatised sector. I suggest that it is something a regulator should be able to take into account and, unless there is a substantial decrease in prices, a sharp question should be asked about any increases in the remuneration of directors.
When we turn to the non-privatised sector of industry—the market sector—and particularly organisations operating internationally, the position is much more complicated. My mind goes back to the days—a long time ago now—when I was a member of what was called the Top Salaries Review Body. One of our difficulties was that we were dealing with people employed in senior positions on the boards of nationalised industries, some of whom were genuinely in an international market, but others had no place whatever in an international market. That is one reason why so-called comparability proved to be a less effective instrument in trying to decide what people ought to be paid.
The question of how rewards in the non-privatised sector should be determined is something into which I hope the Greenbury Report has gone more fully than is suggested in the Statement. Again, shareholder power is obviously very important and so is openness of all the rewards that people receive. A great deal of attention has been given to the actual amount of money paid in salary, directors' fees or whatever they are called. But in many cases a great deal of total remuneration is made up of other aspects, which are of considerable importance.
I note that the Statement refers to pension benefits. That is of enormous importance. In some cases the value of the increase in pensions is far more significant and expensive than the actual increase in the annual remuneration. But there are other issues to be considered. The determination of British management to have their motoring on the cheap has been one of the most ridiculous developments. It was introduced because under previous governments taxes had reached an absurd level and people were being remunerated in other ways, otherwise they could not be remunerated at all. But it still remains.
There are other benefits which should certainly be included when one is looking at the remuneration of top managers and directors; namely, pensions, motorcars, school fees and sickness benefit. All those can add up to a much more significant amount than that paid out in salaries. The Greenbury Report may deal with that; if not, some other body ought to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I begin with the technical questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. He will appreciate that this is a private sector

25
report rather than one commissioned and paid for by the Government. It is available at £10. However, my understanding is that a number of copies are being made available in the other place. If that is confirmed, I shall ensure that a comparable number is made available to your Lordships.
My understanding of the situation is that the group certainly took evidence from a large number of interested parties. I do not know whether it intends to publish all the evidence which it received. That is clearly a matter for the group rather than for the Government. The institutional investors were represented on the group, which produced a unanimous report. My understanding is that their representatives have welcomed the report and will be encouraging their member companies to comply with it. Indeed, I would not have thought that a weatherman was necessary in order to see which way the wind is blowing at the moment. Investors are already playing a more active part than they did at the time Greenbury was established.
I was asked whether there might be an opportunity for a considered response on some aspects of the matters considered by the Select Committee in another place. Noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot give an immediate answer now, but I have no doubt that it is something which will be of interest to your Lordships. Those with responsibility for that will doubtless have regard to what has been said.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, was right. I suppose that the clear focus of the concerns which Greenbury was established to address relates to the privatised utilities. Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear that we look to all companies, including privatised utilities, to pay careful attention to the recommendations in the report. One of its recommendations is that the board of any company whose remuneration policies have attracted controversy may wish to seek explicit backing for them from shareholders by tabling a resolution at the annual general meeting. That is a strong recommendation at paragraph 5.31, and one which I know the President of the Board of Trade is encouraging companies to implement.
I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that payments made to executives are out of balance or kilter with the rest of the world. Executives are not overpaid by international standards. As I have said, the total remuneration levels are well below those of the United States. A survey shows that a chief executive of an industrial company with annual sales of about 250 million dollars, would earn £512,000 in the United States compared with £249,000 in the United Kingdom. I agree that it is difficult to make comparisons, but that would seem to indicate that those companies are not marching in step.
What concerned me more was that the noble Lord seemed to be suggesting that somehow, and through a back door, we should be establishing some sort of pay policy, even a maximum pay policy. If that was his intention, I do not believe that he will be surprised to hear that I would strongly disagree with any such approach. If there have been substantial increases in pay
26
for directors of former nationalised utilities, that may in part be due to their pay catching up with that in private sector companies.
The noble Lord suggested that we might address this matter by giving the regulator within the utility area the power to adjust salaries or prices by requiring them to be reduced. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also addressed that point. To give an example, perhaps I may deal with the matter in relation to British Gas. If the totality of the remuneration of the British Gas board were to be removed, that would mean a saving of something like 1p a week for all gas consumers. Against that, this self-same board has achieved a saving of about £77 per average consumer each year. It would be an extraordinary proposition that, if one assumed the oddity of taking out altogether any remuneration, that is a real way in which prices could be adjusted. If there were to be a direct intervention as regards salaries, the regulator could not be expected to judge on the merits of individual board members and set their remuneration. The regulator should serve the interests of the consumer, concentrating on lower prices and better services.
As regards one-year contracts, I agree with the noble Lord that that is an extremely important part of what is proposed. My understanding is that the Stock Exchange will require listed companies to comply with certain specific recommendations. One of those is the disclosure of any service contracts which provide for or imply notice periods in excess of one year. That seems correctly to emphasise what is happening with the proposed changes. A set of core requirements will be imposed on companies. But if they do not follow through other recommendations, they will be under an obligation to disclose and to give their reasons for not so doing. That seems to be an appropriate way to go forward.
Finally, as regards taxes, value would be lost. I understand that the latest figure for 1995–96, with the removal of this relief, which is what it amounts to, is something like £80 million. That is an arrangement which, if the noble Lord has not sought it, I certainly understood Mr. Gordon Brown was urging. The one respect in which he got the matter wrong was to believe that something like £200 million was the value of that relief. He was clearly wrong there.
I hope that I have answered most of the points in this detailed matter as fully as I can. I can announce that 100 copies of the report have been placed in the Vote Office.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend say whether the House will have an opportunity fully to debate this matter very soon after we return in the autumn? Can he give a firm assurance to that effect? The report raises a number of extremely important matters on which I believe the House will wish to express a view. Is my noble and learned friend in a position to say what additional revenue will accrue to the Exchequer as a result of the tax changes?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is not for me to give absolute guarantees what the business of the House might be after it returns in the autumn. I repeated

27
a Statement by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. He said that his observations on this matter were in the nature of some preliminary comments. I do not believe that there is any understanding on anyone's part that this is the end of the matter. Clearly, there will be a considered debate, not only in your Lordships' House, but, I hope, throughout the City and industry, as this matter is more clearly understood over the coming months.
I believe I gave an answer to the second part of my noble friend's question when I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that my understanding of the matter is that for the year 1995–96 the withdrawal of tax relief, which allows those who are within an approved scheme not to pay income tax, although they have to pay a greater amount of capital gains, will amount to something like £80 million.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in the Minister's detailed reply, he referred to the former public utilities. Is it not the case that some of the City institutions charged with dealing with the valuation of these former public utilities when they were privatised, got it wrong by as much as 30 per cent.? That left a very full trough of money for people to put their snouts in. The Minister will understand if people on this side of the House are not very enthusiastic about self-regulation once again being the order of the day at the top end of the financial scale, bearing in mind the recent failures by the City of London and Lloyd's of London.
The Minister also referred to the fact that neither the Greenbury Group nor the Government are involved in levelling rates of pay. The Minister should be aware that, in fact, members of the Greenbury Group level rates of pay of as low as £3 an hour on their employees, which I think is an absolute disgrace when we talk about people being "adequately rewarded". Although I do not single out any particular member of the Greenbury Group, some are involved in that.
The announcements that have been made today by Mr. Clarke, the Chancellor, are extremely welcome, but they will operate only from today. However, in the intervening period—that is, from the date of privatisation of those utilities to today—huge sums of money have been taken from the trough and raided by those people. Is the Minister saying that there is no way in which the Government can claw back any of that? The Minister should understand that people no longer accept that the Government cannot legislate retrospectively because it is "not done" when over the past few years, the Government have used retrospective legislation whenever it has suited them.
I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I am sorry that we are to rise for the Recess this week. It may well be a convenient time to do so—and it happens like this under governments of various colours—but I should have thought that your Lordships' House should debate this subject as a matter of urgency. I am not by any means completely satisfied with what Greenbury said. I should like to read it in closer detail; but I do not think that it means much in the long run.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am aware of the complaints that the Government sold the utilities at prices that were too low; but, having taken independent advice, the view was that the price was set at the maximum that the market would bear. I also recollect that when the price was set too high and a flotation was not all that successful, the noble Lord was equally vigorous in his condemnation of what was undertaken.
Given the noble Lord's anxieties, I invite him to consider what the Greenbury Group said in greater detail and its set of recommendations for listed companies. As I said in opening, the Stock Exchange accepted those recommendations and will be requiring listed companies to comply with certain specific Greenbury recommendations. Listed companies will be required, for example, to set out their remuneration policy and to disclose full details of all directors' remuneration, including share options and long-term incentive schemes. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for not having answered her question on that earlier. Listed companies will also be required to invite shareholders to approve all new, long-term incentive schemes whether payable in cash or shares. They are to refrain from issuing executive share options at a discount.
Therefore, I advise the noble Lord that a set of important recommendations has now been put forward which is to be coupled with the requirement of clear disclosure if other recommendations are not to be implemented. We shall doubtless return to the matter at a later date but I hope that, having reflected on it, it will be appreciated that a real attempt has been made to address those issues that have caused public concern.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble and learned friend will clarify his point about the tax treatment of these matters. It will be within my noble and learned friend's recollection that capital gains tax used to be charged at 30 per cent., which corresponded to the figure which had been the standard rate of income tax for a considerable period of years. In those days, to charge capital gains tax instead of income tax represented a considerable benefit. But Mr. Nigel Lawson (as he then was) increased the rate of capital gains tax to 40 per cent.—
Noble Lords: Shame!
Lord Cockfield:—thereby removing a large amount of the incentive to dress things up as capital gains instead of income. In those circumstances, it is very difficult to see how an £80 million tax yield could come from charging those things to income tax instead of capital gains tax unless there is a great deal more which has not been revealed in the highly sanitised edition of the Greenbury Report to which your Lordships have been invited to listen.
There is another and perhaps even more important point. Does the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer regards this as so important a move, and one which will remove the sense of public outrage which rightly or wrongly exists, mean that for the more innocent members of the community he now proposes reducing capital gains tax to 30 per cent. or, indeed, to 25 per cent., which is the present basic rate of income tax?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer is more than able to answer for himself and to explain why he raised that rate. It was clearly right to do so to ensure that such valiant efforts would not repeatedly be made to shift income into capital or vice versa as has happened from time to time. I should point out that £80 million is the figure that has been given to me. The noble Lord will appreciate that the annual capital gains tax allowance is some £6,000. The noble Lord may be surprised that because of its presence such a significant global sum should emerge at the end of the day, but that is what I am advised.
The present Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to answer for himself on his proposals for the rate of capital gains tax. However, in addressing such issues it is important to ensure that those employees who receive free and tax-free shares from their employers of up to £8,000 per annum under approved profit-sharing schemes should clearly be excluded from the provisions. Such arrangements in favour of employees are clearly desirable and one would not want to do anything to damage them.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, having handled a few tax matters when the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, was in the other place and in another capacity—when we both were—perhaps I may first take up a technical point on taxation, following the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. Everything depends not on what the Chancellor is now saying, but on what goes into a Finance Bill and on how it ends up in a Finance Act. As I am sure that the House is aware, that is not always the same as was intended.
I assume that the Minister will be able to confirm that the saving of £80 million which he mentioned is very much a guess and depends on a whole variety of factors, not least on the question of allowances. The Minister said that there would be no allowances, but allowance is made for capital losses when set against capital gains. Indeed, it is possible to create some if they do not already exist, especially for members of Lloyd's. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that figure of £80 million is very much a guess.
I turn now to the central and more serious point, which is what the Government propose to do about the level of pay of senior directors in all companies, not just in the utilities. I take the point that the Minister is not in favour of an incomes policy. The Minister said that we do not need to worry because this is what happens in the United States and the institutional investors are happy. My noble friend Lord Peston did not mention institutional investors; but the fact is that many of the self-same institutional investors are also board members of large companies where they are paying themselves very substantial salary increases. Therefore, it is a bit much to say that there is no incomes policy when there clearly is an incomes policy which allows that to happen. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the Government intend to allow all this to go on with very little in the way of change. Greenbury referred to one year and said that after that there would have to be re-election, but that does not mean very much, as I am
30
sure that the Minister is aware. In effect, is he not saying that it is not proposed to do anything at all about either the public utilities or other public companies?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am reluctant to engage in a debate with the noble Lord and my noble friend on tax matters. What is being removed is the preferred status of an individual who is presently within an approved scheme. That will fall away. The individual will find himself in exactly the same position as someone who is now a member of an unapproved scheme. What will be lost is the benefit of the delay in making the capital gains payment, the annual allowance and the opportunity to set any CGT indexation against the whole gain. That is the figure that I have been given, and I have no reason to believe it is wrong. It is not simply a forward guess but is based on the position in the past.
One of the important recommendations of the report is that in future remuneration committees should be made up of non-executive directors, with no potential conflict of interest arising from cross-directorships. When the noble Lord manages to get to the Printed Paper Office and look at the code of best practice, he will find that that is the recommendation under A4. I do not suggest that that does not mean that those who are part of a remuneration committee will not have an idea of what may be comparable salaries around the industry. However, what has been regarded as objectionable by some people is the situation where there has been a rather intimate set of cross-directorships. It is now the clear recommendation that that rather cosy arrangement should not continue, certainly with regard to the remuneration committee.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the Minister kindly elucidate further what he has said about exemptions? If, as I understand it, the Chancellor proposes to change the taxation of gains from capital gains tax to income tax, the taxpayer will pay 40 per cent. of the £6,000 exemption on capital gains; that is to say, £2,400. Each person will pay exactly that sum. Someone who has gained £10,000—perhaps an employee—will pay 24 per cent. of his gain, whereas someone who has made £1 million will pay 0.24 per cent. of his gain. Is that the intention of the Government?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the present situation is that if the individual is within an approved scheme and makes a gain at the time he exercises his option, no tax is then payable. It is left aside until there is a sale, at which point both the gain made earlier and on the eventual sale is all treated as capital gain. If it is so treated and in that year the £6,000 exemption is not taken up, the individual can take advantage of that. There must be a real value in not having to pay tax immediately. A further feature of that is indexation. The effect of the changes proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with effect from an exercise as of today is that those who are in approved schemes will find themselves in exactly the same position as individuals in unapproved schemes; that is to say, any gain made at the point that the option is exercised will be treated as subject to income tax rather than capital gains tax at an indeterminate point in future.
Lord Morris: My Lords, many will welcome Her Majesty's Government's early support of what I understand to be the central tenet of the recommendations of the Greenbury Report, namely, that any increase in remuneration should be linked to performance. My question is simply: performance of what or by whom?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, clearly there are a number of detailed features of performance that one will expect the remuneration committee to consider. What I believe is important is that there should be clearer confidence that, where the remuneration committee exercises its discretion, there should be no hint that there is a cosy relationship between the individual whose remuneration is to be considered and those who have the power to award it. I believe that if the proposals that the Greenbury group has advanced are implemented, much of the concern that has been expressed should fall away.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, in his early consideration of this matter Sir Richard Greenbury recommended that directors' pay should normally move broadly in step with that of other employees and should not shoot ahead by the massive percentages that we have seen in the case of the utilities. However, that proposition by Sir Richard Greenbury does not appear in the report. Are the Government in agreement with Sir Richard's initial position or not?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, our view is that pay should be carefully determined by a remuneration committee that can regard the matter objectively, having regard to the performance of the individual and, within that context, the performance of the company. What we do not wish to see introduced is any kind of maximum pay policy which says that because other employees receive such and such a rate it necessarily follows that the chief executive and others must receive remuneration at exactly the same rate. In certain circumstances it would not be difficult to envisage a case where the chief executive, according to some of the more modern arrangements in place, received a cut in pay related to the overall performance of a company, or employees, such as those working on the tills in Marks & Spencer last year got their pay increases while Sir Richard Greenbury did not.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, might not the quickest, most expedient and satisfactory way to deal with the recommendations of the report be to encourage the Stock Exchange—if it needed any encouragement—to include this in their rules of conduct, known as the yellow book? That would be completely binding on all listed companies, including those that had been recently privatised.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I have already indicated that it is my understanding that the Stock Exchange welcomes what has been proposed by the Greenbury group and will adopt a two-part approach to implementation by introducing these features into its listing rules: some will be core requirements and others
32
recommendations. What is critical about the recommendations is that if they are not followed through there will be a requirement for the disclosure of the reasons for not following them and an explanation.

Privacy and Media Intrusion
4.28 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, with the agreement of the House, it may be convenient if I repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State of the Department of National Heritage in another place on privacy and media intrusion. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the press and privacy.
"I am today publishing the Government's response to the Report of the National Heritage Select Committee on Privacy and Media Intrusion. Copies are available in the Library and Vote Office.
"I pay tribute to the Select Committee for their report. The Government very much appreciate the committee's patience in their long wait for this response. The issues in this area go to the heart of our democracy, and the Government have thought about them long and hard. In every democracy there is a balance to be struck between the rights of individuals to personal privacy and the freedom of the press. As the Select Committee recognise, this is not always easy to achieve.
"It is a proud feature of our free nation that for 300 years, other than as a necessity in times of war, the United Kingdom press has been at liberty to write whatever it chooses, subject to the constraints of the law as it applies equally to all citizens. Such freedoms are jealously guarded by the press itself and by this House. The surest means of protecting these freedoms is to ensure they are used responsibly.
"Overall, the quality and standards of our local, regional and national press are high. However, some newspapers have ridden roughshod over people's privacy when there was no possible justification for doing so. Cases concern not just those in public life but private citizens who become the subject of media scrutiny through circumstances not of their choosing. People are entitled to privacy for themselves and their families. In response to these concerns the industry has taken a number of steps. An independent, non-statutory Press Complaints Commission was set up at the beginning of 1991. Lord Wakeham was appointed as chairman of the commission at the beginning of this year. He has considerably strengthened it. The majority of its members are now independent of the press and bring robust common sense to the cases before them. Lord Wakeham set out the steps he has taken in a recent letter to my predecessor. It is published today as an annex to the Government's response.

33
"The development of a national code of practice for the press is a significant improvement on what has gone before. The code, and how it is applied, is being shown to have effect. The House will be aware, for example, of a recent instance where the editor of a Sunday tabloid was publicly reprimanded by the newspaper's proprietor for breaching the code. More needs to be done. I am glad to note that, as the Select Committee recommended, increasingly compliance with the code is being written into the employment contracts of editors and journalists.
"Lord Wakeham is bringing forward proposals for discussion on how both the public and the PCC can contribute to revising and further toughening the code of practice. This is welcome as are his proposals for performance targets against which to measure the commission's efficiency and responsiveness.
"It is essential that self-regulation is both effective and seen to be effective. There have been improvements to the PCC. Lord Wakeham is committed to doing more.
"I have written to him setting out further improvements the Government wish to see both in the procedures of the PCC and in the code of practice itself. My letter is published as an annex to the Government's response to the Select Committee.
"We recommend that the PCC pays out compensation to those who it judges have had their privacy violated by the press. Such awards would be paid from a fund set up by the industry. This would be a collective recognition from the industry that one of its members had wronged a member of the public.
"We have proposed several ways in which the code of practice might be further tightened up. In particular, there are several points where the language of the code should be more precise, or the emphasis changed, to place greater weight on the protection of individual privacy.
"We support the Select Committee's call for a direct and rapid line of communication between the chairman of the PCC and newspaper editors. This would be used to warn them where, in the chairman's judgment on the basis of evidence submitted to him, the code was about to be breached. This could be used to head off abuses. It is also important that the public have rapid and direct access to the PCC. This facility should be well publicised in the press so the public are aware of it.
"The Government have considered carefully whether legislative options should be pursued, rather than the self-regulatory alternative. We have decided for the present to allow Lord Wakeham's commission, and the press, to demonstrate that self-regulation can be made to work. Let me say something though about each of the legislative alternatives.
"The Heritage Select Committee and Sir David Calcutt's 1993 Report before it both took the view that legislation was needed to prevent abuses by the press. However, there is disagreement about the best remedies to apply. Sir David Calcutt recommended a statutory press complaints tribunal, but this was rejected by the Select Committee.
34
"The Government agree with the committee that a statutory press complaints tribunal would not be right. We believe in a free press. Like the committee, we are reluctant to see statutory controls. A statutory tribunal would be a very significant step on a path we have no wish to travel. For the same reason we cannot accept the committee's recommendation for a statutory ombudsman.
"I come next to the Heritage committee's recommendation for a protection of privacy Bill with both civil and criminal elements. The criminal elements would be similar to the intrusion offences proposed in the Calcutt Report. However, the Select Committee, unlike Calcutt, would extend the offences to cover intrusion for any purpose and not just for publication.
"The Government have made it clear that they see attractions in principle in the use of the criminal law to prevent and penalise blatant and unjustified intrusions into the privacy of individuals. Nor could the owners or editors of most newspapers, we believe, legitimately object to sensible laws in this area.
"The Government have therefore given the most painstaking consideration to how the necessary legislation might be drawn up. In particular, they examined from every angle how the Calcutt offences might work in practice. This work is described in detail in Chapter Three of the Government's response.
"We have been guided by the principle that the law must be both clear and enforceable. It must have a good chance of catching those who are abusing their powers while not inhibiting legitimate journalistic investigation. Any legislation would have to establish a balance which protects privacy while allowing responsible journalism and without creating defences that were so wide as to render the offences meaningless.
"We have been forced to conclude that the difficulties of scope and definition of the proposed offences, and the necessary defences, are formidable. The Government would prefer to see a self-regulatory process than to introduce a law which could create more problems than it is designed to solve. The Government therefore have no immediate plans to legislate in this area.
"The Select Committee also recommended a civil remedy for infringement of privacy. This would give victims of infringements of privacy a right to damages and to seek injunctions. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the then Secretary of State for Scotland consulted on a new civil remedy in 1993.
"The consultation did not generate the clear support which the Government look for when considering major measures of law reform. The Government are not yet persuaded that there is sufficient consensus on which to base statutory intervention in this area. Moreover the Government strongly prefer the principle of self-regulation.
"On balance therefore the Government have decided not to legislate for a new civil remedy, at least for the present. We do believe however that the

35
right to privacy should be more explicitly spelt out in the industry's code of practice. For this reason we are publishing, as an annex to our response, what a civil remedy might look like with the recommendation that elements of it should be incorporated into the code.
"The whole House will look to the industry to respond positively to the recommendations set out in my letter to Lord Wakeham. Self-regulation still has a case to prove. Despite the serious practical difficulties, legislative measures should not be ruled out.
"The fact is however that self-regulation is the most practical way forward. The appointment of Lord Wakeham and the approach he is taking offer the best opportunity for some time that self-regulation will be made to work in a way which commands public confidence. There are signs of a growing recognition among editors, including past miscreants, that the right of individual privacy is not to be casually cast aside.
"The industry now has to back the PCC and to make self-regulation fully effective. This is an issue which the Government and this House will and should continue to monitor and debate."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Statement, such as it is. The House will be aware that the Calcutt Committee first reported on privacy five years ago, on press self-regulation two and half years ago, and the National Heritage Select Committee some time ago. A remarkably long gestation period has been needed to give birth to this little mouse. Rarely can so many have laboured so long to produce so little. There appears to be a strong whiff of appeasement in the air. I am bound to say that at least Stanley Baldwin, although afraid of the Germans, was not afraid of the press.
On the central issue of the tort of privacy, I see the Government's problems, especially where legal aid is not available, though I note that our neighbours, the French, have resolved those problems. Moreover, the European Convention on Human Rights contains a definition of, and protection for, the right of privacy. I can say now that on this side we believe that that right should be entrenched in British law together with the right to freedom of expression, when properly exercised, as also in the convention, and freedom of information, and that those three pillars (privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of information) strike the right balance between ensuring that the public interest and the right to know matters of genuine public concern are published, while protecting the right of private individuals to their privacy.
In one area of that, where the Government, as in all areas, are doing nothing, Calcutt was, in my view, good and clear on preventing technological intrusion. He states clearly that various acts of physical intrusion should be criminal offences. The Select Committee supported that and in fact widened it. I shall remind the
36
House what those acts were. They were entering private property without consent to obtain personal information for publication; placing surveillance devices similarly; taking photographs or recording voices of individuals on private property for publication without consent; the improper interception of private telecommunications and, of course, the low hooliganism of journalists "doorstepping". Those seem to me to be clear offences which should not be tolerated in a civilised society. Many Members of both Houses and the Select Committee have expressed concern. I should point out that the public supports constraints in those areas. A while ago, there was a Gallup poll which showed over 80 per cent. of the public supporting constraints in those areas. But it was, surprisingly, one of the polls that the press did not consider interesting enough to print.
I am not talking about protecting the rich, the powerful and the politicians because they have their own ways of protection—and, in public life, one is properly exposed—but about ordinary citizens exploited in situations of painful, family grief. I am talking about the sick and what happens with their medical records and especially about the mentally ill, where there have been many appalling cases of abuse. The range of offences is wide and the bad record of the press is very long. I am unconvinced as to why there is no proposed legislation for those specific offences.
The Government say that there are problems with definition and enforcement. I do not accept that. Moreover, lawyers do not accept that fact. We know in this House that such problems of definition and enforcement have not deterred the Government in many other areas of legislative endeavour. Indeed, we seem to spend much of our time on such cases. I wonder whether it is true, as is widely asserted, that the Department of National Heritage—a decent department—was willing to operate in those areas but the Home Secretary refused because he was afraid to offend the press ahead of an election.
On self-regulation and the Press Complaints Commission, we welcome the recent and proposed improvements of its conduct. The membership is better now with a lay majority; but I believe that it needs an even better lay majority. It was certainly ludicrous when it was composed of representatives of the press. I remember an old saying that, if you were setting up a committee to devise a better mousetrap, you would not compose it entirely of mice. Therefore, it needs a bigger membership and a further tightening of the code would be welcome. I believe that the entrenching of code conditions in journalists' contracts of employment is an improvement, but it should be made universal. I wonder whether there are any proposals for that and if the commission will try to pursue them.
I should also say that the commission only responds to complaints. Many individuals are actually afraid to complain. They feel that the press will be vindictive towards them. They feel intimidated. I believe that the commission should be encouraged and enabled to take the initiative in pursuing the press on matters of genuine public concern. We also think that it should have a better research capacity so that it can pursue such matters.

37
The Calcutt Report recommended that if the press fails to demonstrate that self-regulation works, there should be a statutory system. On this side of the House, we have reservations about a statutory system; indeed, we note that the Government have rejected it. However, the Government have also rejected the Select Committee's recommendation for an ombudsman. I do not understand that. Therefore, in this, as in other areas, they are doing nothing. Do they feel that self-regulation is now working or that it will work? It is interesting to note that, since the first Calcutt Report, the past five years have seen the most irresponsible press behaviour with the worst intrusions into privacy this century. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what degree of irresponsibility constitutes failure and where they would look again.
As the announcement makes clear, the Government are doing nothing. They are doing nothing on the criminal offences of the various kinds of physical intrusion. I must tell the Minister that that is an area which was very specifically defined in Calcutt, and indeed in the Select Committee's report, and where we on this side of the House could have joined the Minister and formed a great deal of consensus. There is nothing on the Select Committee's recommendations for a civil remedy for the infringement of privacy and nothing on the ombudsman.
The Government are relying on the Press Complaints Commission which is an honourable and well-meaning body which we give all our support. However, we really cannot believe that that will be enough when the press is inevitably a commercial operation and driven by circulation wars. In those situations, we cannot believe that the odd rap on the knuckles from the commission or a rather contrived rebuke from a newspaper proprietor to a journalist—we notice that no one is sacked—will be enough. I have to say that this is an extremely disappointing document.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in deploring what is a very wet and timid response to one of the major concerns of our modern society. To have such a response two-and-a-half years after the Calcutt Report is very disappointing indeed. For our part, we would have wanted the starting point for the Government to have been much more wide-reaching and imaginative. One really has to start with a freedom of information Act and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law, and then move on from there.
The Government are right to say, as the Statement says, that in every democracy there is a balance to be struck between the rights of individuals to personal privacy and the freedom of the press. We welcome what has been said in the Statement about the strengthening of the Press Complaints Commission. We on these Benches have recently proposed an independent media tribunal. We also welcome the proposals being made to the Press Complaints Commission for a newspaper compensation fund. It is now just two years since the party on these Benches, in the shape of my late noble friend Lord Bonham-Carter, Robert Maclennan, and myself, proposed to the Calcutt Committee in our
38
evidence that newspapers should deposit a bond with the commission each year. That would need to be a significant sum related to the circulation of the publication in question. At the end of the year it would be returned with interest, subject to the proviso that the commission would have the power to retain all or part of it should the publication have broken the code or ignored the ruling of the commission. I am pleased to see some movement in that direction in the Statement.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, just put forward, we also proposed that legal provision should be introduced in terms of intrusion into personal privacy. We proposed that a carefully tailored civil offence of physical intrusion should be introduced to prevent the harassment of individuals by the media. It is right that peeping Toms, aggressive doorstepping and telephone harassment by the media should he regulated by law.
I find the descriptions in the Statement as regards the reasons for not making practical progress in the latter respect, after all the years and all the examinations, deeply disappointing. I suppose that all we can do is to seek some consolation. For those of us who are textual critics of Whitehall documents we must find comfort in the repeated phraseology of, "This is the Government's position at present"—until we know whether the Press Complaints Commission puts its house more strongly in order. There are remarks at the end of the Statement that if the commission does not live up to the Government's expectations then:
"Despite the serious practical difficulties, legislative matters should not be ruled out".
Those of us who know about such matters must recognise, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that those are the unmistakable marks of a department that wishes it had been able to go further but which has been defeated in Cabinet by Ministers who are determined in the run up to the next general election to do nothing to offend the great peers of the press.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson, for their remarks, but I must confess that I am most disappointed at the tone of their responses. I am disappointed because they seem to equate the Government's decision with some form of cowardice or inability to come forward with the right solution. This has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, commented, a long time in gestation. When one is dealing with difficult matters it is important to think thoroughly and carefully about what is being proposed. That seems to be a point of view that does not lend itself to the Benches opposite. I am disappointed about that; it does not underscore their claims to government.
This is a difficult issue that we have been dealing with and we approached it from the same kind of perspective as the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue. The key man here is the small man who finds himself subjected to intrusion and finds that his privacy is gravely violated. We have to try to ensure that that does not happen. In this instance we are trying to establish a state of affairs where these abuses do not occur. It is because that is our aspiration that we reached the conclusions that we did. If one looks at the matter in the

39
same way as the Select Committee's report and indeed the Government's response to the Select Committee's report, in terms of individuals' zones of privacy being invaded, there are all sorts and kinds of problems involved in going down a legal route, be it civil law or criminal law. It is no good simply laughing off the problems of definitions. They are not as easy as all that. That is an extremely difficult matter.
Further, in a free society where investigative journalism is a legitimate part of the system, one must have defences, and if the defences are such that they effectively negate the effect of the very rules that are being put in place, that hardly seems to be a way of protecting the small man. Another important matter in this regard concerns the consequences under this sort of system if there is litigation of some kind and the matter goes to court. What we will then find is that, under the rules of privilege, the whole world will become privy to the very breach of privacy which the system is intended not to publicise. That will be an extremely unsatisfactory way, to put it mildly, of dealing with the problem.
We believe that in the real world an effective and robust non-statutory system is that which will deliver best for our citizens. I wish to pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Wakeham, who is unable to be with us here this afternoon because, since the advent of his chairmanship of the Press Complaints Commission, a number of important changes have already been instituted. In the annex to the Government's response they are set out in some detail. In addition, an exchange of correspondence between my noble friend and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicates the kind of direction in which the non-statutory body is likely to move. This, we believe, will provide the best protection for our citizens from the undoubted excesses of the press which have been displayed in a number of well publicised instances over recent years. It is because we believe this is the most practical and effective way of dealing with this serious problem that we have brought forward our response.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, it gives me no personal pleasure to find myself 100 per cent. in agreement with the two spokesmen from the Opposition Benches. Anyone with half an eye will recognise this for what it is: a fobbing off Statement to try to put under the rug something that the Government know should be dealt with because they know that to allow things to continue as they are poses a danger to society generally.
I understand the problems of obtaining statutory powers to try to deal with this matter and I know that to try to copy the French legislation would be difficult and intricate, as has been explained. However, there is no reason at all why the Government cannot make some start in some aspect of it to show that they really mean business. I say this with some feeling because I have tried to do just that. In the previous Session I brought forward my photograph Bill which would have gone some way towards closing a number of loopholes following the unfair and malicious photography that is carried out, while not settling the whole of the problem.
40
The noble Baroness, who is on the Front Bench at the moment, had to answer on that occasion and give the Government's view. What was the Government's view in the previous Session? It was not a criticism of my little step forward. They said the Government could not follow my proposals because they had their own plans almost ready to put into operation. Now we are given this fobbing off Statement which means nothing. I hope that my noble friend will take the trouble, now that he has responsibility for this matter, to look up my photograph Bill. We got it through the Committee stage and we were almost at the end of the Report stage, after which the matter could have been sent to another place to receive the detailed examination that it deserves.
I am a little worried as to the contribution that my noble friend Lord Wakeham will make because his predecessor led the Opposition at the Report stage as to whether or not we should proceed with my Bill which in no way prevented a bigger move forward later and which in no way inhibited any future efforts to make it even more complete. On the promise that something would be done—nothing was done—we lost that Bill. Is there no way to make the Government realise that as regards this important matter it is better to inch forward in the right direction instead of finding words which merely mean they will put it off for another day, and another day, and another day after that?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for drawing my attention to his photograph Bill. I wish to assure him that I shall consider most carefully the issues that it raises. However, needless to say, I am obviously disappointed by the underlying thrust of my noble friend's remarks. As I said in repeating the Statement to your Lordships, we believe that self-regulation offers the most effective possibility of appropriate regulation in this respect.
It is, I think, agreed among your Lordships that there have been serious problems in this regard in the past. Against that background, if we look at the matter of self-regulation and its recent history in this country, it is important to see whether some of the problems relate to the detail of the system that is in place or whether the very system itself is in some way or other fundamentally flawed and cannot as a matter of principle work properly. It is our view and the view of my noble friend Lord Wakeham that it is the former, and that it is a matter of getting this system to work better which will then mean that it will be able to deliver what I am sure not only your Lordships but the vast majority of the citizens in this country want to see.
I draw the attention of noble Lords to the final words of the letter from my noble friend Lord Wakeham to the previous Secretary of State at the Department of National Heritage. It is appended to the Government's response and states,
"My central aim is, after all, very close to what I believe yours to be: to ensure proper redress for ordinary people against abuses by the press, while preserving the essential freedoms of the press—without which any democracy will surely founder".
That seems to me to sum it up.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am also going to ask him questions that will give him no joy? He has expressed disappointment

41
about everyone's comments, but does he appreciate that the public are aware of the lower standards of the media today and that they are undermining the basic rights of people? That will continue for as long as they have a government who are afraid to do anything. The Minister stood there today and gave the weakest Statement that I have heard since I joined this House.
I join with noble Lords who have spoken both from the Opposition Benches and from the Government Benches in saying that the public want action. It is clear that self-regulation has not worked. It has been given a long time. People are being hurt and will continue to be unless the Government introduce greater penalties than they have introduced this afternoon.
5 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, over anxieties about lower standards. I alluded to them earlier in my remarks. It is because we want to see something happen that we propose to deal with the abuses along the lines I have described. We believe that the flexibility inherent in an effective system of self-regulation will deliver the kind of safeguards that we all want to see.
Needless to say, it is a matter of an effective method of self-regulation. I can only repeat the concluding remarks of my right honourable friend's Statement that:
"The industry now has to back the PCC and to make self-regulation fully effective. This is an issue which the Government and this House will and should continue to monitor and debate".
To use a vernacular phrase, the ball is now back in the industry's court. There is a PCC with a new chairman who is clearly and emphatically committed to a change in these matters. We believe that this will be the way forward.
Perhaps I may make one final comment. It has been intimated on two separate occasions that the Government's response to this matter has been motivated by a fear of the press. After the events of the past two or three weeks my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has no fear of the press.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. He made reference to a fund. One could call it a slush fund or a hush fund. I am not sure what the right terminology would he. A number of questions arise in relation to the fund. I believe that it is to be run by the PCC and based on a levy from various newspapers that might be affected. Money would obviously be dispursed to complainants.
On what basis would money be dispursed? Would it he disbursed in large amounts to people who court publicity and perhaps find that following a photocall the wrong photograph appears in a newspaper? They have made a mistake. They may be a bit short of money; they make a complaint and a large chunk of dosh is doled out to them to help their finances. Or will it be used for the classic case of the unemployed person who is pilloried as a social security scrounger even though he may be making strenuous efforts to find employment? On what basis will the financial disbursement be made?
42
Secondly, on what basis will money come from the various newspapers? Will it be a levy based on their circulation, turnover or profits? Will there be any connection between the levy and the number of complaints made against a particular title?
The House must be gravely concerned by the idea that an intrusion into someone's privacy can be compensated by monetary payments. There is no effective redress for that person other than in financial terms. There seems to be no penalty against the perpetrators of invasion of privacy except in monetary terms. Bearing in mind the enormous sums of money that top people pay themselves, is a financial penalty likely to have any effect whatsoever?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, let me make it quite clear at the outset that this is not envisaged in any way as being a system under which unscrupulous newspapers may be able to buy their way into breaching people's privacy. Let us hit that idea on the head at the outset.
The Government find attractive the idea that the PCC should have a fund which would be collected from the various newspapers from which it could pay appropriate compensation. We are not here talking of punitive damages but appropriate compensation to those people who have been affected by breaches of the PCC's code of conduct. We are at an early stage of consideration of this matter. However, it is important to note that in those circumstances the fact that compensation might be payable would not be the only remedy in the hands of the PCC. It is unthinkable that it would be simply a case of buying off an incident which was in breach of the code. The Government believe that this is an attractive idea which will assist in this regard.
In this context it is important to remember that there are a number of civil remedies which may or may not have a bearing on the kind of activities with which the PCC is concerned. I am thinking in particular of the noble Lord's remarks concerning defamation.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I suggest to the Minister that the anxieties of the public are not covered by the notion of a balance between a person's right to a private life and the freedom of the press. The former is overwhelmingly more important. After all, our legal system is based on the notion of the King's Peace, the preservation of the citizen in his life and limb, and also increasingly in our time, and rightly, his reputation. That is surely much more important than the right of tabloid newspapers, without which we could do very well, as the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, reminded us, to print what they like and to obtain information by what means they like.
I find it difficult to appreciate the view of the Minister that there are technical difficulties which prevent the Government from tackling one aspect which Sir David Calcutt emphasised, namely the use of modern technological means such as long-distance cameras and eavesdropping machines of one kind or another. If the Government wish to persuade this House and the country of their sincerity in wishing to see privacy preserved, why can they not bring forward a short Bill, the work for which has already been done by Sir David

43
Calcutt, which would outlaw, with criminal penalties, the use of such instruments? After that we could see whether self-regulation would get us further.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Beloff for drawing our attention to this matter. Clause 5 of the PCC code of practice specifically covers listening devices, which is the general description of the kind of device to which my noble friend referred. That is already in the PCC code of conduct. It has been introduced into the code since it was first written in 1991. Against that background, bearing in mind his comments, surely the appropriate course is to see whether that works. If it does not then the case that my noble friend advances inevitably becomes that much stronger.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have a simple question for the Minister. I should like him to explain the statement:
"There are signs of a growing recognition among editors, including past miscreants, that the right of individual privacy is not to be casually cast aside".
How does the Minister reconcile that statement with the rush by the tabloid press to pay an American prostitute for information regarding her dealings with a well-known British actor? I understand that the contest was won to the tune of £100,000 by Mr. Hughes.
There was praise also in the report for ticking off an editor. Does the Minister agree that he talks nonsense when he states that there is any desire among the tabloid press to improve?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord is no. The clear response by the industry to the proposals, and the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Wakeham, suggest to us quite clearly that there is the shift in the general direction which I described. I made reference to the reprimand that was given to the editor of a well-known Sunday newspaper. I suggest that that would have been unthinkable even a year or so ago.
However, we believe that what I have described is the case. As I concluded when reading the Statement of my right honourable friend, it is an issue which will be taken extremely seriously by the Government. The matter is now in the hands of the industry. It is up to the industry to operate a voluntary system in accordance with the generally accepted attitudes of this House, which we believe are those of the country at large, or we shall have again to consider the matter.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I seem previously to have heard the words "It is up to the industry" in this connection. I have been listening, therefore, for some crumbs of comfort for those of us who would like Her Majesty's Government to proceed more briskly in the matter. (I am sorry if I am a little obscure in my speech; half my face is still frozen from a recent visit to the dentist.)
It seems to me that there has been insufficient recognition of what my noble friend Lord Wakeham has already achieved by getting into the contract of employment of editors an undertaking to observe the code. That has given a means of removing from office
44
those who offend seriously against the code. But in the final analysis that policy transfers the onus for its observation from the editor to the proprietor. It seems to me that we are now embarking on an important experimental stage. It is just possible that the Government are right to see how that experiment works before they proceed to legislation. If proprietors are more mindful of the rights of the individual and of society as a whole than their employees have so far been, it is possible that a voluntary code may yet be effective.
If such a code is backed up by a pecuniary penalty, as is now suggested, in the form of a significant bond to be retained each year by the commission against good conduct, there will be that pecuniary pressure on the proprietors also to honour the code.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. Despite his half frozen mouth, he has made comments which we believe to be entirely to the point. He shares much of our analysis of the situation and the way to improve things.

Atomic Energy Authority Bill
5.14 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, leave out lines 15 to 21.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3 it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I take with it Amendments Nos. 4 to 6.
Amendment No. 3 is a probing amendment. What we seek to do—we could not apparently achieve it in Standing Committee in another place—is to ask the Government to suggest how the situation will work out in practice. We know that the Government have stated a number of things. They suggest that licences will be held by the AEA Government Division. The Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists has stated:
"The statement 'The UKAEA will remain the site licensee after these divestments and therefore ultimately responsible for safety' is misleading".
That institution goes on to say that the Government Division,
"have announced publicly at the 4th International Conference on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities … that they would like contractors bidding for decommissioning work to consider taking on site nuclear licences for some installations. Specifically they have invited bidders for decommissioning the Windscale Piles to construct their bids on the basis of taking over the nuclear site licence, if they wish. Whilst UKAEA might remain site licensee for the particular investments mentioned above … and for the immediate period following divestment there are strong indications that in the future UKAEA with DTI support would prefer not to remain nuclear site licensee for some contracts".
We should like to know the situation.
Perhaps I may first deal with Amendment No. 6 and then Amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 4 and 6 refer to Warren Spring Laboratory, or indeed its successor activities within AEA Technology. We suggest that the words should be added:

45
"any property, rights, liabilities or assets that can be identified as having previously formed part of, or contributed to the work of the former Warren Spring Laboratory".
It is reasonable that we should seek to insist that the general way in which Warren Spring is set up within the AEA should be preserved in the public sector. It is appropriate that we pay tribute to the work of those engaged in Warren Spring over the years. They created a highly prestigious organisation which obtained a remarkable reputation not only nationally but internationally. Its work in the environmental field on clean air, landfill sites and all forms of pollution has been exemplary. I believe that the Government have to be assured that those activities should continue. We would have preferred to see them continue under a nationalised or publicly owned organisation, but that is not now happening.
When Warren Spring was absorbed into AEA Technology, something like 50 per cent. of those employees did not transfer. It is probably true that quite a lot of them voluntarily decided that they would not go. But the fact is—I hope that the Government will accept it—that some of the skills involved were lost when those people refused to move to Harwell.
Warren Spring is now broken up into its constituent parts. It is subsumed into the AEA organisation. We believe that that has not been helpful. Do the Government agree that they have a special responsibility to assist in monitoring the environment, and that it should be done objectively and independently of private interests? Do the Government also agree that they should maintain some expertise in the field, and that it is an issue which should not be contracted out to private agents exclusively?
A perfectly reasonable point was put by my honourable friend in another place, Dr. Lewis Moonie. He said:
"What will happen if an activity is insufficiently profitable and no private agency is prepared to undertake it?"—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 23/3/95; col. 21.]
Will the Minister answer that specific point? It was not properly answered in the debate which took place in Standing Committee D.
It may well be that in many instances in the field work of this character cannot be carried out profitably but there is a question of national interest in it being carried out. Consequently, there may be some important residuary role for government in that regard in ensuring that work which no private company might wish to undertake in the field is done, nevertheless.
Amendment No. 4 would insert into Clause 1 the words:
"any employees of the Authority required for the safe management of any nuclear liability arising from the previous activities of the Authority".
My understanding is that Government Division is to keep responsibility as a purchaser of decommissioning services. I understand that that is what the Government wish it to remain. A purchasing authority will not necessarily include on its board anyone who has any or any sufficient expertise in nuclear waste management. That requirement is to be withdrawn subsequently in the Bill. Retaining that function allows many other
46
functions to go to other companies which may bid for part of the decommissioning process for nuclear reactors. But the many responsibilities for safety should, in our submission, remain the concern of the Government rather than a company.
We are talking here about important issues. They have been listed by the IPMS as the following:
"Managing the safe decommissioning of nuclear liabilities; Custody and maintenance of radiation dose records; Medical supervision of employees in subsidiary companies; Restriction of UKAEA Constabulary's powers over employees, or extension on the same footing to subsidiaries and contractors … The definition of the nature and extent of work provided to or undertaken for [the Ministry of Defence]; Restrictions, if any, on commercial trading".
That is how the IPMS has listed the issues and no one could doubt their extreme significance.
The records have of course to be maintained over a long period, long after employees have departed from the company. It is critically important therefore that we take the issue into account. These are matters which I hope the Government will take fully on board in dealing with the amendments.
Lastly, I come to Amendment No. 5, in which we seek to prevent the transfer out, under the Bill's provisions, of people working in areas stated to be the mission of UKAEA Government Division. The Government Division published on 31st March 1995 the forward plan. The document stated that UKAEA had agreed with the DTI that Government Division's mission was to be:
"To complete the UKAEA nuclear mission, whilst rapidly reducing the annual cost to the UK taxpayer of Government Division, by:
Caring for and, at the appropriate time, safely dismantling active facilities no longer in use.
Disposing of radioactive waste in an environmentally acceptable way.
Making use of those UKAEA assets which cannot be disposed of, including live active facilities.
Always ensuring that the programme is carried out at lowest economic cost consistent with safety and environmental requirements and acceptable financial risks".
In the amendment we seek to prevent those activities from being privatised through the procedures of the Bill. We believe that privatisation along those lines would create wasteful duplication and competition between Government Division and privatised functions, with a balance in favour of Government Division which will have access to government subsidy and underwriting.
Perhaps I may offer a resumé of the Government's arguments in another place. They said that they intended Government Division to contract out all or most of the work, some to AEAT, and that putting work out to competitive tender reduces costs in itself. The Government spoke of savings of at least £50 million expected in the three years to 1996–97. What evidence is there of any such saving in terms of costs? In my submission, there is none that competition in that area is likely to reduce costs on that or any comparable scale. Government Division chief executive Dr. Derek Pooley wrote to the trade unions on 26th June this year saying that the projected savings would be due: first, to

47
planning; secondly, to highly commercial, and if possible competitive, negotiations; and, thirdly, to firm management of contracts. He added:
"We do not yet have much evidence about the relative importance of these three factors".
The extra costs of items two and three, which I have just mentioned, from—to use a horrible term—"contractorisation", including maintaining an adversarial four-tier management structure, would probably outweigh any competitive savings. I believe that the provisions which we suggest would substantially improve the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord began by indicating that the first amendment which he moved, Amendment No. 3, is in the nature of a probing amendment. I am not entirely surprised that he indicated that, otherwise, taken at its face value, it might achieve exactly the opposite of what he was arguing for.
Clause 1(3) is in the Bill for a specific purpose. AEA Technology is currently not a legal entity, it is simply an operating division of UKAEA. In practice, there is a clear dividing line between it and the Government Division. But because it is not a legal entity, it is not possible to say expressly on the face of the Bill that the activities of the UKAEA transferred by scheme to a successor company will be those activities carried on by AEA Technology.
What is possible is to specify what will remain with UKAEA. That is what Clause 1(3) does. It makes it clear that ownership of and responsibility for the management of UKAEA's nuclear liabilities and those UKAEA sites subject to nuclear licensing will remain with Government Division in the public sector.
The noble Lord made something of a statement by Government Division at a conference, and as the noble Lord is aware, it was considered in some detail in another place during Committee stage. What was indicated then was that with regard to a particular decommissioning proposal, the Government Division is at an early stage of exploring how to structure that decommissioning project. To help inform the process, it has asked other organisations to give their views on not only the conventional option of working under the Government Division's nuclear site licence but an alternative involving the contractor holding the nuclear site licence.
That approach would involve a departure from Government Division policy, but the division would be failing in its duty if it did not examine any method of achieving value for money for the taxpayer. However, I emphasise that it would only pursue that alternative if it were to be satisfied that safety would not be compromised and significant savings could be made. Whatever views the noble Lord may take about the matter, I can confirm to him that nothing in this Bill alters that position.
I also take this opportunity to reassure the Committee that UKAEA's current responsibilities for nuclear security, the policing of nuclear sites and fusion R&D will also remain with Government Division. Government Division will retain responsibility for the management and disposal of associated radioactive waste.
48
The privatised AEA Technology will be a leading player in the nuclear services market and operate some active nuclear facilities on UKAEA sites. But the nuclear market is only one of the many sectors in which AEA Technology operates and work on nuclear materials accounts for a relatively small proportion of its total business.
We are not talking here about the sale of a major nuclear operator in the privatisation of nuclear facilities. Ownership of all the facilities used by AEA Technology for its work on nuclear materials will in fact remain with Government Division.
I turn to the other two amendments. Amendment No. 6 would prevent the inclusion in transfer schemes of any property, rights and liabilities of the former Warren Spring laboratory or which contributed to the work of Warren Spring.
Warren Spring and AEA Technology's existing environmental technology business were merged last year and now operate under the flag of the National Environmental Technology Centre, NETCen, at Harwell and Culham. I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to those who worked at Warren Spring; but the merger has created a comprehensive centre of excellence in environmental technology. It will help British business both by helping it to minimise waste and pollution, itself reducing costs, and by providing a technology base to help British business meet ever more demanding international standards.
The merger has provided an organisation with a broader capability than either of its constituent parts and with a lower cost base. It is able to call on the broadly based technical skills and the marketing base of AEA Technology as a whole. It is also able to operate in wider markets than Warren Spring could ever have done it if had remained independent—and thereby make a more substantial contribution to UK competitiveness in the environmental services market.
For all these reasons it would make no sense to undo the merger, and indeed might run contrary to earlier arguments advanced that we should keep these activities all as a single unit. It would harm the prospects for AEA Technology as a whole; and it would deprive the UK of one of the world's leading environmental technology centres.
Let us now look at Amendment No. 4 and the first leg of Amendment No. 5, which would both have the same effect. Since they do not distinguish between employees of AEA Technology and UKAEA Government Division, they would deprive AEA Technology of the ability to compete effectively for future work by precluding the transfer of those of its employees currently working on projects for Government Division. They would undermine its competitive position in the UK and undermine its ability to compete in the international market for decommissioning and waste management services.
There are enormous opportunities in that market which we would all want to see AEA Technology and other British firms exploiting to the full. But this amendment would put a major obstacle in AEA Technology's way.

49
It would also not only deprive the staff concerned of the opportunities that a privatised AEA Technology could offer them but could leave them stranded in Government Division with an uncertain future once the projects on which they were working come to an end. I cannot believe that that is anything other than an unintended consequence of the noble Lord's proposal.
To turn finally to the last limb of Amendment No. 5, it would, if adopted, wreck the sale. AEA Technology is a people business. It is nothing without its staff. If the staff could not be transferred, there would be no point in making a transfer scheme. No doubt we shall spend a good deal of time this afternoon debating amendments designed to improve the already very substantial protections for employees written into the Bill. I make no complaint about that. But I believe that their best hope for a prosperous future will he in privatising AEA Technology and allowing it to realise its full potential as a world-class business.
I have taken some time to respond to an important set of amendments, and the noble Lord quite properly took his time to spell out his concerns. I hope that I have answered them fully.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the Minister for that considered reply. With respect, it does not really meet the case that I put forward. I accept that the amendments as drafted are by no means perfect. The Minister is right in saying of my first amendment that it could lead to great difficulties. That is why I described it as a probing amendment. The deficiencies that we have on this side in drafting will of course fall on the noble and learned Lord in the not too distant future. He will then begin to experience the problems that we experience.
So far as Warren Spring is concerned, the Minister did not answer the point that I made which gives us some cause for concern; namely, there has been, I contend, a substantial loss of expertise on the part of those who did not want to move to Warren Spring. That cannot be to the advantage of the industry as a whole.
The Minister said something about a better contribution towards UK markets being effected as a result of this merger. I rather suspect that that has not yet happened. It may be a hope that the Minister has for the future, rather than spelling out the present situation. Perhaps he will clarify that point.
The Minister said that Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 effectively constituted wrecking amendments, since the sale would be wrecked as a result. We are dealing simply with a Bill that devises a way forward towards a sale. It does not affect the sale at the present time or when it is enacted. But when the Minister said that we should be affecting disastrously the situation of the employees, it is odd, is it not, that they have taken the view that these amendments should be moved? We are doing so on the basis of representations made to us by them. I think that they are probably in a better position than is the Minister to understand the situation—although I accept once again that the amendments may not be drafted in the most adroit way, for which I accept responsibility. It is quite a usual function on my part to submit maladroit amendments! However, one does try
50
to get a point over. I invite the Minister to comment on the two or three points that I have just made and then I shall indicate that I propose to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may respond to two of the points. It may be that there are some within Warren Spring, previously employed before the merger took place, who did not think that that was the best way to proceed. It is certainly our view that, following on that merger last year, a first-class organisation is being brought together which is well placed now within the privatised AEA, in parts or as a whole, to take advantage of the opportunities that lie there. So it is not simply an expression of hope. I believe it is an objective assessment of the benefits of the merger.
I make no criticism of the noble Lord's amendments. I suspect that he drafts very much better than, in a modest fashion, he indicated. My clear understanding of the position—and it may not have been understood by the employees—is that there will be a number who are working for Government Division at the present time, and it would not be desirable to put them in a position of uncertainty as to where their future lay once the particular projects on which they were working came to an end. I put it in that way so that the noble Lord and those who made representations to him may reflect on what I believe may have been an unintended consequence.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I shall certainly reflect further on the matter, as I am sure will the employees. Having heard what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert:
("( ) No direction to make a transfer scheme shall he made before a period of one year has elapsed after the passing of this Act").
The noble Lord said: Since Second Reading we have had the Nuclear Review and the suggestion that Nuclear Electric will be sold. It would seem to be sensible to co-ordinate the sale of AEA Technology with the nuclear power sale that is proposed in this White Paper. Not to do so would almost certainly fail to get the best price for AEA Technology because more than 50 per cent. of the work of AEA Technology is nuclear. Equally, uncertainty over the future availability of AEA Technology's services would reduce the market value of the nuclear power business when it comes to be sold. If the Government want to get the maximum value from both those sales, they should co-ordinate them. This amendment encourages them to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I indicated previously, the Government's aim in this legislation is to keep sale options open. One element of that strategy involves preserving the possibility of early or late vesting. Once the transfer scheme powers have been used to vest property, rights and liabilities of the authority in a transferee, then in general the property concerned cannot be re-vested by the scheme.

51
That argues for vesting AEA Technology in the form in which it is most likely to be sold. It is therefore possible that vesting by scheme would not take place for more than 12 months after the Bill has been passed. Equally, it is possible that, subject to the performance of AEA Technology, vesting in a shorter timescale would become desirable. That could be the case, for example, if AEA Technology were to perform in a way which confirmed that unitary sale was the best option. I understand the argument that the noble Lord advanced but I would not wish to limit the scope of the powers by introducing an arbitrary time limit on when they might apply.
I might also emphasise, although I am sure that the noble Lord is well aware of it, that what is being proposed for privatisation within the technology is not an area of expertise that is in any sense exclusively related to nuclear expertise. The expertise that they have now acquired across a broader front is equally valuable and the directness of the relationship between that and nuclear power is possibly not as tight as he suggested.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may intervene at this point. The amendment had a slight ulterior motive, which the Minister chose to ignore. We were trying to winkle out whether the noble Lord had any news for us on nuclear power privatisation. He will have noticed the remarks made by my noble friend but he did not say a word on that subject. May I assume that he is not yet ready to tell us anything about the timetable of that particular divestment?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord makes a correct assumption. I wanted to underline also that I did not accept that in this context there was any particular parallel to be drawn. I thought that there were other reasons why he wished to delay for 12 months. We could possibly explore that point at another date.
Lord Haskel: It seems that once again the Government are using the phrase "keep our sales options open" as a means of saying that they are unprepared for what will happen. Indeed, it may well be that it will be 12 months before this privatisation goes ahead, by which time we shall know more about the position of Nuclear Electric. We shall have to come back to this matter on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transfer schemes: supplementary provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 4, at end insert:
("provided that no property which may contain any fissile or other controlled material shall be transferred unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that control of that material meets any requirement of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Cmnd 4474).").
The noble Lord said: I have chosen this amendment as the peg on which to hang a number of concerns about nuclear proliferation, security, safety in an international sense and other international matters.
At Second Reading I asked various questions about whether the AEAT, once it was privatised, would be able to assist in the construction of nuclear power stations abroad. I hasten to add that I am not opposed to nuclear power—quite the contrary. I simply hold a consistent position in that I wish electricity to be generated in the "least cost" way. If nuclear power turns out to be "least cost", then that is fine and if not, it is not fine. I do not see the fundamental issue on nuclear power that often my honourable friends and noble friends have seen.
So my remarks are not antipathetic to nuclear power. My concerns are about nuclear technology one way or another falling into the hands of nations which are actually or potentially unfriendly towards us. I am concerned about the acquisition of fissile materials which could be used for other purposes by nations which are or are potentially unfriendly towards us. I believe that, over the years, our Government have kept up a very good record in that respect. I do not in any sense intend to criticise the present Government or their predecessors in this area.
All that has happened so far has been within the public sector domain, if I may use that expression. Everything changes somewhat in the context of privatisation.
The related matter—the expression that we all emphasized—is that the business we are talking about is essentially based on human capital with the expertise of individuals. Individuals are mobile. I assume that at the present time employees who are now public servants could go and work abroad, acting as advisers to governments who are unfriendly towards us. I reflect on whether the Government have considered that matter sufficiently.
The point about employees was raised in another place. Once that part of the industry is privatised, I am not entirely certain how far the kind of protection connected with the Official Secrets Act and so on will continue to help. After all, the employees of AEAT will be in the private sector and no longer in the public sector. Since they undoubtedly have knowledge and will acquire new knowledge, possibly of the kind which ought to lie within the ambit of the Official Secrets Act, it is not obvious to me how that protection can continue. What replaces the Official Secrets Act is commercial confidentiality, which is not the same thing at all. That is the area in which we now operate.
There is another related matter and I cannot now remember whether I asked the question at Second Reading. Do the Government have any view on whether the purchaser of AEAT could be wholly or largely foreign owned? More to the point—we shall come later to further transfer of these assets —will any controls remain in subsequent years over foreign acquisition of the company? Again, I pride myself on being an internationalist and my point reflects no kind of

53
antipathy to foreigners. It has to do with the sensitivity of the nuclear area and in particular access to that kind of expertise and those kinds of materials.
My difficulty in pursuing this issue, as noble Lords will be aware, is that there are so many different Acts of Parliament which apply in this area. The original atomic energy Acts apply. Certainly the 1965 Act applies among other measures. It has certainly been rather difficult for me to plough my way through all the different measures to answer my own question, so to speak. But that is the whole point of having the Government and the Opposition; namely, on matters of this kind I ask the difficult questions and the Minister has to work through the problems and give me at least some semblance of an answer.
This is not a matter that we can simply let go. Serious questions arise in relation to the future stability of the world. We know, if only from hearsay, that small nations are still trying to acquire nuclear expertise and the relevant raw materials. What is of considerable interest is that, on the whole, we have prevented that from happening. The extent of nuclear proliferation is a good deal less than I would have predicted, given my worst fears.
The Bill represents a serious change. I cannot believe that neither the Minister nor his colleagues in government have thought about this issue. The reason for my raising it is to give him one additional chance to place on record any thinking that they have had. I read the remarks made by his honourable friend in another place and my interpretation was that we may be expecting a fuller statement on the whole area in due course. It may be that today the Minister wishes to make that fuller statement.
To conclude, I repeat that I do not wish my remarks to be interpreted in any way as anti-nuclear and certainly in no way as undermining the desirability of AEAT, if it is to be privatised, being commercially viable. But in that regard we must be ultra cautious so that we do not suddenly discover, whoever is in government, that nuclear expertise has developed elsewhere and that we were somehow involved in it. That would not be a satisfactory state of affairs. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I have no intention of accusing the noble Lord of being anti-nuclear. I can say briefly to him that the amendment is unnecessary but, given the nature of his anxieties, I shall take a moment or two to explain why. I say that for two reasons. First, it is not our intention to transfer any fissile material to a successor company. Secondly, a fully adequate regulatory regime is already in place—and it is the latter reason that may be of greater interest to the noble Lord.
The Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 provides that any exports of such materials and equipment require a licence. No licence is issued unless my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that the requirements of the treaty are met. In addition, the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978 gives effect to the international agreement between the UK, the IAEA and Euratom for the application of safeguards in the UK, pursuant to the non-proliferation treaty. And we are bound by the Euratom Treaty, under
54
which all civil nuclear material in the UK is subject to safeguards administered by the Euratom Safeguards Directorate.
The regulatory framework set up under the Euratom Treaty ensures control of all civil nuclear material, wherever it may be held. That framework applies, and will continue to apply, to all activities carried out in the UK irrespective of who carries them out, and irrespective of whether they are carried out in the public or the private sector. So the noble Lord's assumption was correct; that is, that there would be the necessary continuity.
Let me now say something about the basis on which AEA Technology will carry out work on special nuclear material. After privatisation, that work will be carried on in buildings which will remain under the control of UKAEA's government division for licensing purposes and subject to arrangements for nuclear accountancy approved by Euratom. In other words, there will be no change in the basic regulatory provision. And employees of AEA Technology, or a successor company or companies, who deal with SNM will continue to be vetted in accordance with the UK Government standards.
All work on special nuclear material will be undertaken in facilities owned by UKAEA's government division, under the terms of licences to operate. The government division will make it a condition of all such licences that all employees operating these facilities continue to be appropriately vetted. Equally, the statutory framework of the Official Secrets Act binds all employees of AEA Technology and will continue to do so after its separation from UKAEA and after privatisation. Employees and ex-employees will therefore continue to be under a duty not to reveal any information gained in the course of their employment on sensitive government contracts.
I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that a solid regulatory framework is in place. He also asked a question in relation to possible foreign ownership of AEA Technology. Of course we welcome overseas investment into this country, provided that the potential buyers of a privatised company meet all the criteria attached to the sale. If that is the case, there is no reason why they should be discouraged simply on the grounds of nationality.
In this case the decision of to whom the business will be sold will depend on a wide range of criteria. They will include the need to maintain its reputation, independence and impartial advice, and the interests of its customers who will include the Government. It follows that the Government will consider the need for a special share and for any other form of protection in the light of decisions on the form and method of sale and of discussions with the business's major customers. I hope too that that explanation is helpful to the noble Lord.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for that explanation. It was particularly helpful for it to be on record. Again, one cannot judge these issues until we are slightly closer to knowing who the new owners may be and on seeing later developments. There is an amendment to come relating to the special share and we

55
shall be able to talk about its role at that time. Again, I thank the Minister warmly for that answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 13, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) Before giving or refusing his approval for the purposes of this paragraph the Secretary of State shall consult the trade unions and other bodies representing the employees of the Authority.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 31 and 38. These amendments concern a number of matters, one of which is that they require the Secretary of State to consult the employees and their trade unions before ordering, approving or modifying a transfer scheme or selling the shares in a successor company.
We all agreed that this is a people business and everything that that implies. We want to ensure that the Secretary of State does not simply go through the motions of consultation, but that he carries the employees with him. We are trying to ensure that he carries out best practice. We must remember that when the employees were signed up, they were employed as public servants. The Minister's department supports and encourages Investors in People. It held a seminar in London recently on that very topic. The main speaker listed a string of policies endorsed by Investors in People for improving a business by concentrating on employee development and welfare. We have all agreed that AEA Technology's competitive advantage will only be through its people. We want to make sure that those practices are carried out. It is an old saying in business that if one is not a good employer, one is training staff for one's competitors.
If the company is floated, we want to ensure that proper opportunities exist for employees to benefit—not just executive share options as in the privatised utilities. Bonuses should perhaps be paid in shares to encourage long-term management and company loyalty. We want to ensure that the result of this privatisation will not be 40 years of training and experience in AEA Technology simply being transferred to overseas competitors because of poor morale and poor management.
The amendment seeks to ensure that there is a sense of nurturing and developing a sense of direction. That is in accordance with best practice preached by the Minister's own department. The weakness in the Bill is that everything seems to require the approval of the Treasury, not the agreement of the staff and the employees. That indicates to us that the Government are purely interested in the short-term financial aspects of this privatisation. We, on the other hand, are interested in the long-term continued success of the business and so it is just as important to carry the staff and the employees. That is the difference between us.
Some of these amendments refer to the TUPE regulations. They will be dealt with by my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I believe that the Government may argue in connection with these amendments—I believe that they did in the other place—that the TUPE regulations cover consultation and cover it at the appropriate level. The Government made that point in Committee in the other place. However, it is not all that clear how TUPE will operate and in the meantime the staff could be left in limbo. As this is a publicly-owned enterprise, the Government have the main responsibility for ensuring that consultation takes place at the appropriate time and cannot simply leave things, as I think they may argue, as a matter for the current management of the authority. The main responsibility is that of government.
I should have thought that the Government would want to retain the support of this highly trained and extremely valuable staff. As my noble friend has just indicated, we are talking about a very sophisticated workforce. They are unlikely to do so if the people are left in doubt and are not taken along with the arrangements that will be made on their behalf about their futures. It was to relieve employees of that kind of anxiety that the acquired rights directive was first promulgated. That is referred to in Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 but it is part of this whole group of amendments which concern consultation. I hope that the Government will agree this time round that what is being suggested here is important and that they will accept what is being said. While they may argue that they do not have to put it into the Bill because the TUPE regulations are there anyway, in order to ensure that people know that they will be properly covered and appreciate that they are being cared about, I think that it has to be put on the face of the Bill.
Lord Peston: Before the Minister replies to those comments, we may be—I am sure it is my fault—slightly at cross purposes. I have in this group Amendments Nos. 31 and 38 which relate to Clause 7 and Schedule 2. They are to do with the disposal of securities. I had intended to raise the question of the so-called golden share, or government share, under that heading. Would the noble and learned Lord rather deal with the points that have just been raised and then I can speak later? Which would he prefer?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Given the width of the querying from the Opposition Front Bench, perhaps I may leave the golden share issue until later.
In spite of the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, that we were concerned only with short-term financial aspects of the privatisation, I would wish to reassure him that I entirely agree with him that AEA Technology is a people business. I have used the term already. I have no doubt that one of management's key tasks now, as well as after privatisation, must be to ensure that staff are properly incentivised. The performance and profitability of the business depend on that. As regards employee participation, we believe that it is in the long-term interests of any privatised company that a significant measure of employee share ownership is provided for. The noble Lord may wish to return to this at a later point in the Bill, but perhaps I may say to

57
him that we shall look carefully at any proposals for employee participation put forward by the management of AEA Technology or its successors.
The Government would expect any scheme that is put forward to be broadly-based and recognise that AEA Technology ultimately depends on the efforts of all its staff. We are committed to involving employees as much as possible in the privatisation process. Where we part company is in our assessment of what is the impact of these amendments. It would appear that the trade unions and staff associations would have an automatic right of consultation before the Secretary of State was able to exercise any of his powers in relation to transfer schemes or before either the Secretary of State or the authority could dispose of any of their securities in a successor company. While they are not overtly asking for a union veto over the purchaser of AEA Technology, it appears to us to be tantamount to that. I do not think that would be right. The final decision on the sale has to be made by the Government in the light of market circumstances at the time and in the best interests of both AEA Technology as a business and of the taxpayer.
Turning to the TUPE amendments—I anticipate that we shall be returning to them before the evening is over—I would remind the Committee that the authority will in any event be under a duty to consult staff on the transfer of terms and conditions under the TUPE provisions. In addition, paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 to the Bill specifically places a duty on the Secretary of State, before giving any direction, to give sufficient notice to the authority to enable it to comply with its obligations under TUPE. I hope that that has been helpful in bringing together what we wish to achieve and giving a specific impact—
Baroness Turner of Camden: Does that mean that the Secretary of State will do the consulting? It seems to us that the Secretary of State is taking the decisions rather than the authority. He has an obligation to consult rather than simply leaving it to the authority. I have raised this point because I believe it was raised in Committee in the other place. The view expressed there was that this is a publicly-owned undertaking which is being privatised and it is up to the Secretary of State to undertake, and take responsibility for, consultations under TUPE.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: As I understand the arrangement that we are allowing for here, the Secretary of State, before giving any direction to make a scheme, should ensure that there is sufficient notice so that the authority can carry out proper consultation. I could see a legitimate complaint if the Secretary of State made a direction in such circumstances that, however willing the authority was to carry out that consultation, it was effectively precluded by the shortness of time. That is the purpose behind allowing for this specific provision within Schedule 1.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may comment on the Minister's choice of words. The amendments were not tabled, and one or two subsequent amendments on consultation were not tabled, to give the unions a right of veto. The unions do not own these enterprises; the taxpayer does. But there is a difference between saying
58
that the employees, particularly where the employees are the essence, ought to have some chance to be consulted and to make representations, even though in the end the Minister is free to say, "I am still going to sell this business, and I am going to sell it in my way rather than in the way you would like", and a veto power.
Certainly, I do not think that I or my noble friends are asking for a veto power. If I were a senior scientist who had devoted my life to AEA Technology and had been a public servant I would accept that in the end Parliament decides these matters, but I would not regard it as unreasonable on my part to say, "But don't you think you ought at least to talk to me and my representatives on matters of this kind?" That is what we are saying. I do not expect the noble and learned Lord to agree with that, but our point was certainly not to ask for a veto.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I accept that from the noble Lord. I am at pains to stress that as regards the taking forward of AEA Technology, I would be very concerned if that were to happen with any feeling, sense or perception that there was to be unthinking hostility between management and staff. On the contrary, we would very much welcome participation in taking the company forward.
Lord Haskel: I was delighted to hear the Minister say that it is the managers' task to "incentivise"—
Lord Peston: That is not an acceptable word. It should be, "give incentives to".
Lord Haskel: "Incentivise" must be in the Department of Trade and Industry dictionary of words in order to confuse the public. I was also delighted to hear the Minister say that it is part of the management's duty to look at proposals for employee participation. Perhaps I may point out that the Government, through the Secretary of State, are the owners of the business. It is their duty to give a lead. Having put this matter on the record, I hope that the Secretary of State will now give a lead to the management and try to encourage it. Certainly, there is no intention that the staff association or the trade union should have a veto. But they should have a right of consultation, again, largely because the plans are very unclear and they need to know what their future is. Having made that point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 15, line 25, at end insert:
("Redundancy
If any employee is transferred to a new employer by a transfer scheme and is declared redundant,

(a) the Authority's redundancy rules and benefits applicable to that employee at the date of the transfer shall apply unless the trade unions or other bodies representing the employees transferred by the transfer scheme have agreed to their modification for such employees, and

(b) the redundancy rules shall be applied as if the Authority were the employer and all employees transferred from the Authority's employment by transfer schemes were employees of the Authority.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment carries on from earlier amendments when we spoke about the TUPE regulations. This amendment seeks to make clear that any employee who is transferred to a new employer by a transfer scheme, takes with him his redundancy rights. That is very important because a possible transfer to a smaller unit could mean that redundancy is more likely than it would have been had privatisation not taken place.
I gather that the present redundancy scheme is a good one. It provides good compensation for long years of service. It is essentially a voluntary scheme based on the first option being an attempt at redeployment. As I say, it is essentially voluntary and under its provisions I understand that the authority has been able to reduce its workforce from 14,000 to 7,000 with hardly any compulsory redundancies. In the main, it has been reduced through voluntary means.
It is hoped to achieve a profit target within a year of £20 million as a result of privatisation. That means between 300 and 400 people will probably have to go, many of them scientists and engineers. However, I understand that a great many of them will be administrative staff. I am informed that scientists and engineers will also be included in that number.
That seems entirely inappropriate. Surely, they are capable of being redeployed because there may be a waste of highly skilled labour involved. If such people are to be made redundant as a result of decisions made by Parliament, which decided to privatise, at least let the employees keep the favourable terms they had. That is the very least that can be done. If it is claimed that a smaller enterprise cannot afford it, then let the Government stand as a guarantor. We owe something to employees who over the years have committed themselves to a highly skilled and successful enterprise. If they are to be made redundant, they should have that kind of guarantee, which should be written on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Perhaps I may answer briefly. Employees will have all the protections in respect of redundancy provided by the TUPE regulations. I know that that will be appreciated by the noble Baroness, but I repeat it for the record. Modifications to contractual redundancy rights will require the consent of the employees. Where the agreement of the trade union is required at present, the requirement for that agreement will be preserved. If the noble Baroness is seeking yet further confirmation that the TUPE regulations will apply, I am happy to give that to her.
The large majority of the 300 to 400 redundancies announced by AEA Technology last February involves administrative staff. Management is simultaneously recruiting technical staff. All the redundancies are taking place on UKAEA terms. While I understand what it seeks to achieve, I hope that it will be understood that this amendment does not add anything to the protection which is already available under the TUPE regulations. On that basis I hope that it can be withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for his assurances to the effect that the amendment does not add anything to the protection which he confirms already exists under the TUPE regulations. We shall look carefully at those assurances when we read Hansard tomorrow. I was simply anxious to ensure that something was written on the face of the Bill because of the concern that has been expressed to us by the employees represented by the unions who have been in touch with us.
We note the assurances that, in the main, it is administrative staff who are being made redundant. I have already been told that, although I have also been told, as I said earlier, that scientists and engineers are included in that number. I also note that simultaneous recruiting among staff of that calibre is taking place. I agree at this time that there is no point in pressing the amendment. We shall look again to see whether there is a need to do anything further at Report stage. I am glad to have the assurances from the Minister on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Powers of Secretary of State]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) No direction under subsection (1) above shall be given unless a draft of such a direction has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by members of each House.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, it may be convenient to speak to Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 30, 34 and 37, in various names. This group of amendments deals with parliamentary accountability—or, to put it more accurately, the lack of it—as far as this Bill is concerned. It really is not good enough that this Bill should be allowed to leave the House in its present form. That would be an insult to Parliament.
The Government are seeking to assert here a "trust us" policy. Nobody will trust them. The fact of the matter is that it would be quite wrong for Parliament to have no role at all in dealing with these issues. The Government would be able to say "We have a general enabling Bill". The Government can do whatever they like as regards any schemes without giving Parliament any meaningful role whatever. It will be interesting to learn from the Minister what role he believes Parliament can possibly assert in dealing with these schemes. Are we just to rubber stamp them now? If that is what the Government believe, then they will be strongly challenged on that issue.
What it comes to is as serious as this. As a result of the Bill, the Government will be in a position to sell off the entire atomic energy generating capacity, subject only to Magnox reactors, without reference to Parliament. That is a grotesque abuse of the powers of the Executive. It is a pity that we have such a thin House today because that is a serious constitutional point.
It is not only the Opposition who have taken up the point. It was raised by a very respected Back-Bench Member of another place, Mr. Robert Jackson, who is a Conservative and the Member for Wantage. Perhaps I should say by way of a preliminary—this is my second

61
preliminary point—that Mr. Jackson was excluded from serving on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. It was known that he was a critic of the Bill. The same happened to another critic of the Bill whose name eludes me at present. The two of them, but particularly Mr. Jackson, made strong representations to the Government Whips' Office that they should be permitted to be involved in that Standing Committee because they not only had considerable expertise on which to draw but also a substantial contribution to make which might not have been all that convenient for the Government but would certainly have been convenient for Parliament as a whole. It is not the job of the Government to silence all opposition—although they did so on this occasion.
I refer the Government to a cogent statement that was made by Mr. Jackson in another place. I am afraid that I cannot quote from it, but I shall give your Lordships a résumé. It came to this: Mr. Jackson took the view that the Government behaved as though they regarded the House, the Standing Committees of the House and, indeed, the elected Members of the House as a dignified rather than a working part of the constitution. That is a pretty serious indictment for an honoured Member of Parliament to make about his colleagues. However, Mr. Jackson said some very complimentary things about this House. Again, I can offer only a résumé. He thought that the unelected Peers were more dignified—
Lord Peston: Hear, hear!
Lord Clinton-Davis: That ought to carry the amendment. The Minister is on difficult ground already. Mr. Jackson also thought that this House was more effective than the House of Commons—
Lord Haskel: Hear, hear!
Lord Clinton-Davis:—is permitted to be. To use a Conservative word which is so frequently overused, Mr. Jackson looked forward to a "robust" attitude being adopted by Members of this House. His statement was a serious indictment of the procedures adopted by the Whips' Office in another place.
We are talking about a unitary process and about the preservation of an important national asset. However, we are also talking about Parliament being able to decide how that organisation should be sold, if at all, and to whom. What the Government want is a blank cheque. They want a blank cheque so that they can rearrange, break up and sell parts of UKAEA. That is what they had under the Electricity Act 1989.
I know what the Minister is likely to say—that is, unless there is complete inconsistency between the Minister in this place and his honourable friend in another place. He will say that the Secretary of State can direct the transfer scheme only at the point of sale; that time taken by parliamentary processes could jeopardise the sale or reduce the proceeds; that bidders might be deterred because of the possibility of public scrutiny in a trade sale or that bids might be reduced contrary to the interests of the taxpayer, as though the Government considered the taxpayer in all regards, which is certainly not the case.
62
This is not the sale of a manufacturing operation. We are talking about a research institution which provides commercial services to the Government and to industry. Its form of ownership and the provision and availability of its services must be approved by Parliament. The arguments that have been adduced in another place are simply not good enough. A trade sale should be made only to an organisation of such standing that it is able to accept public scrutiny of the sale. The arguments relied on by Mr. Jackson were powerful, but they did not receive a sufficient reply from the Minister. If, for the reasons that they adduced in another place, the Government feel that they cannot make a clear statement about the form of the privatisation in line with their commitment to keep AEA Technology as a single integrated whole, when on earth will they be required to make a statement? What is the Minister's view of parliamentary accountability? Are we here simply to rubber-stamp the Government's suggestions?
I think that Mr. Jackson's arguments deserve better treatment than the almost contemptuous dismissal that they were given in another place. I hope that the Minister will give Mr. Jackson and this Committee of your Lordships' House the benefit of a proper response. I am told that it was Mr. Ian Bruce, another Conservative Member of Parliament, who was also excluded from that Standing Committee. I am not arguing that both of them should have been included, but it might have been polite to their own side if the Government had included one of them. I beg to move.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I should like to say just a word or two about this group of amendments and to speak in particular to Amendment No. 18 which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Ezra, who is unfortunately prevented from being here today. I am a very unsatisfactory substitute. Since we on these Benches do not deploy quite such an impressive batting order, I am here because there is a broadcasting order down for consideration later. Nevertheless, I turn my hand with good heart to this issue because the more I have studied it, the stronger appear the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has made.
My noble friend Lord Ezra is employed in industry and knows these matters in great detail. He declared on Second Reading that he was a very satisfied customer of the energy technological support unit and described it as a valuable national asset. He argued strongly that we should maintain the unitary character of the AEAT organisation. I add that there should be a public flotation of the operation. The alternative of fragmentation, which is among the many options which the Government want to leave entirely open, seems to have grave disadvantages. The most probable is that purchasers of the organisation would presumably be its competitors. That does not seem to be in the national interest. The Government have a proper interest in competition, but a sale to an existing competitor would simply reduce competition in the marketplace.
I am sure that the Minister recognises that we fear that, if it is not possible for the Government to deal with the organisation as a unit and to handle its sale by means of a public flotation, they will be driven by the Treasury into purely short-term financial considerations and into

63
what would amount to little more than asset-stripping. It is against that background that this group of amendments has been tabled.
On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Ezra said that in his experience—which is very considerable—no other privatisation measure had retained such wide options. It is a rather extraordinary situation that in your Lordships' House, which is very properly concerned about Henry VIII clauses, the disposal of a vital national asset such as this should be subject to a wide variety of possible options, all of which are entirely at the discretion of the Government once the legislation has passed through Parliament. It is against that background that we strongly commend these particular amendments.
It is a false economy to believe that fragmentation of the organisation will produce financial benefits. On balance, I doubt whether that will happen. In debate on previous amendments mention has been made of the co of TUPE. I am told that the severance costs of a relatively small number of staff may amount to several tens of millions of pounds. I was modestly reassured by what the Minister said at an early stage in the discussions about the Government's genuine feeling that the unitary option was a serious one. I hope that that is the final outcome of this matter. However, on the principle of the matter and the rights of Parliament, I believe that the arguments in favour of one or other of these amendments are very strong, and I give my fullest support to them.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asks far too much of me. It is one thing to have to promote the Government's legislation and argue in support of it but quite another for the noble Lord to try to get me to answer on behalf of the Government Whips' Office in another place as to what they may or may not have done in twisting arms or otherwise.
I do not believe that these amendments are helpful, not because I wish to be contemptuous in my dismissal of them but because I am concerned that, against the very interests that he wishes to promote, he may be overstating the situation. Two possible consequences may flow from these amendments. First, they may reduce the proceeds of the eventual sale. The noble Lord may not be particularly concerned about that, but no doubt he will wish to see that a proper price is secured.
Secondly, I would be concerned, as I am sure he would be, that these amendments could work against the best interests of AEA Technology and staff. Whatever form the sale takes, the Government must have the necessary flexibility to manage the sale process and the inevitable uncertainties involved in it. Any restrictions on that flexibility would, in our view, work against the interests of all concerned. For that reason, they are inherently undesirable. For example, if it is assumed that the decision is taken to offer AEA Technology for sale as a single whole, choices will have to be made on whether to vest AEA Technology as an independent company early in the sale process or at the point of sale. A consistent line will be taken between what has been said in another place and what I say. Whichever route is adopted, the requirement to secure parliamentary
64
approval for the direction to make the requisite transfer scheme, and for the scheme itself, will inevitably make for delay which will perhaps be considerable. If vesting were tied to the point of sale, those delays might well undermine the whole sale process.
Equally, Amendments Nos. 30, 33 and 34 would require the Secretary of State or the authority, as appropriate, to secure parliamentary approval for the disposal of any shares in the company. The consequence of that, however, might well be to deter potential purchasers—whether they be financial institutions backing a sale to management and employees or trade purchasers—from bidding on the basis that their bids would be subject to close parliamentary scrutiny, even before detailed negotiations about the terms of sale could begin.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am obliged to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. Is he saying that there is to be no parliamentary scrutiny, other than in the course of this Bill, in relation to any scheme that the Government may devise?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The Bill has to pass further stages. I have no doubt that, as has been the case in another place and in the course of this afternoon and this evening, detailed consideration will be given to what is proposed and careful attempts made to secure a particular line of approach. At the present time I am not prepared to give an indication one way or the other. Let us see how matters stand in the autumn. The noble Lord is correct. I am in the business of explaining why it may be against the best interests of the very people that the noble Lord wishes to see protected if we introduce unnecessarily elaborate arrangements. Even if bidders were not deterred, it might only be possible to explain a preference for one bidder over another by revealing information that the bidder was not prepared to have disclosed for good commercial reasons. Equally, it might not be in the interests of the taxpayer to disclose details of competing bids, because that might cause the lead bidder to reduce the value of his offer or back out of the purchase. These are not academic points; they reflect commercial reality. Delay and consequent uncertainty may easily cause a sale to fall through or reduce sale proceeds.
I appreciate that on the Opposition Front Bench there is a genuine concern to achieve a unitary privatisation. I believe that the Government must have the freedom and flexibility to act in the best interests of the taxpayer and to deal with the business on the basis which best enables it to maximise its contribution to the national economy. That is also the course best calculated to serve the interests of the business and its staff. It is in nobody's interests, least of all theirs, that the business should be sold in one form and then restructured, or broken up more or less immediately, because it is not commercially viable in that form. That is why the Bill is structured as it is, and why the Government wish to keep open their options.
We recognise that the Government are accountable to Parliament and the taxpayer for decisions that they will have to take in the near future on the form and method of sale. But, consistent with that accountability, the

65
Government must retain flexibility to act in the light of information that will become available over the course of the next few months and market circumstances at the time of sale.
I do not suppose that that answer will immediately satisfy the noble Lord.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister is right!
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord appreciates that there are good reasons for this, not least the interests of those who work for AEA Technology, to which regard must be had before any precipitate change is made.
Lord Haskel: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him why the arguments that he has given this evening apply to this privatisation but have not applied to other privatisations. In other privatisations a considerable amount of restructuring took place before the businesses were sold. For instance, the electricity industry was restructured into supply companies. The Water Act 1989 created a number of water and sewerage companies to succeed the regional water boards. As a result, Parliament knew what was to happen. However, in the case of AEA Technology we know nothing. AEA Technology as a company does not even exist yet.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Given the scale and nature of what is to be privatised, I believe that these are very different animals. I have indicated to the noble Lord that when we return to this Bill for further consideration at a later stage we hope to be in a position to indicate rather more clearly the intention of the President of the Board of Trade. I would hope then that if noble Lords were concerned that insufficient explanation had been given to Parliament as to what was proposed, that concern would be allayed. It may well be that the way in which we wish to privatise this undertaking will be in the very form that the noble Lord has been urging upon us this afternoon.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Those words are not exactly Delphic. We thank the Minister for his response. He has not given an undertaking, and we understand that. We have a new and rather more caring, at least in the terms of Parliament, President of the Board of Trade. What do they do about industry? The Government are always dropping industry. That is typical, is it not? It seems that the new President of the Board of Trade will consider the representations that have been made. That is good news.
The Minister said that I was asking too much when I asked him to condemn his own Whips' Office in another place. I suppose that I was, but I did not think that he would respond to that. I wanted to make the point, because I think it was worth putting on the record.
There is no point in prolonging this discussion. My noble friend Lord Haskel made a powerful point. There seems to be an exceptional situation which did not apply in relation to other privatisations. All the arguments adduced in this and another place could perhaps have been anticipated by the Minister. They have at least caused a little ripple in the Department of Trade and Industry. In those circumstances, we look forward to the spill-over in the autumn and to the Minister coming
66
forward with amendments along the lines we have contemplated here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Perhaps I may say one word in relation to Amendment No. 18. In the light of the hopeful, if not promising, tone in which the Minister has responded, I am sure that in October my noble friend Lord Ezra will be here to give his considered reaction to whatever the Minister says.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that what I said was not in any way misinterpreted. I was not offering to bring forward amendments. What I was indicating, as I have done on previous occasions, is that what has been urged upon me is that the appropriate mode of disposal is in a unitary form. I said that we should look at that matter in the autumn, because if that were to be the preferred model many of the concerns expressed from the Opposition Front Bench would fall away.
Lord Peston: I had interpreted what the Minister said as being that in the autumn he would try to give us some more information. Is not that right?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Yes.
[Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 44, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 22 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 23 and 24. The amendments raise a matter of some seriousness. The essential amendment is Amendment No. 22. It is an attempt to discover why Clause 2(8) is there. My honourable friend the Member for Kirkcaldy in another place referred to this point. He referred to the Atomic Energy Authority Bill as one in which the Secretary of State may do whatever he likes to facilitate this. That echoes the point made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis on the previous group of amendments. This is an enabling Bill which allows the Secretary of State to do whatever he likes.
I speak as someone who is always studying drafting and trying to understand the law. This is one of those bizarre clauses. First, it tells us that the Secretary of State may exercise his powers. I do not understand the nature of the legislation if one has to say in the middle of it, having given the Secretary of State his powers, that he is allowed to exercise them. That strikes me as being most strange. Then, in lines 12, 13 and 14 we get the bit that really puzzled me. It is:
"whether or not the exercise of those powers, the giving of that direction or the doing of that thing is consistent with promoting or controlling the development of atomic energy".
I was completely mystified by that, because the Bill is called the Atomic Energy Authority Bill. It appears that the Secretary of State can exercise his powers whether or not they have anything to do with atomic energy. As far as I can see, under this provision he could decide to reform the football Premier League, or anything else he dreams of. One sits here saying, "What is this all about?"
Then one has the Notes on Clauses, a document which becomes increasingly useless. I say "increasingly useless" because nowadays Notes on Clauses do not seem to be notes on clauses but just the clauses themselves repeated. If one looks at page 4 of the Notes on Clauses it says that subsection (8) makes it clear that the Secretary of State may exercise his powers under that clause. It goes on and on and on. Then it explains that that is so whether or not it is consistent with promoting or controlling the development of atomic energy; that is, his general duty under Section 1 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1946.
The upshot of all that is that the Notes on Clauses throw no light on the subsection. The Bill is mystifying as to why the provision is needed. Even if one does not have a suspicious disposition, one asks oneself why it is there. The next thing one can do is to turn to the Minister's statement in another place. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary—I do not know whether he is still the Parliamentary Under-Secretary—in the middle of a reply, most of which had nothing to do with the amendment—I believe I am allowed to quote the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, am I not?—said that it is intended to avoid any argument that the transfer to the private sector of any activities carried on by the authority might be inconsistent with the duty placed on the Secretary of State under Section 1 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1946 to promote and control the development of atomic energy.
One presses the point because it all seems very strange in terms of the drafting of legislation. Either the legislation is drafted correctly, in which case no problem can possibly arise, or somehow it has got itself drafted incorrectly so that this blanket provision has to be added: "Well, if we have made a mess of it, then we add the following excuse that it does not count". It is like what we used to do as children when we played games. If we did not like the outcome, we just invented a new rule.
I seek two things. First, I should like an explanation of what this is all about, and if I have a point—I have a strong feeling as a layman that I do—it has nothing to do with undermining the Bill or anything like that; it is to do with good legislation. If I do have a point, I should like the Minister to go away and think about it and come back with at least a better answer than the one his honourable friend gave in another place.
I agree with the point made earlier by my noble friend when he quoted Tory MPs in another place. We do things much better here, as we all agree. We also have the great benefit that when your Lordships sit as a Committee we debate the things we want and we do not have any arguments as to who is on the Committee and what amendments we debate. We do things in a sensible way. This is an example of where we have a responsibility to try to clarify what the Government mean. It reads as if the Government are somehow worried about the Bill, so they think that they had better throw in the extra clause just to be on the safe side. I ask myself whether it would not be rather better if the Bill were drafted properly in the first place. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I appreciate that in advancing his amendment the noble Lord is not trying in any sense to wreck the Bill. Similarly, perhaps I may reassure him that there is nothing suspicious about the provision. Clause 2(8) is designed to put beyond doubt the ability of the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under the Bill. It is intended to avoid any possible argument that the transfer to the private sector of any activities carried on by the authority might be inconsistent with the duty placed on the Secretary of State under Section 1 of the Atomic Energy Act 1946 to promote and control the development of atomic energy. The provision makes it clear that the Secretary of State is entitled to exercise his powers under the Bill, irrespective of any constraint arising from that duty.
Once upon a time I had responsibility for the drafting of legislation. Therefore, I can understand the argument that the provision is unnecessary. However, I think that I had better leave that to those who have responsibility for drafting now. As I said, I can understand the noble Lord arguing that it is unnecessary, but we have to be careful even though our caution may seem to the noble Lord to be excessive. Nevertheless, I assure him that there is nothing sinister about the provision. Indeed, it is appropriate to have such a provision in the Bill.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister for that response. However, I am not entirely happy with the situation. The Minister has admitted in his response that the expression used by his honourable friend in another place is the correct one; namely that it,
"might be inconsistent with the duty placed on the Secretary of State under Section 1 of the Atomic Energy Act 1946".
The Minister did not say that it is not inconsistent; he said, "Well, in case it is or it might be, we had better throw the clause in". My worry is: how might it be? Someone must have been advising the Minister and saying, "Minister, we are doing this Bill and on these grounds it might be inconsistent with your responsibilities under the 1946 Act. Therefore, you had better throw in this blanket clause to protect yourself. That does not seem to me to be the correct way to do it. My point is that, if there is such a danger, then the Bill should have been drafted so that it was not inconsistent with the Minister's responsibility.
I do not know enough to know whether or not it is inconsistent. However, I do know that such blanket clauses ought not. to be in legislation. Someone ought to do the work and either say, "Yes it is inconsistent, so we will write the Bill so it is not"; or, they ought to be able to say to the Minister, "It is not inconsistent, so don't put that clause in because it is silly".
All I am asking the Minister to do is, in the interests of good drafting, to convince us that his department has thought through the matter properly—with, of course, no commitment because this is not that kind of Bill— and to say that he will ask the experts who advise him on the matter to tell him a little more about it so that, if we return to it, he can then tell me more about it. I am rather uneasy when it is said that it might be inconsistent and, therefore, the clause must be put in. The point is that it ought not to be inconsistent if we have done the job properly.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I shall certainly look again at the matter to see whether the drafting can be polished. It may be that the accusation can be made that we are unduly cautious in the matter, although, as the noble Lord pointed out, the matter was considered in another place. No doubt the draftsman has already reflected on the provision. It is possible that we shall find it difficult to improve upon it. There is nothing of substance here which needs to be addressed, but we just want to make absolutely sure that a continuing duty imposed on the Secretary of State in terms of Section 1 of the 1946 Act should continue. However, there is no risk that the powers given to the Secretary of State or the President of the Board of Trade under the Bill would give rise to a conflict between the two sets of provisions.
Lord Peston: I thank the Minister. I do not wish to prolong the discussion because I think that we have reached a stage where we could continue all night as regards what the precise words are and what they mean. It is possible that the noble and learned Lord would not wish to weary Members of the Committee with the matter and that he may wish to write to me in that respect. Indeed, I shall be happy if that is the case. I shall not pursue the matter at present, but it is one that I should like clarified. We can do it one way or the other: either by returning to this kind of amendment or to one in some other form. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not give any direction to the Authority under subsection (2) of section 3 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 to acquire an undertaking unless a draft of such a direction has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.").
The noble Lord said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 27. The purpose of the amendment is to draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the Bill as worded is unnecessarily all embracing. At present, the Bill can be used to privatise any part of the Civil Service or other publicly-owned undertakings. All the Minister has to do is to transfer the undertakings into the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and order a transfer scheme under the Bill. Indeed, that has already happened to Warren Spring Laboratories, which were transferred into the UKAEA in 1994 and which are now expected to be privatised under the Bill.
At one point there was discussion in the nuclear review and it was suggested that Berkeley Nuclear Laboratories should be transferred to AEA Technology and then privatised. Another possible candidate could be the Office of Fair Trading or any other government organisation. I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Minister. The purpose of my amendments is to draw his attention to that fact. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am not sure that I entirely understand what is sought by Amendment No. 25. However, my understanding is that it seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from using his powers
70
under Section 3 of the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 to direct the authority to acquire an undertaking in which to vest AEA Technology without parliamentary approval. Amendment No. 27 appears to prevent the authority from acquiring such a company, for what I assume to be that purpose, without parliamentary scrutiny.
If I have understood the position correctly, the approach would appear to be flawed. It would be open to the authority to dispose of AEA Technology without first acquiring a company in which to vest its assets. It could, if it wished, use one of its existing subsidiaries.
What the amendments would do is make any acquisitions by the residual UKAEA subject to parliamentary approval. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord intended.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers made it clear on Second Reading that Government Division, which will remain in the public sector as the residual UKAEA, is a management and procurement organisation charged with managing the safe and cost-effective decommissioning of the authority's nuclear liabilities. It has no plans to make acquisitions. It is not a commercial business.
Government Division has suggested that in the longer term it might be given the responsibility of managing other civil nuclear liabilities in the public sector. That is a worthy enough aspiration, but the Government made it clear in the Nuclear Review White Paper that they have no plan to move in that direction. It is a possible option for the future but Government Division has to prove itself first.
I may yet not understand the position, but I hope that I have explained what we certainly understand to be the import of the noble Lord's amendments.
Lord Haskel: I thank the Minister for that clarification. The amendment was purely designed to draw the noble and learned Lord's attention to the fact that the Bill is all embracing. However, having placed my concerns on record, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Chesham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences)(Amendment) Order 1995
7.1 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on 23rd May the Government announced the conclusions of their review of the media ownership regulations. As part of the extensive package of legislative measures proposed, the Government undertook to enact immediate secondary legislation to amend the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Orders with the aim of liberalising the ownership arrangements for radio. These measures were developed after widespread consultation and have the support of the majority of the radio industry, including the Association of Independent Radio Companies and the Radio Authority.
I would like to assure the House categorically that the Government remain committed to the continuing development of the sector and to the principles of diversity, choice and quality set out in the Broadcasting Act. However, it is also important to allow the sector to take advantage of the new opportunities that will arise as the result of recent technological change across the media as a whole. In this context the Government propose to enact two changes to the existing rules.
The first is to increase the upper limit on the number of local radio licences which may be held by any one person from 20 to £35. This adjustment to the numerical limit takes account of the significant growth that has taken place within the radio sector and effectively restores the previous balance of licences that can be held as a proportion of the whole. This measure forms the first stage of the Government's proposed changes to the radio ownership rules and represents a way of responding quickly to the immediate needs of the industry in advance of possible primary legislation. In the primary legislation proposed on media ownership we intend to remove the limit on the absolute number of local radio licences altogether and to rely instead on the points system established by the Radio Authority.
Our second proposed change is to remove the restrictions on the joint holdings of category A and category B radio licences. A category A licence is defined as one in which the number of persons over the age of 15 resident in the area for which the service is provided exceeds 4.5 million. A category B licence is defined as one in which the number of persons over the age of 15 resident in the area for which the service is provided exceeds 1 million but does not exceed 4.5 million. At present a person may hold a total of no more than six category A and B licences, of which no more than two may be category A licences. The effect of our proposal is to remove the restrictions on the holding of category B licences while retaining the two licence limit for category A licences. This change, as I shall explain in a moment, leaves the so-called points system unaffected.
At the same time we propose to remove the rule preventing national radio companies from holding more than a maximum of four category A and B licences. They will remain subject, like anyone else, to the two licence limit for category A licences but will be free to own any number of B licences subject to the overall 15 per cent. threshold established by the Radio Authority's existing points system. These changes do not affect the Radio Authority's points system. Companies will therefore continue to be required to ensure that their radio holdings do not exceed 15 per cent. of the total number of points in the Radio Authority system. Points in this system will continue to be allocated to each licence on the basis of the size of population served by the licence concerned.
The amendment to this statutory instrument represents a necessary response to the needs of the media industry during a period of great change. This proposal has received the overwhelming support of the industry itself and it will ensure that listeners will continue to benefit from the high standards they have come to expect from the broadcasting industry. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord finishes his speech, would he like to explain to us what exactly happened in the House of Commons when these orders were rejected by the appropriate House of Commons committee?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my understanding is that the matter was debated in Committee and the measures were lost in Committee. However, the matter will be considered in the normal way by the House as a whole. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 23rd May be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, first I would like to pursue the point which I think may be—
7.6 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, there is a speakers' list which I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen.
First, I congratulate my noble friend on his new position. It is one in which I spent an immensely enjoyable and interesting time in the Department of National Heritage and I wish him luck and great success in that position. He did not mention the independent productions order. Are we debating that at the same time or separately?
Noble Lords: Separately.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should then turn to the broadcasting restrictions order on radios. The primary aim of the amendment order is to liberalise the ownership arrangements for radio. The radio sector has expanded rapidly during the past few years and it is vital that the regulatory regime should recognise that and, where necessary, adapt to those changes. It is expanding faster than any other media businesses, including television, and for two years running has been the fastest growing advertising medium.

73
There has been a huge surge in the number of licences over the past few years. The number of licensed independent local radio stations has grown by 30 per cent. in the previous three years from 135 in 1992 to 175 in 1995. The proposed change in the licence limit is therefore proportionally less than the increase in the total number of licences. As a result, many of the existing ownership rules are redundant. These changes represent a way to respond quickly to the immediate needs of the industry.
The current rules prevent UK companies which have a relatively large number of licences from expanding. One of the deficiencies of the present system as it is at the moment with the outdated 20 licence limit is that it prevents companies from expanding to reach anywhere near the 15 per cent. points limit without exceeding the 20 licence threshold. This position has of course favoured the expansion of overseas companies with little or no UK presence rather than established UK media companies.
More importantly, a licence with a small share of the market is treated in the same way as a licence with a large market coverage. For example, the Isle of Wight with a total survey area of just over 100,000 adults and Capital Radio with a total survey area of over 9 million adults are each counted as one licence. The current rules clearly favour city licence operations over those acting in the more rural parts of the country. Rural licences have smaller audiences and tend to be more financially marginal.
These changes have been welcomed by the industry, including the association of independent radio contractors. They are necessary because we must not treat this important industry as a cottage industry. For these companies to be major players they have to achieve a certain size. There was an interesting debate in the Standing Committee in another place. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, after the leader of his party has been on an excursion to Australia, will give us the entire new Labour broadcasting policy and will explain to us what this now means after this "love-in" with Mr. Murdoch. I look forward to hearing that.
There were objections to this order in another place. One can deal with them quite simply. Why should we allow these mergers? They allow a more effective use of capital and consequently more production. That increases the overall level of investment in the industry. More value is created by putting two companies in the same industry sector together than by combining two in related sectors; for example, a newspaper and a radio station as opposed to two radio stations. There are good reasons not to delay. Shareholders are not being disadvantaged, but they would be if the order were delayed, as was suggested in another place.
I also welcome the brief glint of light introduced by the Minister in another place when he opened the door on the possibility of cash auction bids for independent national radio licences when he said that he would look at the issue again. That is to be welcomed.
74
The order is an improvement for the industry. I wholeheartedly endorse it and welcome it. So does the industry. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, will also do so.
7.10 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, as a new Minister, whom we have all congratulated, is having an interesting day. He did not have the happiest of times earlier when, from both sides of the House, he had to defend the Government, who, two-and-a-half years after the Calcutt Report, managed to come to us with a very tepid Statement of their intentions. Now we have the interesting situation of the new Minister for the Department of National Heritage describing the orders to us, followed immediately by his immediate predecessor defending one of the orders strongly. I am sorry to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for whom I always had the highest regard when he sat in the Minister's place, that I am going to disappoint him and will not support him. One of the orders raises some serious issues which the House ought to consider very carefully before reaching a conclusion.
Whereas the Government took two-and-a-half years to come to their decision on the Calcutt Report, it was on 23rd May that the then Secretary of State for the Department of National Heritage put forward his White Paper on cross-media ownership, among which were the proposals we have before us now. Within three days, one of the local radio companies had made a hostile bid for another local radio company. Here we are in the dying days of this particular part of the Session being asked to take this order through both Houses, and in circumstances in which the Government have announced major primary legislation in this field for the Queen's Speech and the next Session.
That situation caused such disagreement in the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in the other place, where nobody but the Minister spoke up for this particular order, that at the end of the day it was rejected by the committee in the other place which deals with these matters.
I am not sufficiently experienced in the procedures of your Lordships' House to know whether it is unusual for us to be asked to pass an order after it has been rejected by the appropriate committee of the other place, but it seems an odd procedure. I know that the general convention in your Lordships' House with statutory instruments is that, if they have been accepted by the elected Chamber, they should not be disputed, although they may be debated, here in your Lordships' House. This is an important constitutional issue. We are being asked to pass an order at the tail end of the summer when the other place has voted against it.
Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on this matter, but I understand that the Government hope that, having obtained the acquiescence of your Lordships' House in the dinner interval when we are not at our most numerous, the matter can then be raised on the last day of the Session in the other place and, on the basis of the House of Lords having agreed to it, the other place will

75
be asked to turn a somersault and go against the majority view of its own Standing Committee. It is not a procedure that I am prepared to commend to your Lordships. We require a very serious reply and a more serious indication than we have had so far from the Minister.
Behind that issue lies the other issue of policy that I have mentioned. I agree that in the White Paper it was forecast that this secondary legislation would come forward immediately. However, I remain puzzled as to why in this particular field it is necessary to rush matters in this way. I have no objection to the other order relating to independent producers and am all in favour of the Government showing proper expedition in their legislation. However, the holdings order deals with the pattern of ownership of commercial local radio and does so against the background of an important Statement by the Government that they intend to introduce major primary legislation in the Queen's Speech in November which will greatly liberalise this whole matter. That is bound to affect the pattern of ownership of independent local radio.
Certainly those who are engaged in the present takeover battle between GWR and Chiltern Radio recognise that the rushing of this particular order has major implications for both sides. It is not for this House or for me to take sides in that takeover battle, and I do not seek to do so. In these situations my emotional sympathy tends to lie with the small shareholder. I know from my past connection with the commercial radio industry as one of its regulators that it is often the small shareholders who help to found these companies in the first place. Therefore, on the whole my sympathies are with them as against the great battalions.
It is, however, on the policy that I want to press the Minister. Is it sensible that at this stage, in July, on a matter of such importance that the Government should be rushing the order through in the last 72 hours before the Summer Recess? It is a very strange business indeed that the Government, having been unable to carry their own business in Standing Committee 3 in the other place last Wednesday, have thought fit to bring the order to your Lordships this evening. I suggest to the Minister that at the least that is pretty high-handed action. We are entitled to a thorough explanation before we decide what course of action we pursue.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, first I should like to welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to the Back Benches, where I notice he looks much happier than he ever did on the Front Bench. He certainly must be pleased not to have had to defend this afternoon's Statement on privacy. In relation to the question of politicians dealing with newspaper proprietors, which the noble Viscount mentioned, that is not a question of policy. It is a matter of the personal taste of individual politicians; some presumably have more catholic tastes than others.
As regards the broadcasting order, I want to speak mainly on timing and to support everything that my noble friend Lord Thomson said. I should like to start
76
with what is almost a constitutional point. It certainly concerns the conventions of our conduct of business in this House. I accept that the way we do things is our own and differs from the other place. However, I should like to ask why on earth the order had to be rushed into the House of Lords when it was defeated in another place last week. The Government asked the view of the relevant committee of another place and are now apparently ignoring it. What is worse, they may be trying to use the approval of the House of Lords to assist in pushing the other place tomorrow to reverse its decision. In that sense the Government are almost abusing our convention that the Opposition Front Bench does not vote against orders. That is partly based on the fact that we accept the will of the elected House. However, the Commons' will was to reject it. I do not believe that that is the best of behaviour.
Regarding the draft order relating to the holding of licences, I must ask another question on timing; the matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. Having delayed the issue so long, why not wait a few more months until it is covered by the promised primary legislation? Why are we debating secondary legislation ahead of the primary legislation on television and newspapers? By so doing, it gives the big radio companies an advantage over television and newspaper companies in potential mergers in this field. It also produces an unwelcome concentration.
For instance, should GWR obtain Chiltern Radio, then GWR and Capital will shortly own all the main-line independent local radio stations in Southern England. Those two companies already have a 20 per cent. cross-holding. Therefore the Government are in the process of creating an artificial market tilted in favour of a few big radio companies. That will mean less return for those companies in any merger situations; and if the big television and newspaper companies were able to bid, they would be able to bid more and in cash rather than offering volatile shares.
The legislation gives small radio stations no chance to seek and accept a white knight—an acceptable controller—as opposed to one of those in the radio field. Therefore I believe that the small shareholders are disadvantaged. Surely there are serious reasons not to proceed, and good reasons to delay until the primary legislation comes before us. We could then have a complete level playing field.
Perhaps I may say a little on the points of substance. We on this side of the Chamber deplore the fact that sufficient weighting is not given to quality regarding radio stations. For instance, when Classic FM's licence expires, it could be bought by a higher bidder which has no intention to supply the special quality which Classic FM provides. We believe that the radio authority should be given the extra powers to negotiate higher quality, as does the ITC for television.
We are also worried about lack of protection for community radio stations which in this bout of prospective expansion may be taken over and eliminated effectively as community radio stations. Could we not have special licences for community radio stations, accepting that they do not compete on the same scale as the large commercial companies?

77
However, the main issues are these. It is surely wrong to push this measure through in this Chamber tonight after rejection by the Commons. I simply cannot understand why it has to be dealt with now. Why cannot we wait until the primary legislation comes through, which gives a level playing field regarding television, newspapers and radios? The Government may have a secret agenda for rushing the measure through. We should like to know that. However, if there is no such agenda, why do not the Government withdraw one of the two orders and then bring back the measure when the Commons have decided?
7.24 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I was extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for his kind remarks. It seems as though I am an enormous disappointment to the remainder of your Lordships today. Every time I have opened my mouth, I have been told that I have been a huge disappointment. However, in responding to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, it is important to be clear about this. I have made inquiries to check the position. There is nothing in any way untoward about dealing with this particular order in the manner that we propose tonight. After all, the matter was rejected in Committee in another place, not by the whole House in another place. The matter will go forward to another place for consideration by the whole House which is what I understand happens in any event, whatever decision the Committee may reach.
When all is said and done, these are matters to be determined by each House against the background of its procedures and conventions. Of one thing we can be reasonably sure; it is improbable that another place will take a view on the matter, acquiescing with the decision of your Lordships' House. It is rather contrary to the normal practice in that regard. There is nothing in any way constitutionally improper.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on that point. It is a matter of some significance. The noble Lord indicates that when this matter is debated, his honourable friend in another place will not call in aid any decision of your Lordships' House on this order. Is that right?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I cannot speak for any Member of another place. No doubt those who are interested will be able to hear what I have said in this Chamber. Having said that, there is nothing in any way improper about dealing with the matter in the way that we propose this evening.
Perhaps I may now turn to other points of substance about which we have had a certain amount of debate. It is important to be clear about one point at the outset. As the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, commented, in the Government's media ownership proposals it is indeed proposed to bring forward certain primary legislation in the future. However, what we debate this afternoon is secondary legislation which derives its potency from
78
existing legislation. We are not talking about secondary legislation in some way derived from future legislation. We are talking about secondary legislation derived from primary legislation already on the statute hook. There is nothing remotely unusual about doing that.
Criticism was levelled against the Government, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, that we were too fast. Only a few hours ago the Government were accused of being too slow in response to matters.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Moderation in all things!
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that is a characteristic of this excellent Government, as the noble Lord knows only too well. However, in the Government's media ownership proposals, we have a number of policy statements. On page 2 in the summary of the document, the Government propose to enact immediately certain pieces of secondary legislation which includes the orders that we discuss this afternoon. Other matters in those proposals are those considered to be appropriate for further consultation consideration. We now have a position where the Government have determined that it would be appropriate to legislate now and they therefore propose to do so. If that is the Government's policy, it seems to me in no way inconsistent to bring the orders forward. Indeed, in the circumstances it would be slightly surprising if the Government did not bring those orders forward. Against that background, there has been a considerable amount of debate about the merits of a specific proposal and whether it is right or wrong. I do not propose to go over the ground that I covered in my opening remarks. Suffice it to say that if it is appropriate to go forward, we believe that we have a formula which is correct, and that we should therefore do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, made two points in relation to a specific bid which has been made, subject to this order going forward. Clearly it is not for me to go into the merits of any proposal. Suffice it to say that in this case the bid came forward after the proposals were made public; and it is all above board. It is inevitably the case that if any statutory regulation changes, it may have economic consequences. But that is true of all regulations of this type. It is in no way unique to what we debate this evening.
I wish to comment on two remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, one relating to the quality of Classic FM, and the other to community radio stations. I can do no better than to refer to the remarks of my honourable friend who is now Minister of State in another place at col. 23 of Hansard for 12th July this year. He made a number of remarks which will, I am sure, allay the noble Lord's fears in that regard. Finally, there is no secret agenda here. The reason is that the agenda on the face of the proposals is self-evident and in our view it should commend itself to the House.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he confirm that a period of consultation is going on in connection with the proposed

79
primary legislation later this year? If so, and if the radio companies are among those being consulted, given the controversy over the matter and that the events have taken place at the other end of the corridor, why do not the Government at least wait until the consultation period finishes in August? Then they could come back to us in the light of the consultation.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I had hoped that I had made the point clear in my remarks. The document indicates that certain longer term changes will be considered. Comments are invited on the basis of what is contained in the Government's policy. As I also explained, the Government are of the view that certain matters should be taken forward immediately in secondary legislation, of which the two orders we are debating this evening are part.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I do not wish to try the patience of the House, and I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I feel that an issue of principle is involved here and I wish to express that issue of principle in the Lobbies.
7.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: contents, 70; Not-Contents, 21.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Inglewood, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Kimball, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kitchener, E.

Astor, V.

Leigh, L.

Balfour, E.

Lindsay, E.

Blaker, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Lucas, L.

Boardman, L.

Lyell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Burnham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Milverton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Mountevans, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Moyne, L.

Courtown, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cranborne, V. [L. Privy Seal]

Newall, L.

Cross, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Deedes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Denham, L.

Reay, L.

Digby, L.

Rennell, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Faithfull, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Flather, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hooper, B.

Trumpington, B. [Teller]

Howe, E.

Vivian, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

80

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Monkswell, L.

Bradford, E.

Palmer, L.

Craigavon, V.

Reading, M.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Falkland, V.

St. Albans, Bp.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller]

Seear, B. Sharpies, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L. [Teller]

Howie of Troon, L.

Lawrence, L.

Tope, L.

McNair, L.

Tordoff, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Amendment Order 1995
7.40 p.m.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now turn to move the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Amendment Order 1995. This too forms part of the extensive package of legislative measures proposed by the Government's policy document on media ownership. In accordance with our statutory obligations, it has been the subject of consultation with both the BBC and the ITC. The Broadcasting Act 1990 requires that in each year not less than 25 per cent. of the total amount of time allocated to the broadcasting of qualifying programmes by each regional Channel 3 service, Channel 4, Channel 5 and the BBC is allocated to
"a range and diversity of independent productions".
The aim of this measure is to stimulate the development of a successful and competitive independent production sector in the UK and extend further the diversity and range of programming available to consumers. It has been successful in these aims, and there are now over 900 independent producers established in the country.
The Independent Production Order 1991 defines what constitutes an "independent producer" for the purposes of the 25 per cent. quota. During the widespread consultations that took place as part of the review of the media ownership rules, a number of anxieties were raised by the industry about the content of the current Independent Productions Order and its effect on the future development of the sector. The changes proposed in this amending order reflect the needs and wishes of the broadcasting and production industries, and the advice of the BBC and ITC.
The Government propose to make four main changes. All move in the direction of liberalising the system of ownership control so as to encourage the further development of the independent production sector.
First, and most significantly, we propose to increase from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. the stake that broadcasters may have in an independent producer, and vice versa, without the producers losing their independent status. This measure is designed to encourage greater investment and financial stability

81
within the sector without prejudicing the distinctive nature of independent production companies. With the latter point in mind, we propose to retain an aggregate maximum of 50 per cent. for the proportion of equity in an independent producer which broadcasters (as a whole) may earn. Moreover, the existing "connected persons" provisions in the 1991 order will ensure that two or more broadcasting companies cannot, if they are connected in some way, each take stakes of up to 25 per cent. in the same independent production company.
Our second proposed change is to allow United Kingdom producers to invest in broadcasters outside the European Economic Area without losing their independent status. This means that a production company would retain its independent status if, for example, it held stakes above 15 per cent. in a broadcaster operating solely in the Caribbean. This arrangement is a one-way street. A broadcaster operating outside the EEA will not be permitted to acquire a producer within the EEA without that producer losing its independent status. This prevents large non-European broadcasters purchasing EEA-based independent production companies in order to take advantage of the favourable market access arrangements resulting from the independent production quota.
Thirdly, and in connection with the same control, the Government propose to simplify the nationality restrictions on producers. At present, a producer is defined so as to include all connected persons (in effect, connected companies). This has caused difficulties in determining the country of incorporation or principal place of business of a producer who may have connected persons established in different countries. The proposed amendment simplifies this by stating that the location of any connected persons shall be disregarded in determining the country where the producer is established. Remembering that the proposed liberalisation applies only to the control of non-EU broadcasters, this relaxation in no way weakens the protection that the law gives against non-European control of UK independent producers.
Finally, the Government propose to exclude the providers of Teletext and similar services from the definition of a broadcaster. Such services are currently caught by the existing definition. Teletext providers are thus limited to a 15 per cent. stake in independent producers. We see no reason for this, given the marked distinction between broadcast and Teletext services, and the amendment that we propose leaves the Teletext provider completely free to invest in independent producers. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th June be approved [25th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
7.44 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very thorough, clear and detailed description of the order. To show him how reasonable I normally am, in this case I see no particular reason why it should not go through in advance of the more general broadcasting legislation that will come next year. It does not raise the same issues as the previous order did.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.45 to 8 p.m.]

Atomic Energy Authority Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 3 [Supplementary provisions as to the Authority's powers]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) The Authority shall not have the power to dispose of any undertaking unless provided for by a transfer scheme.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to prevent the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority selling off parts of itself other than by the process described in the Bill. In recent weeks the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has announced a further nine businesses for sale in addition to AEA Technology. The process set out in the Bill should be used to ensure that the interests of the public and the employees will be protected as provided for by the Bill.
But the fact that those additional businesses have now been offered for sale brings into question the whole issue of why indeed we need the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to bring this matter to the Minister's attention. Perhaps he can explain to us why those nine companies have been offered for sale while the Bill is under discussion. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Unless the noble Lord wishes to resume the discussions that we have previously had on the desirability or otherwise of a unitary scheme for the disposal of AEA Technology, perhaps I may say to him that most disposals by the authority other than AEA Technology involve the sale of small operational units with few assets and only a handful of staff.
In such cases, sale by normal commercial contract is all that is required. Giving effect to all such sales—some of them are indeed very small—by way of a transfer scheme would be to make something of a mountain out of a molehill. For example, if AEA Technology is to be disposed of by way of a unitary arrangement, clearly a transfer scheme, as the Bill requires, is appropriate. In our view, it is not appropriate to require such an arrangement to be made in each and every circumstance when such a small disposal is carried out.
I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates that probably the least satisfactory way to go forward for AEA Technology would be an arrangement taking out this little part and that little part. It would be more desirable to regard the two matters separately and appreciate that the small disposals are rather separate from the major objective of the Bill, which is to deal with AEA Technology as a whole.
Lord Haskel: I thank the Minister for that explanation. We realise that these are small disposals. But I raise the point because at some time presumably

83
someone will ask where the line is drawn. When does a small disposal become a large disposal and affect the privatisation that we are discussing? Having made the point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Duty of Authority to assist Secretary of State in connection with transfer schemes]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 2, leave out (", as far as practicable,").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple probing amendment that was raised in another place. I should like a brief account from the Minister as to what he has in mind at this point. Clause 5 deals with the authority furnishing the Secretary of State with the information that the Secretary of State may require in connection with transfer schemes.
Subsection (2) deals with the obligation of the authority to:
"include a duty to secure, as far as practicable, that their subsidiaries furnish all such information and assistance as the Secretary of State may require".
I do not understand why the phrase "as far as practicable" is inserted. It seems to me that if it were taken out, the sentence would have exactly the same meaning. Obviously, a duty to secure means a duty to secure as far as practicable. What else could it possibly mean? Having a duty to do something does not mean there is a duty to do the impossible. It means that there is a duty to do what one can do.
This point was raised in the other place. I did not at that time see an answer that made any sense. I had hoped to receive an answer today. I always ask whether there is some clever point that I have missed. But, if I were to say that a Minister had a duty to do something, I should mean that within the bounds of what is practicable he must do it. It would not occur to me to say that he had a duty to do this and then add "as far as practicable".
The Minister may be aware that it is part of my campaign, which is often joined by some of his noble friends but they are not here this evening, to have Bills that we pass into law written in English as we know it. This passage may be an illustration of that. However, there may be some deep philosophical consideration that his officials may wish to draw to our attention on this occasion. If so, I should like to know it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Whether or not it is particularly clever, perhaps I may offer the following explanation. The subsection to which this amendment relates places an obligation on the authority to secure an equivalent degree of co-operation from its subsidiaries. The duty in relation to those subsidiaries is qualified by the phrase "as far as practicable". I understand that it is that phrase which the noble Lord wishes to remove. The effect would be to place the authority under the same duty to secure the assistance of its subsidiaries as it is under itself.
84
In fact, it would make the Secretary of State's task easier if there were to be an absolute duty on the authority to secure the co-operation of its subsidiaries. But there is a practical problem. The reason why the duty in Clause 5(2) is constrained is that a subsidiary of the authority, even if wholly owned, is a separate corporate entity. The authority's relationship to that company is one of shareholder. There are limitations to the extent of the control which a shareholder can have over a company. Accordingly, it would not be right for the authority to be placed under an absolute duty where it might not be able to discharge that duty. That is the reason for the qualification.
I should have thought that the noble Lord would agree that it is unreasonable to place the authority under a statutory duty which it may be unable to fulfil through no fault of its own. It may be an extremely technical explanation to offer to the noble Lord. Perhaps his ears will prick up when he hears from me that so far as concerns the Secretary of State the task would be easier if the words that the noble Lord wishes to remove were indeed removed.
Lord Peston: I have no objection to that, for fairly obvious reasons. I found what the Minister said most enlightening. Clearly, the obligation is there so that the Secretary of State can do his job. It is all about assisting the Secretary of State. I think the noble and learned Lord is saying that if we left out those words, then the sentence would not be construed to mean absolute duty within the bounds of reality; it would mean absolute duty no matter what.
The Minister is simply adding to my education. I take it for granted that a duty to do something always means a duty within the bounds of reality. The noble and learned Lord is saying that if I do not include "as far as practicable", the duty would somehow be interpreted to mean a duty whether or not it is practicable. That must be the way in which lawyers think—not the lawyers in your Lordships' Chamber, of course. I cannot think anybody else would think about the real world in that way.
However, at least we have the answer on the record. The point has been made. It does not make sense to me but I have at least obtained an answer and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Successor companies]:
[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 16, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall not dispose of more than one half of any of the securities issued to him under sub-paragraph (1) above.".).
The noble Lord said: As the Committee will be aware, when we dealt with an earlier group of amendments I thought Amendments Nos. 31 and 38, which involved consultation with trade unions, also covered the area of so-called "golden shares". However, we did not discuss them under that heading at that point. The Minister

85
indicated that he would rather discuss this subject subsequently and this is the heading under which we are dealing with the matter.
As always with legislation, I find myself in the position of only beginning to understand it when we are a long way into it. I confess that when we were debating this matter at Second Reading, I did not understand this part of the Bill at all. But, looking at the relevant clause and schedule, it is clear that the possibility exists within the Bill of the Secretary of State retaining a share (which would be interpreted as a so-called "golden share"), and I now believe I am right in thinking—the Minister will correct me if I am mistaken—that the authority will also own such shares.
The question arises—the Minister gave some clue as to this earlier—of what the purpose of such shares would be. They may be connected with two things that come to my mind. First, they could influence some of the activities of privatised AEA Technology; and, secondly, they could influence who the successor company could one day be sold on to. The amendments were tabled for clarification. First, am I right to interpret this part of the Bill as relating to golden shares? Secondly, am I right that the purpose of such golden shares would be as I outlined? Thirdly, if I am right on both those accounts—this may be of complete irrelevance if I am wrong—should not such disbursal be a matter for consideration in your Lordships' Chamber and the other place rather than within government?
To put it at its mildest, there would certainly be considerable interest in Parliament if the events I described should occur. This is therefore a probing amendment so that I and others who are interested in the matter can learn something more about the Government's intentions. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Management, as well as everyone else who has looked at the position objectively, is clear that privatisation offers the best means of securing a prosperous and successful future for the business and its employees. Some have suggested that all commercial benefits of privatisation could be achieved in the public sector if AEAT were given greater commercial freedom. But I do not believe that that is the right way forward.
Full commercial freedom means the freedom to take risks and to reap the rewards. That is not consistent with a degree of public ownership. Where companies remain publicly owned, the Government are seen to be standing behind them. In that circumstance the Government have their ever-continuing obligation to protect the taxpayer's interest in such companies. That being so, it is less likely that they will have the free commercial rein that may be desirable.
There are no provisions in the Bill that relate specifically to special shares, on the view that none is necessary. The policy question as to whether a special share should be retained by the Secretary of State will be considered in the light of developments, in particular, should customers have any anxieties—and particularly government customers—as to the future ownership of the purchased entity.
86
I was asked a direct question and must offer a qualification. There are sets of qualifications which the noble Lord has, in a sense, teased out of me which I am not reluctant to give, but I would not want to indicate that behind all this we have a series of proposals which we are declining to reveal. The noble Lord asked the question and I must explain that these are options that are available, albeit that it is our view that at the present time they look remote. Certainly they are sets of suggestions which seem to be going well away from the first amendment that the noble Lord suggested was the right way forward if AEA Technology is to be privatised.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I thought it would be a convenient moment as he said something very definite and clear. If the Minister looks at page 16 of the Bill, Clause 2 of the Schedule has the heading,
"Government investment in securities of successor company"
The clause states:
"The Treasury or, with the consent of the Treasury, the Secretary of State may at any time acquire … securities of a successor company".
There is something a little further on relating to the selling of securities in successor companies. I interpreted that, possibly erroneously, as being included in the Bill for a purpose; that is, that the Government would not sell 100 per cent. of the AEAT, but would have the opportunity to continue to own some of it. I interrupted the Minister, I am afraid discourteously, to ask whether that is a complete misinterpretation.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord identified in that provision that,
"The Treasury or, with the consent of the Treasury, the Secretary of State may at any time acquire … securities of a successor company, or … rights to subscribe for any such securities".
In his opening remarks I understood the noble Lord to be asking whether a set of special share arrangements is contained in the Bill. There is not. There are these more general provisions but I am anxious to avoid suggesting to him that we have in any sense in a bottom drawer a set of proposals that we would pull out. The noble Lord may again think that we are being unduly cautious about this and that we ought to come forward and say exactly what is our preferred manner of disposal. However, I repeat that I would have thought it more appropriate to leave that until we get to the autumn.
Lord Peston: The noble and learned Lord may have misunderstood me slightly. I did not for one moment think that there was a bottom drawer or, even if there was, that he would tell me what is in it. I was simply trying to find out the purpose of the paragraph. Am I right that the purpose of the paragraph is to enable the Treasury, or the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury, to acquire some of these shares in the successor company? That is what it says. I assume, without pushing the Minister, that they would acquire them for a reason. I gave reasons, but that is different. I do not expect the Minister necessarily to agree with my reasons. I simply want to know whether I am right that

87
that power is there so that the Treasury or the Secretary of State could acquire such shares. Otherwise it does not mean anything.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: At an earlier stage the noble Lord was anxious to ensure his reputation as one who wants plain and simple language in legislation. Looking to the terms of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, it would seem to me clear enough that the Treasury may at any time acquire securities in a successor company. However, if I am wrong about that, I shall write to the noble Lord. I do not believe there to be anything strange in that. Indeed, I believe it to be simply a standard provision.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I may look at this issue from another point of view to supplement what my noble friend Lord Peston has said. We take the view—this was clear in our Second Reading contributions and in today's debates—that AEA Technology will carry out work that is crucial to the United Kingdom. It is involved in research into decommissioning and the operation of nuclear power stations and in extensions of that research into other areas. It is undoubtedly a critically important industry. It is the kind of industry in respect of which in the past the Government retained a golden share, a golden share designed to be able to assert the national interest, notwithstanding the competition laws of the European Commission which permit, as I think the noble and learned Lord will agree, foreign ownership to be excluded as a matter of principle. Provided it can be asserted successfully by the Government that a vital national interest is involved, they are perfectly entitled to operate through those procedures.
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that in principle at least it is correct that one does not have to adhere to the ordinary rules relating to competition if one can establish that a vital national interest is involved and that foreign ownership—even ownership from within the European Union—would not be acceptable? That is a general legal proposition that I put to him. I do not expect him to assert with me that AEA Technology could fall into that category. What I want to do is establish that there is at least a point of agreement between us with regard to the law. The rest can take care of itself. I should like to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can briefly answer the noble Lord by going back to what I said earlier. A wide range of options is available to the Secretary of State in taking this forward. However, I was seeking to emphasise to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that as we looked at matters we did not see that there was any value to AEA Technology if we were to seek to continue to maintain a particular arrangement within it on the lines of special shares or the like. I then went on to spell out that in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 there are provisions which would allow the Treasury or the Secretary of State to acquire securities of a successor company. What I am at pains to emphasise is that there is nothing buried in the schedule that is to be taken as an indication of a particular model that we would wish to pursue in taking forward this privatisation.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble and learned Lord. Occasionally what I am asking is less than he assumed—and this is one of those occasions. I am particularly impressed with the argument that paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 is a standard clause anyway and therefore that the authority to dispose of any securities in Clause 7(2) is also standard. Given that, I am somewhat intrigued that nonetheless the power remains both to acquire securities of the successor company and to sell them. Therefore, even if the Minister would not want to do any of the things to which I have referred, someone else might want to do them, so that is an extremely useful clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 16, line 9, at end insert:
("( ) Before any disposal by him of securities in any successor company the Secretary of State shall offer those securities for sale to the employees of that company.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment it may be for the convenience of the Committee to take with it Amendment No. 39. The Minister said earlier—I hope I am not misquoting him: I am not against misquoting him but I do not want to do it deliberately—words to the effect that the Government are anxious to involve employees as much as possible in privatisation. With respect, the enthusiasm of the Minister has some limitations, as I hope to demonstrate in a moment or two.
If we are to go down the route of privatising this enterprise, we believe that the right thing to do in the light of the characteristics of this industry—the nature of the workforce, this being a "people control enterprise", and so on—is to have a preference in the Bill for a management/employee buy-out. It is important to do that for a whole variety of reasons, some of which were set out in an article in the Financial Times on 15th February 1994. The article referred to the desirability of selling the industry in a unitary way. It went on to say that,
"the assets being sold will consist largely of the employees' brainpower rather than plant and equipment. Valuing the business will therefore provide a special challenge to City advisers".
The leading article in the Financial Times on that day stated that,
"the ideal solution must be a management buy-out. This would create a sense of partnership among the company's employees, and guarantee the AEA the independence to underpin its credibility as a consultancy. However it may be too much to expect a state-owned scientific agency to make that sort of leap in one bound—particularly when it does not even have a chief executive".
In fact, it did acquire after that a chief executive.
That summarised the situation very adequately. However, the position of the Government is in marked contrast to that which was utilised in relation to the Railways Act 1993. In that Act, provision was made under Section 141, which gave financial assistance for employees who were seeking to acquire franchises or part of the board's undertaking. Therefore, they were given a priority which is singularly missing so far as this Bill is concerned. The Minister made an assertion that they are anxious to involve employees as much as possible in privatisation. What does that mean? Why is

89
there a distinction drawn between the route that was followed under the Railways Act and the omission of such a provision from this Bill?
My amendment goes further than Section 141. The Minister could at least give us an indication tonight that the Government will be prepared to import just such a provision into this Bill. That would be a very good message. It is fair to say that, in relation to the Bill, although the Government said that they were quite satisfied I was wrong, in fact a priority of this kind might offend European Community law. The Government said I was wrong about that. Let us accept that for the sake of this argument. In those circumstances, why do not the Government show some consistency and say that Section 141 of the Railways Act provides an ideal model for what we should be doing here? That is the best way in which to translate into reality what the Minister said earlier. This is an appropriate amendment to pursue and therefore I have pleasure in moving it.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord made reference to a number of observations which I offered earlier, not least by saying that I recognised that one of the management's key tasks, now as well as after privatisation, was to ensure that the staff were properly "incentivised". The noble Lord, Lord Peston, took exception to that word. I was scorched by his observation and instead I say that they should get the proper incentives to motivate them. I am happy to do that, because the performance and profitability of business depends on staff responding to incentives that are attractive to them.
The Government would be prepared to consider seriously any bid from a management and employee buy-out consortium. As the Committee will know, bids from MEBOs have been a feature of many competitive trade sales. Benefits can include increasing the level of competition, maximising sale proceeds, and, in many respects, pre-eminently maintaining the commitment of management and staff in the run-up to a sale. As I have already indicated as regards employee participation, the Government believe that it is indeed in the long-term interests of any privatised company that a significant measure of employee share ownership should be provided for. Accordingly, the Government will look carefully at any proposals for employee participation put forward by the management of AEA Technology or its successor.
In the course of this Committee stage, on a number of occasions I have been asked to draw parallels with other privatisations. They do not seem to be wholly apt, although in many respects at the end of the day the aim is the same. They are not wholly apt because we are not seeking to privatise the complete entity. Here we are seeking to extract part of it, albeit a very important part. I should prefer to rest on the basis that the undertaking that I have given on behalf of the Government, with the assurance that we look at such a proposal very
90
favourably, is the right one, rather than offering, as I understand, particularly the provisions of Amendment No. 39, which state:
"Before disposing of its securities in any successor company the Authority shall offer those securities for sale to the employees of that company".
There may be a prospect that such an arrangement would be desirable, but to impose such an absolute duty would not be appropriate. I hope that, in view of the assurance I have given, the noble Lord will be satisfied.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister is always extremely pleasing and helpful up to a point. However, I do not believe that he has gone far enough. I draw a parallel, but one of principle. Perhaps I may deal very briefly with the history of this particular concession made by the Government in the Railways Act. The noble Lord will remember that the Railways Bill was the subject of considerable controversy. The Government met hostility not simply from this side and from the Liberal Democrats, but from a number of their own Back-Benchers, and, indeed, from all round the House.
One of the issues which was sharply focused on was the question of a management and employee buy-out. Frankly, I am not thrilled about it in the context of the railways. I believe that the utmost caution should be expressed by people involved in the railway industry at the present time before engaging in that kind of enterprise. I am not dealing with particulars of the railway industry here, but the principle.
The Government saw fit to provide that there should be some help given to the promotion of MEBOs. They went to the extraordinary lengths of providing that not only a measure of priority but a whole series of financial assistances should be given to the proposed management and employee buy-out so that they could get their act together. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to ask, if that was good enough for the railway industry, then why not here?
The Minister says that he does not want to be under any duty. There was a duty here. He says that one cannot consider other precedents because they may not apply. He says that in this case one is not privatising a whole entity, but neither were they doing so in the case of the railways. It was a question of bidding for a franchise, which is very different from going into a complete privatisation.
I ask the Minister to give an undertaking to the House tonight that, in the context of this amendment—on reflection, I should have preferred simply to graft on to it tonight the provision of the Government's own Act, and we may come back on that basis—he will consider his reply in the wider context of looking at that particular section of the Act and will say, "I shall reflect further on the matter". In so doing it does not mean that he has to accede to a MEBO. He would be giving it some assistance as regards its formation, so that it could rival more powerful organisations engaged in a similar enterprise. I ask the Minister to reply to that. I shall withdraw the amendment, but I should like to hear what he has to say in principle about these issues.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I do not believe that there is much point in pursuing whether the examples given are exact parallels or not. I understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is making. I repeat that I have some concern about introducing particular rights which might require a degree of inflexibility that would serve no one any valuable purpose. However, I say to the noble Lord—and I hope that this will satisfy him— that I shall be prepared to examine the scope for offering assistance, which is somewhat in the nature of the language to which he made reference; namely, the scope for offering assistance to a management and employee buy-out. But I repeat: MEBOs should compete on all fours with other prospective purchasers. I hope that that is sufficient assurance for the present purposes.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am grateful to the Minister, but he almost spoiled what he was saying in his last sentence which was in conflict with his own Government's philosophy. In the light of his response, I look forward to returning to the matter on Report and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Disposal by Authority or Secretary of State of shares in successor companies]:
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to seek some clarification because under the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State is not obliged to act in the national interest. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to be of the opinion that sales of shares in successor companies would promote the national interest.
It is difficult to understand the need for Clause 7(1). Presumably the Secretary of State would not order a sale of shares unless he thought that it was in the national interest. The clause simply allows the Secretary of State to do things that he does not consider to be in the national interest. I should be interested to know whether the Minister can give us an example of what the Secretary of State would do which is not in the national interest. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It is a neat point and the noble Lord clearly enjoys it. There is no question of the Government acting against the national interest. The whole point of Clause 7(1) is to remove any possibility that the provisions of the 1981 Act might be held to limit the powers of sale provided by this Bill and prevent the Secretary of State or the authority from securing the sale of AEA Technology on a basis which they believe best serves the interests of the nation.
As I have said repeatedly in this Committee, the Government are committed to putting AEA Technology into the private sector on the basis which secures the best possible future for the business and its staff, maximises its contribution to UK competitiveness and provides best value for money for the taxpayer. That is what we are working to achieve. That is what we are determined to achieve. Therefore, I reassure the noble
92
Lord that in that fabled bottom drawer there is no proposal which is designed to secure a sale which would be contrary to the national interest.
Lord Haskel: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I must confess to being a little disappointed because I had hoped that we would all be enlightened by it. However, in view of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 40 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Pensions]:
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 29, line 3, leave out ("sub-paragraphs (2) and (4)") and insert ("sub-paragraph (2)").
The noble Baroness said: We now reach a group of amendments on pension entitlement. In moving Amendment No. 41, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 42 to 46, 46A and 49. This group of amendments is intended to allow UKAEA employees to remain in their pension schemes after privatisation. The amendments are similar to a series moved in Committee in another place. They were opposed by the Government then and I hope that in the intervening period there has been time for the Government to think again. The reasons advanced for opposing them then were far from convincing.
As we know, we are talking about a sophisticated and highly trained workforce. It is usual in such circumstances for employees also to be committed to their pension scheme and to value their scheme membership very highly. As I understand it, the scheme is a fairly standard public sector scheme. The benefits are reasonably good and, among other things, contain provision for complete indexation of pensions in payment. I understand that the Government's argument is that it is not government policy to allow membership of the scheme to continue. It is, however, said that the benefits provided will be "equivalent", whatever that may mean. It certainly does not seem to mean that they will be the same. Indeed, I believe that full indexation may not be envisaged. This is an important point.
The staff who joined the authority became civil servants. They knew that they would be doing so and therefore expected, as part of the package, that they would be members of a public sector scheme guaranteeing certain benefits. I cannot stress too strongly that many people nowadays—perhaps always as far as this type of employment is concerned— structure their lives very much on what they may expect to receive when they retire. Until recently, it had always been public perception that such Civil Service jobs, although perhaps not as lucrative as many in a more entrepreneurial environment, had the compensating

93
factor that there was security both in regard to the employment itself and in relation to ultimate retirement benefits.
However, along came the Government with wide-ranging plans to privatise. That sense of security disappeared almost overnight. Removing the right to remain in the pension scheme after privatisation is therefore of considerable detriment. The Government may argue, as they did in the other place, that there will be provision of an equivalent standard. That is not good enough when many people fear that they may lose the vital element of indexation. I understand that continued membership was allowed some years ago when Amersham International was privatised. I gather that the Government argue that most of Amersham International's employees eventually opted for transfer to the private sector AI Pension Scheme. That may well be so, but it was a matter of choice for the individuals who had the opportunity of looking at the relative benefits.
According to what has already been said, the Government do not intend that to happen in this case. I think that that is wrong. I remind the Government—my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis has already done so in relation to other aspects of the Bill—of the problems that they encountered over pensions when railway privatisation was under consideration in your Lordships' House. Eventually the Government had to shift from their original position and make some concessions. I hope that they may be persuaded to do so in the present case. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I appreciate the desire of the noble Baroness to allow employees to remain in the authority's pension scheme. However, I am bound to say that there can be no question of employees staying in such schemes once they are in the private sector. Standard practice in transfers of employees from the public sector, whether in privatisations or contracting out, has been to end public service scheme membership on the move to the private sector. Given her expertise in such matters, I am sure that the noble Baroness knows (whether she likes it or not) that that practice has been consistently followed.
Government policy is clear. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to allow private sector employees to remain as members of a pension scheme that was set up for members of the authority. The authority, as an employer, has devised its public service scheme to provide what it considers to be appropriate pensions for its employees. It is for the private sector employer to develop arrangements appropriate for its employees and for the operation of its business.
I understand that the core of the concern expressed by the noble Baroness is whether there should be index-linking. I must advise the noble Baroness that nothing in the Bill rules out index-linking, but although it is common for private sector schemes to provide some element of index-linking—your Lordships will be aware that the Pensions Bill will impose some minimum requirement—it would be wrong of me to suggest that full index-linking was a common feature of private sector schemes.
94
Obviously, I cannot say at this stage what terms an employer may wish to propose, but whatever happens the terms must be no less favourable overall. In coming to a view on whether or not the scheme is no less favourable employee representatives have to be consulted. I have no doubt that at that time they will make their views known on all of the features of the package. I say to the noble Baroness that if full index-linking was included in the new scheme it would reduce the scope for increasing other benefits. As she has pre-empted me, it is interesting to note that when last offered the opportunity, the overwhelming majority of Amersham's employees decided to join Amersham's own scheme, even though that scheme did not guarantee full index-linking.
We have moved a long way since the introduction in 1981 of the legislation relating to the pensions of Amersham's employees. We have written statutory safeguards into the Bill, to which we shall turn later. We shall ensure that employees can join a scheme that overall is no less favourable than the authority's scheme. Therefore, employees should have no fear about their future pension scheme.
Amendment No. 46 also suggests that employees who have already left the authority's employment should be allowed back into the authority's schemes. That is considered to be wholly unacceptable. It would reopen the basis on which the businesses were sold earlier. It would be a substantial breach of faith with the purchasers who bought the authority's operations on one basis only to be told several months later that, with regret, it would have to be rewritten. It would also create substantial uncertainty for the employees involved and potentially put their jobs at risk.
I have no doubt that the noble Baroness wishes to see the staff treated fairly. That is a desire which I endorse. However, given the range of options available, it would not appear to me to be the outcome of this amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Is the Minister aware that in relation to the sales the situation was not resolved? The purchasers were under no illusion about that. They understood that this was a matter that Parliament had to consider and there was a possibility of the situation being resolved in a different direction from that which the Minister might prefer. They have gone into it with their eyes open. Consequently, I suggest to the Minister that that argument is not open to him tonight. Though I do not charge him with bad faith, my information is as I have recorded it.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for not accusing me of bad faith in this matter, but what I seek to convey is the principle at the centre of what we want to do. While there are certain fixed points which we believe cannot be offered, such as full indexation, we shall ensure that employees who join any scheme find that overall the scheme is no less favourable than the authority's scheme. Clearly, if such a scheme is put forward, there will be full consultation.
Lord Peston: Happily, I am not in the position in which these employees will find themselves. I have an index-linked pension. I would be horrified if anything happened to take that away from me. One of the things

95
I was told by my late mother when I started my career was that I should get a job with a good pension. It reminds one of the standards that applied in the old days when pensions were index-linked. One does not think about it when one is a young person, but the time comes when one finds that one draws a pension. This is a matter of serious concern to the individuals involved.
The Minister, his predecessor and his honourable friend in another place have all used expressions like "equivalent to or no less favourable than". If I were an individual employee of AEAT and believed that my pension was not equivalent or less favourable, whom would I sue? Would I take legal action against the successor body or the Government? Perhaps that is not an easy question to answer from the Dispatch Box at this time, but the employees may be quite interested to know the answer. It will be noted that I ask what an individual employee will do if he takes that view.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The idea that following the change there will be an opportunity for each individual member of the pension fund to engage in a discussion about it and have an opportunity to sue, seems to be unrealistic. I have indicated, I hope not too harshly but clearly enough, that matters have moved on since the Amersham scheme. What I sought to do in drawing that parallel was to give broad reassurance to those who might be deeply suspicious, like the noble Lord's mother, that if any change was made it must necessarily be to the individual's disadvantage. I believe that approximately 90 per cent, of those in the Amersham case, when given the choice, selected the Amersham scheme. I believe that that ought to be a matter of reassurance and that when words such as "broadly", "comparable", "no less favourable than", or whatever it may be, are used, though they may not be identical, once the various benefits are looked at, individuals will not have serious cause to complain.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that the Amersham International case is now quite considerably removed in time. I believe that it occurred in 1981. I differ from him on the interpretation of Amersham; but let us leave that aside. During the course of the passage of the Railways Bill, the Minister, although he did not participate in it, may well recall the furore that accompanied the discussion on pensions. I believe that the Government had to make concessions far wider than the provision made in this Bill. The Minister may say that one privatisation has nothing to do with another, but I believe that the employees of this enterprise may well ask why railway workers should achieve a better result, simply because Members of this House primarily were absolutely amazed by the way in which the Government went about it at the very beginning. Your Lordships on all sides in effect drummed into the Government the necessity to change their view.
I am convinced that the provision that is to be made for these employees is materially less good than that accomplished for the railway industry. That is not equitable. I believe that the Minister ought to look again at the situation which arose in the course of those
96
debates and use his best endeavours to ensure that the people employed in this industry are not treated differently from employees in the railway industry. I believe that is a perfectly fair proposition to make. The Minister has been very fair this evening. Though he has not made concessions, he has said that he will look at various matters. All I ask him to do now is look again at this situation in the light of the debates which then took place. It would be wrong to differentiate between one group of workers, albeit far fewer in number in this instance, and those engaged in the railway industry. The Government had to give a great deal of thought to that. I am not satisfied that the end result was even proper in that case. However, the Government made one concession after another, and the result was infinitely better than that which could have been imagined at the beginning. I ask the Minister not to be hidebound by what appears in the Bill at the present time and to say that the Government will look at it again, without any commitment, to ensure that justice is done to these employees.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has the advantage of me. I confess that I do not have intimate knowledge of the details of the pension arrangements under the Railways Bill. The employees of AEA Technology have a proper concern that if they move from one pension scheme to another, what they receive at the end of the day is no less favourable than that which they enjoy at the moment. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 imposes a duty upon the Secretary of State or the authority to ensure that just that is secured.
I said previously that perhaps no one could sue, but I am advised that I may have mis-stated that point. Should an individual be dissatisfied, there might be a redress against the Secretary of State, or the authority, as appropriate. I give the undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that I shall look at what he said about the Railways Bill, because I do not know enough about it. I rest with the broad proposition that when one is looking at pension schemes, people moving from one to another should be allowed to see what they enjoyed previously and what they will enjoy, rather than looking at a different group of prospective pensioners.
9 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for that response. We are glad that he has given an undertaking to look at what was agreed in relation to the Railways Act, because, as my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, many concessions were obtained from the Government during the passage of that Bill. As a result, the railway employees on whose behalf we were speaking were much more satisfied than they were when the Bill first started.
The Minister says that the terms offered will be no less favourable. That is not necessarily the same as we are seeking. My noble friend Lord Peston made it clear that indexation matters a great deal to people in this situation. Public service employees value highly the fact that, generally speaking, their pensions are subject in payment to full indexation relative to the RPI. That does

97
not apply generally throughout the private sector. However there are private sector schemes where it does apply.
In any event, I understand that under the TUPE regulations there is a commitment to provide comparable benefits. A comparable benefit must be that people have protection against inflation when their pensions are in payment. However we are obviously not going to press this matter at this time of night. We shall look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on Report. It is to be hoped that by that time he will have had the opportunity to consider the arguments mounted tonight and to look at the situation with regard to the Railways Act. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 46A not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 30, line 2, after ("transferred") insert ("such that each year of service in the Authority pension scheme gives rise to at least one year of service in the pension scheme to which the amounts are transferred").
The noble Baroness said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 52, 53, 57, 58 and 59. The intention of the amendments is to give year-for-year transfer benefits from the authority pension scheme to the new one. Without the amendments, it is up to the Secretary of State or the authority to decide how transfer values to the new pension schemes are calculated.
It is possible that the Government would consult the Government Actuary, but the unions representing the employees are not all that happy about that. Their fears have already been made plain at previous stages of the Bill when it was discussed in the other place. Therefore a simple, easily understood formula is required, and this is the formula suggested. In view of what has been said on the previous amendments, I am afraid the Government are not likely to take kindly to Amendments Nos. 57 and 58.
The intention of those amendments is to compel a new scheme to provide like-for-like benefits, apart from injury and redundancy benefits which we understand cannot be part of a tax-exempt scheme. Without the amendments, the Secretary of State or the authority could trade off between the terms of the old and the new pension schemes and other terms and conditions of employment.
I understand that the Government position—I had some hint of it on the previous amendment—is that new pension schemes should be able to offer a different mix of benefits, but again that mix of benefits could result in the loss of index linking. As I have already said, the unions and the employees whom they represent would view that with a great deal of concern.
I understand that the Government may be relying on advice from the Government Actuary's Department, but the GAD bases its advice and its assumptions on the idea that inflation may never rise above 5 per cent, per annum. We all hope that it will not, but it may well do in the future. Therefore the employees concerned would
98
value an index-linking arrangement without a ceiling of 5 per cent, per annum. I know that 5 per cent, is common in private sector schemes, but that has not been the case with public sector schemes. For those reasons we want to maintain the ability to have complete coverage for the future. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: When I spoke earlier to Amendment No. 16, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, spoke, I made a number of observations relating to redundancy benefits. This is not his fault; it is entirely mine. When I said to him that the amendments did not add anything to the protection already available under the TUPE regulations, I was in fact referring to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 which were not moved but which he may recall were part of the same group. Rather than write to the noble Lord and others later, it might be helpful if I were to clarify the position.
Under the Bill, employees will benefit from the protection given by TUPE. Their consent, or that of the trade union acting on their behalf, would be required before changes in the contractual redundancy terms could be made. I hope that that brief clarification is helpful.
Despite the fact that the amendment was moved briskly by the noble Baroness, perhaps I may take a moment or two to explain our position on pensions. That may save us time and allow for some consideration of the Government's position before we return to the matter on Report.
As I said previously, every privatisation and related set of pension provisions is different, but that is not to go back on what I have just said about the Railways Act. The provisions have to be tailored to the particular circumstances applying. We have sought to tailor the pension provisions in the Bill to the particular circumstances of AEA Technology.
Some public sector companies already had funded pension schemes which were in the private sector mould and so could be transferred and continued on privatisation. In some cases whole industries were being moved from the public to the private sector and the specialised nature of the work of those employees was likely to lead to movement between many new employers emerging from a single public-sector organisation.
In those circumstances it was not unreasonable that some additional protection was given to employees to ensure that their pension rights could continue to accrue on the same basis while they remained in that industry. However, protection of that kind has been very much the exception rather than the rule. In other privatizations—for example, the privatisation of the Property Services Agency —there were no specific pensions provisions at all because they were not considered to be either appropriate or necessary.
The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority pension schemes cannot be directly converted into private sector tax exempt occupational pension schemes. It would, therefore, not be possible to replicate the authority schemes in the private sector. At the risk of repeating myself, the approach that we have taken is to

99
ensure that those employees transferring who participate in an authority scheme will be able to join another pension scheme, either a new or an existing scheme, operated by their new employer. The Bill provides the protection that it must be no less favourable overall than the authority scheme.
The phrase "no less favourable" means that the benefits overall must be at least equivalent to the benefits in the authority scheme, although, as the noble Baroness indicated, the mix of those benefits may be different. For example, if a pension in the new scheme was based on one-sixtieth of pensionable final pay for each year of service rather than one-eightieth, as in the authority schemes, that could be a significant improvement. There would then need to be a reduction in other benefits to compensate for that improvement.
The Government Actuary, who has wide experience in these matters, would be asked to verify that the new scheme met the requirements of the schedule; that is, taken as a whole, that it was no less favourable than the authority scheme. The Government Actuary is completely independent and impartial in these matters. In coming to his view, he would make the criteria that he had used available so that interested parties could scrutinise them for themselves. I do believe that the actuary is independent, but should there be any suspicion that he is not, I believe that that assurance is most important.
The amendments proposed would restrict the ability of the vendor to decide that a new scheme was comparable when the provisions of the scheme were taken as a whole. Leaving aside redundancy and injury benefits, they would effectively require each and every other benefit to be at least as good as at present. That is not possible. As I have already indicated, there are some features of the authority schemes which cannot be reproduced in a tax exempt occupational pension scheme. While they include certain redundancy and injury benefits as reflected in the noble Baroness's amendments, they are not the only examples of the point. There are other benefits in the authority schemes which mean that if the amendments were accepted the new scheme could not be a tax exempt scheme.
I am not sure that employees would thank the noble Baroness if they had to pay tax on their own and their employers' pension contributions and also on lump sum benefits paid from the scheme. That might be the effect of the amendments and represents one very good reason why they are unacceptable.
I have a number of further detailed points to make, but I believe that I have probably spelled out sufficiently our reservations on the amendments. Clearly, the noble Baroness will want to reflect on what I have said. Indeed, I expect that she will want to return to the matter at a later stage. However, for present purposes I hope that I have given sufficient explanation on at least some of the amendments and certainly of the fundamental basis upon which exception has to be taken to them by the Government.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am obliged to the Minister for the statement that he made in response to the amendments. We shall certainly read very carefully
100
what he has said in Hansard when we get the opportunity. However, there are one or two points which I should like to raise with the noble and learned Lord and I wonder whether now is the appropriate time.
Can the Minister tell us whether the Government have sought the views of the trustees in relation to their propositions? The noble and learned Lord mentioned that the mix of benefits would be different. Of course, we realised that fact and that is one of the reasons why we tabled the amendments. We did not know what the mix would be and we felt that it could conceivably prove to be not as popular with the staff as the present arrangements.
The Minister said that there would be a sixtieth instead of an eightieth scheme, with the public sector being in eightieths, and that that would be of benefit. But, on the other hand, I would remind the noble and learned Lord that, if it is a standard one-eightieth scheme in the public sector, that is usually because there is an opportunity to have a lump sum commutation which goes with the eightieths but which amounts to sixtieths when it really comes to it. Therefore, we would not expect to have any adjustments made, so to speak, to pay for sixtieths. Presumably the lump sum would disappear because one-eightieths would be replaced by sixtieths. Can the Minister confirm, as we are in Committee, that there will be negotiations with the unions with regard to the terms of these schemes? It is important that there should be an opportunity to negotiate on the new mix which is proposed as regards the employees. Have the trustees expressed a view and have the Government asked for that view?
9.15 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: So far as I am aware, the trustees have not been consulted. First of all, I am advised that there are no trustees under the authority scheme. But the more fundamental point is that before anyone could offer up a judgment we would have to see what is being proposed. As I have indicated, the Government Actuary in his independent position is probably best placed to do that. Of course if there are any changes there would be an opportunity for some discussion and negotiation on them. What it is important that we establish within this Bill is that there will not be a significant diminution of the rights of employees as they move from one pension scheme to another.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, he said there would not be a significant diminution; we do not want any diminution at all.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I apologise to the noble Baroness. I was looking for an elegant variation which clearly was not elegant. I shall stick to the terminology that is provided within the Bill and say something that is no less favourable. I shall stick with that terminology; it is probably safer.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I note what the Minister has said. As I indicated earlier, we shall withdraw these amendments and return to the matter on

101
Report. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 30, line 11, at end insert ("which shall include any trade unions representing any such employees.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 48 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 50, 54, 56, 60 and 62. This represents a kind of fallback position because we intended this option to apply if the Government did not like our preceding amendments. It provides for consultation with the unions regarding amendment to pension provision. It is a good proposition in that it allows flexibility in a way that perhaps the Government did not feel the previous amendments did. It answers the Government's objections which they made in another place that unions may unreasonably exercise a veto, as Amendment No. 50 clearly indicates that there is a case for overruling what is proposed if it is felt that there has been an unreasonable veto. That is provided for in Amendment No. 50. The Minister has indicated in his previous response that the matter would in any event be subject to negotiation with the unions representing the staff, and I hope that in those circumstances he will be prepared to write this onto the face of the Bill to indicate that that is the Government's position. I beg to move.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I appreciate the desire of the noble Baroness to ensure that trade unions are consulted by the Secretary of State or the authority. I believe I can set her mind at rest. It is undoubtedly the case that the trade unions are persons who, under the provisions of the Bill, represent the employees. I can therefore assure the noble Baroness that all the relevant trade unions will be consulted and, accordingly, her amendments on this point are unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 50, 56 and 62 would in effect give the unions, or indeed any other person consulted, a power of veto over the direction to be issued to allow employees to remain in the authority's pension schemes and over the shape of the new pension scheme. I have noted, too, that the noble Baroness has made a subtle change to the amendments compared with those discussed in another place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: She is just more subtle.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Indeed, she is much more subtle. She has added the phrase,
"unless that person has unreasonably withheld his satisfaction".
But that does not really change the effect of the amendments. What may appear to be reasonable to one person may not be to another. The amendment would be a recipe for litigation. Moreover, a person consulted may have reason to be dissatisfied with a particular aspect of a new scheme, however minor, even when it was perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to take the view that the benefits provided by the new scheme were overall no less favourable. This amendment would, therefore, still give those being consulted an effective power of veto unless they had no reason at all not to be dissatisfied.
102
We are placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State or the authority to be satisfied that there is a scheme which, taken as a whole, is no less favourable than the authority scheme. This duty reflects the long-standing practice of the Government. However, our intention is to reassure employees by placing it on the face of the Bill. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Lord Peston: I am certain that my noble friend will withdraw the amendment but I want to make certain that I did not mishear what the Minister said. He said that where consultation with the representatives of employees is specified in the Bill, that means without a shadow of doubt the trade unions, where they exist. I think he said that, but I was not listening quite as attentively as I should. Will he confirm that that is what he said?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Unless I said what I did not intend to say, what I said was that it was undoubtedly the case that, under the provisions of the Bill, trade unions are persons who represent employees. Accordingly, I give the assurance to the noble Lord, which will be welcome to him, that all the relevant trade unions will be consulted. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment on the basis that it is unnecessary.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am much obliged to the Minister for that assurance. On the basis of that assurance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 to 62 not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Extinguishment of certain liabilities]:
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Membership of the Authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Sale of Goods (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Child Support Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Criminal Appeal Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the reasons ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past nine o'clock.

  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips IOH Report
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips IOH Report
  Means-Tested Benefits: Disentitlement Measures
  Means-Tested Benefits: Disentitlement Measures
  Nurses' Pay Offers
  Nurses' Pay Offers
  Marriage: Interdepartmental Working Group
  Marriage: Interdepartmental Working Group
  Stonehenge
  Stonehenge
  Listed Building Policy
  Listed Building Policy
  The National Lottery
  The National Lottery
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: Manufacturers of Protective Clothing
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: Manufacturers of Protective Clothing
  Exeter Prison: Suicide of Remand Prisoner
  Exeter Prison: Suicide of Remand Prisoner
  Mr. Barry Gray
  Mr. Barry Gray
  Untried and Convicted Unsentenced Prisoners: Average Periods in Custody
  Untried and Convicted Unsentenced Prisoners: Average Periods in Custody
  Prisoners: Statistics
  Prisoners: Statistics