Sitting of 13 June 1995

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

    Long-term Unemployment
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the benefits to the long-term unemployed of current Government policies. [26468]
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Portillo): Government policies have produced economic growth and falling unemployment. The proportion of the unemployed out of work for more than a year is markedly below the European Community average.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Social Affairs Commissioner came to the House two or three years ago, Mrs. Papandreou said that of the many millions out of work in Europe at that time 35 per cent. had not had a job at all? Is it not clear from my right hon. Friend's answer that the prospects for the long-term unemployed are far better in Britain than in countries that have adopted the inflexibility and business burdens of the social chapter, and how is it possible for the Labour party not to have noticed that?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is too generous. The Labour party has noticed it. It is not in favour of the social chapter out of ignorance of its consequences. It knows perfectly well that the social chapter would destroy jobs in Britain. It is in favour of the social chapter because it has done a cynical deal with the trade unions: that is the basis of the social chapter. What would my hon. Friend expect from a party that receives most of its money from the trade unions? All the members of the shadow Cabinet are sponsored by trade unions. Votes at Labour's conference are dominated by trade unions. That is why the Labour party is in favour of the social chapter—it is not out of ignorance of the fact that the social chapter would destroy British jobs. I am against the social chapter because I am determined to defend British interests and jobs.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, after 16 years of Conservative government, how many long-term unemployed people there are in our nation?
    Mr. Portillo: There are 886,000 people who have been without a job for more than a year. The proportion is 37 per cent., but during the last recession it reached 44 per cent. The proportion in this country is lower than in other European Union countries. That is the point that the hon.
    580
    Gentleman must face. We are pursuing policies that enable people to get back to work. We are pursuing policies that have produced an unemployment rate of 8.5 per cent., compared with the European Community average of 10.8 per cent. The interesting thing for the hon. Gentleman is that the countries with the higher rates of unemployment are the countries that are pursuing the policies advocated by his party.
    Mr. Rathbone: Would my right hon. Friend care to tell the House how much of that welcome reduction in unemployment is due to our active membership of the European Union and how much of it would be put at risk if we withdrew?
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that we benefit very much indeed from being part of a single European market. The Government have fought hard to create that single European market, but it is well recognised that other features that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been wise enough to remain outside, such as the social chapter, are job-destroying measures. My hon. Friend is right to put his finger on the fact that there are advantages to us from membership of the single European market. I know that he in no way dissents from the position of the Government and the Conservative party that we will never be part of the social chapter.

    Ministerial Meetings
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met other EU Ministers to discuss unemployment statistics. [26469]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): Employment matters feature regularly in discussions with ministerial counterparts. I am pleased to say that the rate of unemployment in the UK is well below the Community average, and particularly below the rates in countries with a minimum wage.
    Mr. Evans: In view of that interesting answer, will the Minister acknowledge that no other EU country measures its unemployment in the same way as Great Britain? Does he agree that until such time as we have statistical uniformity throughout the EU, anyone who seeks to compare Britain's unemployment with that of any other EU country is either ill-informed or deceitful?
    Mr. Oppenheim: As I know that the hon. Gentleman is not a suspicious man by nature, I shall help him out on this one. All major industrial countries, including Britain, publish two sets of unemployment figures: one based on the benefit system, which, in Britain, is the claimant count; and one using an international standard, which in Britain is called the labour force survey—which the TUC has called fully reliable, and which even Labour supports. This latter international standard figure is used in international comparisons of unemployment rates.
    The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong to claim that we are not comparing like with like, and I hope that he will withdraw that allegation.
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Will my hon. Friend confirm, whatever method is used to calculate unemployment statistics, that it is overwhelmingly obvious that Britain has more people in work than almost any other European country—and, what is more, has lower youth

    581
    unemployment as well? Does he therefore find it surprising, as I do, that the Labour party has voted against the policies that have reduced unemployment while adopting proposals that have been manifestly shown to increase it?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Britain has one of the highest proportions in Europe of the working age population in work. But Labour's policies, so far as it has any on this issue, are totally contradictory. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) said this morning that she wants both full employment and a minimum wage, yet the Labour leader and deputy leader both admit that a minimum wage would cost jobs. No wonder the Opposition arc not telling us at what level they would set the minimum wage. They are hoping that the low paid will not find out the true cost in terms of lost jobs until after the election.
    Mr. Barron: The Minister cannot deny that most of the 30 changes in the monthly claimant count over the past 10 years have been designed to reduce that count—clearly, too, the jobseeker's allowance is designed to do the same again in due course. When he discusses employment policies with other European Ministers, will the hon. Gentleman explain to them why the Government, by driving wages down in this country, are creating poverty pay? Millions of people are still unemployed here as a result. While Britain becomes increasingly a low-wage, low-skill, low-tech economy, other countries have invested in training and infrastructure, as well as putting a floor under wages. Is not that why they will be far better off than us?
    Mr. Oppenheim: There are so many fallacies in that statement that it is difficult to know where to begin. Let me, first, gently remind the hon. Gentleman that changes to the unemployment count did not begin in 1979. One of the largest ever changes was made in 1976, when the Labour Government took 100,000 people off at a stroke.
    If the hon. Gentleman does not like the claimant count, let him stick with the labour force survey, which shows unemployment totals almost exactly the same as the claimant count. His claim that we believe in poverty pay is belied by the facts. We all want people to be better paid—
    Mr. Barron: It is your policy.
    Mr. Oppenheim: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish—we all want people to be better paid, especially the low paid, but it is fundamentally dishonest of Labour to pretend that there is some magic wand: a no-cost way of raising people's pay without costing jobs. In Britain, pay stagnated in the late 1970s. Because our economy is so much more successful now, pay at all levels has increased, especially for the low paid. The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts.

    Social Chapter
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the employment implications for Britain of agreeing to the social chapter. [26471]
    Mr. Portillo: The social chapter of the Maastricht treaty would have reduced firms' competitiveness and destroyed jobs. That is why we could not—and will not—accept it.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of the British public increasingly recognise the value of the opt-outs that we successfully negotiated at Maastricht? Should we not seek to repatriate powers to this country and this House, where they belong, instead of giving more and more powers to the Brussels bureaucrats, as Opposition spokesmen would like us to?
    Mr. Portillo: President Chirac has commented that there is disquiet throughout Europe about the way in which the European Union appears not to have dealt with unemployment. People look to Europe to help them to create jobs. As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), the single European market has helped the creation of employment; but putting burdens on employers which make them reluctant to employ people, or which raise wages so that fewer people are employed, does not help to deal with unemployment in Europe.
    There are 20 million people in the EU without work. I shall continue to emphasise to my colleagues in Europe that we need to tackle unemployment—we are not there simply to pander to trade union interests.
    Ms Harman: How can the Secretary of State boast to the House and to other European countries about Britain's unemployment record when, over the past five years, 11 million people have been unemployed at one time or another? Is not the Tory party the party of high unemployment? Why does he continue to oppose a national minimum wage when he has now taken to saying that he cares about the low paid? Is he prepared to justify the fact that one third of a million people in this country are on £1.50 an hour or less? How can he justify the fact that more than 1 million people are on less than £2.50 an hour? Does not his opposition to the social chapter have nothing to do with the interests or concerns about British people at work but everything to do with the splits in his party?
    Mr. Portillo: None of us in Europe can boast, because none of us is doing well enough, but countries that have adopted the policies advocated by the hon. Lady have done terrible things to their populations. In Spain, which has a minimum wage, youth unemployment is three times higher than in the United Kingdom. In France, which has a minimum wage, youth unemployment is twice as high as in the United Kingdom. Jobs are being destroyed by minimum wages across Europe. The Labour party knows that. It knows, too, that the unions are demanding that differentials are fully maintained, so that most of the money that is spent on a minimum wage will not be spent on helping people at the bottom but on remunerating people at every wage level. We know that, according to the sums that have been advocated by the unions, 800,000 jobs would be lost, even if only half the differentials were restored. The hon. Lady is not straightforward or honest with the House. [Interruption.] She knows that a minimum wage—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect on what he said and rephrase his remarks.
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Lady is not being straightforward because she will not tell us at what level the minimum wage would be set. Everything depends on

    583
    that level. She knows that the minimum wage would destroy jobs, which is why she is not prepared to tell us at what level it would be set.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the acid test of whether any socialist party can call itself modern lies in its attitude towards whether individuals are free to offer their labour to an employer who wishes to employ them? Does he further agree that there is no hope of the Opposition modernising their attitude while so many of their members remain in the pay of the trade unions?
    Mr. Portillo: The extraordinary feature of Labour's employment policies is that new Labour has dreamt up ways of destroying jobs that even old Labour had not discovered. The minimum wage was not introduced by old Labour; the social chapter was not advocated by old Labour. They are inventions of new Labour, presumably as a result of the domination of the Labour party by the trade unions and its willingness to bow the knee and to grovel to them.

    Training Programmes
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice his Department gives to unemployed people who cannot find places on the training for work programmes. [26472]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Paice): There are a large number of training places for those seeking them, and for whom training is the best course of action, but training is not necessarily the priority need of all unemployed people. That is why the Employment Service provides a range of help, including jobmatch, 1–2–1, workwise, the travel-to-interview scheme, job search seminars and many others.
    With your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall remain standing.
    Mr. Williams: Because of changes that the Minister's Department has introduced in the training for work programme in the past year, requiring training providers to choose people who are most likely to have a successful outcome, my local authority, Dyfed county council, has had to cut its programme of 260 places by more than 100 places this year. Are not young people who are being rejected now being doubly disadvantaged? They are out of work yet are also being rejected even from lowly places on training schemes.
    Mr. Paice: I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who is responsible for training schemes in Wales, has written to the hon. Gentleman on this subject.
    Under the training for work scheme, in both England and Wales we have adopted special measures to ensure that those with special training needs, and those at a particular disadvantage, are protected. The output payments are considerably higher for those people than for others, and in England, at any rate, we have ring-fenced the numbers involved so that there can be a diminution in the number of people with special needs who undertake training in training for work programmes. We have addressed, quite properly, the very issue that concerns the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Evennett: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Conservative Members are pleased to have him back with us.
    584
    Does my hon. Friend agree that what most people want are jobs? They want to be trained to get a job; they do not just want training for its own sake. My hon. Friend's policies, therefore, are designed to provide jobs for people, not just training for its own sake.
    Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The 2.3 million unemployed people in this country are not a homogeneous mass; they are a vast range of different people with different skills, different personal requirements and different needs in the jobs market. That is why it is right for us to provide a range of opportunities. There is exactly the same number of opportunities this year as last year: 1.5 million different opportunities involving training, help with interview skills, help with travelling to interviews and help with searching for jobs, through jobclubs. We provide that range because it is what people need.
    Mr. Barnes: I am glad that the Minister recognises that training does not always constitute adequate provision. In fact, in many cases it is not all that hot. Research suggests that more general educational provision is useful to adults, providing them with inroads into educational opportunities. According to a research document on miners who have been made unemployed in south Yorkshire and north-east Derbyshire, produced by the adult education department of Sheffield university, adult education makes an important contribution to solving the problems of unemployment, and the provision of training skills is inadequate.
    Mr. Paice: The report to which the hon. Gentleman draws my attention will not be launched until tomorrow, and I have therefore had no chance to study it. He is, however, right in saying that training is not the only requirement; some people need an enhancement of their educational base, and that too is possible through some of our programmes.
    The hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about former miners who lost their jobs through the restructuring of the mining industry. The good news is that unemployment is falling in all mining areas, as it is in the rest of the country.

    Ministerial Meetings
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what discussions he has had with other EU Employment Ministers on measures to reduce unemployment. [26473]
    Mr. Portillo: At meetings of the Social Affairs Council, I have urged my fellow Employment Ministers to make job creation the first priority, and not to pursue new labour market restrictions and regulations, which can only destroy jobs.
    Mr. Thompson: On that positive note, was my right hon. Friend able to discuss with his European colleagues the reasons why the United Kingdom is leading the way to lower unemployment in Europe? Was he also able to discuss the benefits flowing from our membership of the European Union, not least the right of our work force to work in Community countries? Can he confirm, for example, that in 1989 some 5,100 English people were working in Belgium, and that in 1991 some 42,600 were working in Germany? Are those not benefits?
    Mr. Portillo: The Essen European Council invited each country to describe the way in which it had been tackling

    585
    unemployment in a document. We published ours last week, and it shows a range of measures that have helped to bring down unemployment in Britain. I also think it absolutely right for us to share our experiences.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that labour mobility benefits everyone in the European Community, but at the last meeting we spent nearly all our time discussing the posted workers directive, which would restrict the mobility of labour in Europe. That was one of my reasons for opposing it.
    My hon. Friend will recognise that there is now only one market—the global market. We shall work hard to ensure that the European Union acts as a stepping stone to that global market, rather than a stumbling block.
    Mr. Janner: What minimum standards, if any, does the Secretary of State consider that European Governments, including our own, should propose to protect people at work?
    Mr. Portillo: I think that the minimum standards should he decided by the Parliament of the country concerned and not by the European Union.
    Mr. Jenkin: Has my right hon. Friend read a speech delivered by Jack Dromey in May, which cited a number of legal actions where Government policy has been defeated by the action of European law? He uses those examples to describe the Government's attempt to opt out of the social chapter as futile. Are we not in danger of losing the opt-out because of the creeping competence of the European Union and must we not get those competences back by repatriating powers from the European Union to the House to protect Government policy?
    Mr. Portillo: I think Britain has had a tremendous influence on the development of the social chapter, which has not advanced at anything above a snail's pace because we have not been part of it. Jacques Delors said that this country would become a paradise for investment, so other countries do not want to burden themselves when Britain is outside the social chapter. We have demonstrated that we can have real influence in Europe by taking a strong position, but Mr. Dromey's speech showed how the unions are determined to use the European Union's social chapter to re-establish their power at European level. That speech illustrated the connection in the Labour party's mind between the social chapter and union power more clearly than I have ever seen it demonstrated before and I commend it to every Conservative Member.
    Ms Harman: Why does not the Secretary of State repatriate his concern about unemployment? Why is he always talking about unemployment in Spain? Why does he never talk about the unemployment that his Government is causing in this country? Is he more worried about unemployment in Madrid than unemployment in Manchester? Does not he recognise that working people work best, and businesses are therefore more successful, if they feel secure, part of a team and confident that they have the protection of minimum standards? Will he therefore reaffirm his commitment to Britain's membership of the International Labour Organisation?
    Mr. Portillo: I thought that the hon. Lady's comments bordered on the xenophobic. My being well known for having a trans-European and global interest is no reason
    586
    for her to lay into me in that way. I am concerned that some people in this country cannot remember a Labour Government in Britain, so we must illustrate what the impact of Labour policies would be. Such policies are today being followed in Spain and they have produced youth unemployment three times as high as in Britain and a position whereby one third of the entire work force is on temporary contracts.
    I am reviewing the value for money that our membership of the ILO gives us, but I deplore the political posturing that the TUC has undertaken in trying to manipulate that international body into taking political postures borne out of prejudices of its own invention. The Government do not allow people at GCHQ to be represented by national trade unions because national security is at stake. That is an important position and one that the Government will maintain.

    Jobfinder's Grant
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many long-term unemployed people he expects to be helped back into employment by the recent extension of the jobfinder's grant. [26474]
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): We have made 25,000 jobfinder's grants available to help long-term unemployed people into work. But that is just one of a wide range of measures, and altogether the Department of Employment offers unemployed people 1.5 million opportunities for help every year.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the jobfinder's grant is merely part of a comprehensive package, which has enabled our country to create more than 600,000 jobs—more than any other country in the European Union—since December 1992? Is not that in total contrast to the Labour party's policies of a minimum wage and adoption of the social chapter, which would destroy jobs?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and it is due to the Government's policies that we also have lower long-term unemployment than the average for the European Union. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The jobfinder's grant is just one of a wide range of measures that include jobstart, work trials and national insurance contributions holidays for employers, which are all designed to assist long-term unemployed people into work. The Opposition's policies would, on the contrary, prolong and create unemployment. Their deputy leader refers to it as a "shake-out" and their leader refers to it as the result of an "econometric model". Whatever it amounts to and however they describe it, it means increasing misery for British workers. That is what the Opposition are promising.
    Mr. Clapham: The Minister will be aware that a large proportion of the unemployment in Barnsley is of a long-term nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred to the document published by Sheffield university. One of its proposals is that accredited education courses should be included in the training for jobs scheme, effectively making it education and training for jobs. Is the Minister prepared to give serious consideration to that proposal?
    Miss Widdecombe: We give serious consideration to all sensible proposals that are put to us and we will always

    587
    examine any possibilities that give a greater link between education, vocational training and employment. But I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that long-term unemployment is falling, that it is falling in his region as much as elsewhere and that what he should be giving his constituents is a message of hope. He should be welcoming the tried and tested policies that we have implemented. Instead of which, the message that he gives his constituents is, "Labour Government—loss of jobs."
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that long-term unemployed people want an availability of jobs? At a time when the European Community share of world trade is declining, does he agree that the European Union should reduce burdens on industry, as recommended by the Government, rather than increase them, as recommended by the Labour party?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The European Union increasingly recognises that, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recognises that, the International Monetary Fund recognises that and we recognised it long before anyone else, but the Opposition cannot catch up. All they have to offer is old policies; they cannot dress them up as anything new. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) may well put his hands up in surrender—that is what British workers can do if they get a Labour Government.
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Lady wants to stop manufacturing soundbites for Brussels and manufacture some jobs for Britain. Have not the Government introduced a jobfinder's grant because, since their friends in the privatised utilities have taken control, they have lost 250,000 jobs, at a cost of £1 billion to the taxpayer? When will the Minister of State have discussions with her friends at the top of the privatised utilities to persuade them to stop putting their snouts in the trough while sacking their workers? When are the Government going to do something about the massive job losses in the utilities, while those at the top take pay rises and share options for themselves?
    Miss Widdecombe: Why does the hon. Gentleman not consult that document that is so beloved of himself and the trade unions—the labour force survey? If he does so, he will see that employment is rising. Will he welcome that? No. Bad news is the only thing that he ever welcomes, but there is now consistent good news: falling unemployment, falling long-term unemployment, rising employment, the highest participation rates in Europe, long-term unemployment below the European average higher than average youth employment. All those are the results of our flexible labour market policies. When will the hon. Gentleman welcome those? I look forward to the day when the Opposition stand up for British workers, instead of standing up for their own interests.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that jobfinder's grant is designed to stimulate people to go on looking for work even when the going may be hard? That contrasts with the absurd view of the Labour party, which seeks to put it about that getting a job is easy and that, if jobs cannot be come by, the state would be ready to give other people's money to anyone who asks for it without anybody suffering. It is not like that.
    Miss Widdecombe: The Opposition's policies are essentially cruel because they set out to deceive the most
    588
    vulnerable by making them believe that there is some simple solution. There is no simple solution. The wide range of measures that we have put in place, however, keeps our youth and long-term unemployment below the European average and our participation rate higher. Those policies result in a better life for British workers, and they are our policies.

    West Cumbria
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he next intends to visit west Cumbria to discuss matters relating to employment with representatives of the local community. [26475]
    Mr. Paice: I was recently in Cumbria and met members of the Cumbria training and enterprise council to discuss such matters.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why keep 8,108 unemployed people in west Cumbria languishing on the dole when there is a vast amount of local work that could be done, such as environmental improvement, crime prevention, home insulation, security work, looking after the elderly, and community and general support services work? I have a list of projects that could be undertaken in west Cumbria if the Government would only see sense. Why keep people languishing on the dole?
    Mr. Paice: Nobody wants to keep people languishing on the dole, as the hon. Gentleman puts it. Through the Employment Service and the training and enterprise councils, the Government are providing 1.5 million opportunities for people to get back to work. In addition, we are providing £65 million a year for economic development in Cumbria, which is way ahead of the amount spent in many other counties.
    I understand that unemployment is higher in the hon. Gentleman's constituency than in other parts of the country; of course that is sad. Why does he not recognise, however, that unemployment has fallen in the past year and in the past two years and that it has fallen since the equivalent peak in the economic cycle in 1986? It is going in the right direction. Why does the hon. Gentleman espouse policies that would not deal with those 8,000 people? His policies would add another 8,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 to the number of unemployed people in west Cumbria.

    Age Discrimination
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the aims of the "Too Old, Who Says?" campaign; and if he will make a statement. [26477]
    Miss Widdecombe: The campaign for older workers aims to counter age discrimination in the workplace. It is targeted at employers, recruitment agencies and older workers. The advice, guidance and support provided through publications, promotional events and media coverage seek to increase the number and range of job opportunities available to older workers.
    Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that unwarranted age restrictions on jobs can deprive employers of valuable and experienced potential employees? Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in applauding the increase in the upper age limit for the training for work programme from 59 to 63 so as to reduce any possibility of age discrimination?
    Miss Widdecombe: I heartily endorse everything that my hon. Friend says. Employers who arbitrarily impose age restrictions are missing out on a wealth of talent and on very important resources. The economy is missing out on not being able to use the talents of such people. It was in recognition of the fact that older workers should be invested in as far as possible up to the age of retirement that we raised the training for work age limit from 59 to 63 as well as introduced a number of other measures which have benefited older workers.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister agree that any form of discrimination, especially age, is unacceptable? However, is there not a danger that the slogan "Too Old, Who Says?" could be undermined by Lady Thatcher's latest efforts to undermine this discredited and dying Government?
    Miss Widdecombe: If that is the best that the hon. Gentleman can manage, the Opposition clearly have no commitment to older workers. If all they can manage is crude political abuse when we are discussing a matter of major importance to thousands of workers, I ask again what I asked earlier: how can the Labour party even claim to represent British workers of any age when it does not treat such issues seriously?
    Mr. Waterson: Has my hon. Friend seen last year's manpower survey, which showed that some three quarters of employers were seriously considering making greater use of older workers? Does that not show that British industry is well aware of the enormous resource represented by the ability and experience of older workers?
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, and more crucially, it shows that the Government's campaign on behalf of older workers has been a tremendous success. It proves that industry is absorbing the message and is now preparing to act on that message. The findings of that survey were a tribute to our campaign. I hope that they will be welcomed by the Opposition.

    Job Matching
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what measures are proposed to match the availability of jobs to individuals' desire for full-time or part-time work as appropriate. [26515]
    Mr. Paice: People who visit Employment Service offices around the country already have access to information about a range of vacancies, which are openly displayed and clearly marked as full time or part time.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Is that not a callous and indifferent reply, given that, in addition to the millions of people who are unemployed, millions of people who need full-time jobs are in part-time jobs that are stultifying and inappropriate to their needs and skills? Is it not the duty of Government to maximise the potential of our country and our people by ensuring that people have jobs that are appropriate to their family circumstances, skills and aptitudes, and maximise their potential as human beings? The Government fail in that regard by maintaining a work force in part-time jobs that they do not want.
    Mr. Paice: Not only does the hon. Gentleman fail to listen to the answer but his whole harangue is based on a misunderstanding. Survey after survey has demonstrated
    590
    that some 86 per cent. of people in part-time jobs are in them because they want to be. A small proportion have part-time jobs in the hope that they will lead to full-time jobs. The Government have extended the jobmatch pilot so that people who get a part-time job can get an extra bonus through the benefit system to take on more than one part-time job and build up a portfolio to enhance their chances of that job leading to full-time employment.
    Mr. Colvin: Why was the Government's job-sharing scheme, which ran in the late 1980s, wound up? In view of what my hon. Friend has just said, have the Government any plans to reintroduce work-sharing or job-splitting schemes? A good example of those is the House of Commons Library, where we have managed to retain high-quality staff through splitting jobs. That has enabled us to continue to benefit from the extremely high quality of research and advice which we get from our Library.
    Mr. Paice: The short answer is that we have no plans to reintroduce those schemes. They were successful because they changed many people's cultural attitude to part-time working and the idea of job sharing. They are now engrained in the psyche and practice of many employers and employees who want to set about sharing their work because it fits with their family and domestic commitments. That is also why we introduced the jobmatch scheme this year for people who can genuinely get only part-time work and want to build up to full-time work.
    Ms Short: I suggest to the Minister and his colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State, that it is because their party is funded in secret by shady business interests that they do not understand, in the way that the Labour party and the British trade union movement do, why people in Britain are so worried about what is happening in the job market and about our continuing economic decline. The Government are deeply unpopular because we have high unemployment, dreadfully low wages and lots of families who are trapped on benefit. That is what the Government are doing to the people of Britain. Is that not why the Government are so deeply loathed?
    Mr. Paice: Nobody pretends that we are satisfied or happy with the present level of unemployment, but it has come down for 20 consecutive months as a result of the Government's policies. One hundred years ago, this country led the world in trade and exports. At last we are clawing our way back, as productivity is rising and we are regaining the markets of the world that we have lost. All the Labour party can do is bleat, whinge and put forward policies that would destroy our economic recovery.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June. [26458]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what the Government's attitude is towards reports that

    591
    socialist-controlled Essex county council is expecting parents to pay the costs of the transport of their children to grammar schools? Does that not show that, despite the warm words about choice and opportunity, Labour and the alliance in action are as malicious and vindictive as ever? So much for hung councils—so much for new Labour.
    The Prime Minister: The vote by the Lib-Lab pact to deprive grammar school children of free bus passes seems to me to be mean-spirited and petty, and it does damage to the notion that the Labour party stands for choice and opportunity. It seems to show the true face of Labour in local government, and gives a warning that many people would be wise to take on board. Perhaps the leader of the Labour party will ask his local government colleagues to think again on this matter, as he has on other issues.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister still say—as he did three months ago—that it would be folly to close our options on joining a single currency, including in the next Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: I set out the Government's position perfectly clearly before the House on 1 March. I made it clear that we had an opt-out, and that we would decide whether to join when the time for the decision came. We would then decide whether to exercise our opt-out. Nothing has changed.
    Mr. Blair: Nothing has changed? Does that include in the next Parliament—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me when the matter will come for a decision? He cannot. I just said perfectly clearly that when the matter comes for a decision—[Interruption.] It is perfectly clear—even for the right hon. Gentleman. When the matter comes for a decision, we will decide whether to exercise that opt-out.
    Mr. Blair: Does that include in the next Parliament? Baroness Thatcher got it wrong. The Prime Minister is not the yes, yes man—he is the don't know, don't know man. When will he learn to give the lead on this issue, because it is too important to be the plaything either of the rival ambitions in the Cabinet or of the warring factions in his party, of whom increasingly he is the prisoner and not the master?
    The Prime Minister: I have been observing the faces of some of the members of the Labour safeguards committee, who do not share the right hon. Gentleman's view on any aspect of his European policy. As for giving a lead, it was I who negotiated the choice that this country and no other country in Europe has, to make the decision that is right and in the interests of this country—whenever the matter may come up, as I have told the right hon. Gentleman twice.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June. [26459]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: I am proud to be Welsh and I am also an unashamed, Union Jack-waving Brit. Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1235, signed by 75 hon. Members, which shows that the vast majority of people
    592
    oppose bureaucratic assemblies, and that half the people who say that they will vote for the rabble opposite oppose devolution? Will my right hon. Friend continue his policies to protect and keep this kingdom united, and not sell out the vital interests of this country to sectional and divisive interests, as the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats would do?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The Opposition proposals that we have seen on devolution are ill thought out and incomplete. On all the substantial questions, after many years of talking about their policy, the Opposition have made no decision on how to deal with the main questions that arise. If they know the answers, they are keeping quiet and, if they do not, it is about time they produced them, before seeking to inflict such a disastrous policy on the United Kingdom.
    Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June. [26460]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Miss Hoey: The Prime Minister will know that I have been a strong supporter of the national lottery from the beginning, but does he realise that there is now growing concern about the way in which it operates, especially the huge profits that Camelot is making? Will he set up a small independent inquiry to examine those profits—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady will be heard.
    Miss Hoey: Will the Prime Minister set up a small independent—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am hearing some remarks that are rather derogatory and, I might say, very personal. Miss Hoey has the Floor.
    Miss Hoey: Perhaps the hon. Member concerned would like to repeat those remarks outside.
    Will the Prime Minister agree to set up a small independent inquiry to examine the profits of the national lottery, the fund distribution and the prize distribution? In particular, can such an inquiry consider ways of allowing some revenue funding, so that in my constituency, for example, school sports facilities can stay open during the summer and take children off the streets?
    The Prime Minister: There were several different parts to the hon. Lady's question. I welcome the support that she has given to the national lottery from the outset, but I do not find any real need for an independent inquiry. The profits are governed by the legislation that the House passed, and the lottery has so far raised well over £600 million for good causes. I should like to consider the distribution between capital and revenue at some time, but it would not be right to do so until we have had rather more experience of the lottery. Although many people are concerned about the size of the prizes when the lottery has been rolled over and there are very large sums indeed, I must tell the House that, whenever that has happened, contributions have risen dramatically, and with them the

    593
    available funds to be distributed to the five good causes—arts, sport, charities, the millennium fund and heritage—so I do not think it right to revisit that question at present.
    Mr. Streeter: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June. [26461]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Streeter: Has my right hon. Friend seen the recent disturbing reports of fraud and corruption in Hackney council? As independent inquiries appear to be the flavour of the afternoon, is it not now time to set up an independent and open inquiry into the growing number of cases of alleged malpractice and corruption in Labour councils all over the country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right about the flavour of the afternoon and also about the fact that there seem to he a number of cases where there are difficulties within Labour local authorities. There has been no suggestion from the Labour party of any inquiry, except one by the party behind closed doors. I know that Lord Nolan may be considering investigating local government generally. Personally, I hope that is where he will turn his attentions next, and I hope that the official Opposition will give him their support when he does so.
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June. [26462]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave sonic moments ago.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity this afternoon to reject unequivocally the malicious criticisms made of his record on television last night by Baroness Thatcher, or will he be setting up a committee of inquiry to establish the facts before he decides to take any action?
    The Prime Minister: I worked with my right hon. and noble Friend for many years and I wish her well with her new hook. I did not see the broadcast to which the hon. Lady refers, hut, if there are misconceptions in it, no doubt in some years to come I shall correct them in my memoirs.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to study the evidence in the Nolan committee report that, over the past 30 years, average real incomes in Britain rose by 80 per cent.? In the meantime, the pay of Members of Parliament is only hack where it was 30 years ago, and it has been below that level throughout the intervening period, while ministerial pay has gone down by 60 per cent. In view of that, will my right hon. Friend refer to the Nolan committee urgently the question of Members' and Ministers' pay?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend quotes some extremely telling statistics which are known to many hon. Members. I am not sure whether that is directly a matter for Lord Nolan; however, I shall myself take note of what my right hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June. [26463]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pickthall: Does the Prime Minister recall agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that it is the business of Government to help to reduce inequality? In that context, what is his response to recent reports that some Oxford colleges are warning young people not to bother applying unless their parents are rich enough to fund them? What can he do to prevent Oxbridge again becoming a preserve of the rich? How does he justify Oxbridge colleges getting £2,000 per student in extra top-up tuition fees?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the position set out by the hon. Gentleman in the case of Oxbridge or more generally. The reality for all people on low incomes across the country is that the average income of all family types has risen over recent years. Pensioner incomes have increased by more than 50 per cent. and average incomes have risen for those who are unemployed and others not in work. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Front Benchers to disagree, but if they cared to study some of the independent research, they would see that it shows that the least well-off have shared in the increase in prosperity. The Institute of Fiscal Studies shows that the standard of living measured by expenditure for the lowest tenth has increased by 14 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned poverty, he might be aware that the bottom income decile—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister will be heard in the House. I will have order.
    The Prime Minister: I know that the Opposition do not like their misconceptions corrected, but they are going to have them corrected none the less. The bottom income decile has experienced improvement in income, improvement in consumer durables and improvement of living standards, year after year.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June. [26464]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bottomley: As my right hon. Friend was not able to watch television last night, may I tell him that one of the subjects covered in an interview with his predecessor was housing? May I suggest to him that people trying to get on to the housing ladder benefit by having low housing prices, relatively low interest rates and the opportunity to join in the property-owning democracy, and will he continue policies directed to that end?
    The Prime Minister: There has been, as my hon. Friend will know, a dramatic increase in home ownership in the past few years, and there was a further increase again last year. As the House should know—although perhaps not everyone will wish to acknowledge it—mortgage payments are about £130 a month lower than they were in October 1990. Perhaps more pertinently, as a proportion of average income they are now at their lowest for a decade. I think that shows very clearly the prospects for increasing home ownership in future.

BMARC
3.30 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I wish to make a statement about the defence manufacturer BMARC and the export of naval guns and ammunition to Iran, via Singapore, during the late 1980s. My statement is prompted by three questions asked by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). The questions asked my Department when my Department was informed about allegations that Singapore was a conduit for arms exported by BMARC to Iran; which BMARC contracts were notified as being potentially in breach of export controls; and what assessment I had made of any breaches of export control by BMARC. In April, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology and I were not satisfied that we had sufficient information to answer those questions properly. I therefore asked officials in my Department to do further research. I am now in a position to report to the House.
It may help hon. Members if I start by setting out the role of different Government Departments in export control matters. My Department is the licensing authority for export control. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office advise the Department of Trade and Industry on military applications. However, the investigation of export control offences is a matter for the independent investigator and prosecutor, Customs and Excise. The responsibility of my Department is to pass to it any relevant information that may assist its decision whether an investigation is warranted. The DTI has already made available to Customs and Excise all the information that has emerged as a result of my inquiries.
It may also be helpful if I set out briefly the relevant corporate history of BMARC. BMARC was owned by the Swiss defence contractor Oerlikon until May 1988, when it was acquired by the United Kingdom firm, Astra. After Astra bought BMARC in May 1988, BMARC continued to manufacture equipment to meet orders from Oerlikon.
In order to answer the parliamentary questions, I commissioned detailed research into two aspects: first, the intelligence information available to the Government; and secondly, the export licensing history.
I shall now answer the question as to the intelligence available to the Government. In 1986, intelligence was obtained that Iran had concluded a contract with Oerlikon for the supply of weaponry and ammunition. The intelligence picture developed in 1987, when it was revealed that naval guns made by Oerlikon had been offered to Iran by a company in Singapore. In July and September 1988, two intelligence reports rounded out the picture by referring to naval guns and ammunition being supplied by Oerlikon through Singapore to Iran. Important detail in one of the 1988 reports was identical to some of that mentioned in the 1986 intelligence.I must emphasise that none of the intelligence reports mentioned BMARC.
As to the export licensing history, during the period 1986–88 BMARC, in relation to orders from Oerlikon that were enclosed with the licence forms, sought and obtained United Kingdom export licences for the export of similar naval guns and ammunition to Singapore. Two of those export licence applications by BMARC to Singapore, for naval guns in 1986, which were subsequently approved, referred to a project that had also been mentioned in the 1986 intelligence.
596
It is for customs to investigate breaches of export control. However, it does appear that there may be grounds for believing that the final destination of naval cannon made by BMARC could well have been Iran, given that intelligence reports during the period mentioned equipment similar to that for which BMARC secured export licences for Singapore.
The events that I have outlined occurred six to nine years ago. I have concluded, however, that connections should have been made between the intelligence reports naming Oerlikon and the BMARC licence applications made in support of orders from Oerlikon. It would not have been possible for officials in my Department to take account of the 1986 intelligence, as it had not been distributed to the Department of Trade and Industry. However, the DTI failed to make a connection between any export licence applications by BMARC and Oerlikon's trade with Iran mentioned in the 1988 intelligence, which was distributed to the DTI. I understand that the relevant intelligence has now been passed to customs, as the investigating authority. Arrangements for the distribution and handling of intelligence, both generally and in the DTI, have been substantially improved since 1988.
I now refer to allegations made by the former chairman of Astra, Mr. Gerald James. He made allegations about the involvement of BMARC in a project called Lisi. According to Mr. James's evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, which was looking into exports to Iraq, that was to supply
"medium calibre armaments—ammunition, weapons and tooling to Singapore for onward transmission to Iran".
Those allegations were first drawn to my Department's attention in March 1991, when the company inspectors looking into the affairs of Astra informed the DTI of the allegations made by Mr. James. Those same allegations were repeated by Mr. James in his written evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, and were then passed by my Department to Customs and Excise in November 1991. At that time, customs came to the view that the allegations, which were made in association with a number of other allegations by Mr. James and which it believed to be unsupported, did not justify initiating a full investigation.
Earlier this year there were allegations that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was aware of those contracts during his period as a non-executive director of BMARC between September 1988 and March 1990. My right hon. Friend has already made his position clear in a statement to the House during Treasury questions on 30 March, when he said that he was never given any indication or information that could suggest that BMARC's contract with Singapore might subsequently result in components being shipped to Iran.
Let me refer to two additional matters raised by the results of the detailed inquiries that my Department has undertaken.
First, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement answered two related questions on 25 April 1995 from the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North about the export of arms to Iran by BMARC. In the light of the further research that has now been carried out, my right hon. Friend has today written to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North providing supplementary information on the handling within the Ministry of Defence of the available intelligence and BMARC's export licences for Singapore.

597
Secondly, an official in my Department wrote on 5 April to the private secretary to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary about the information available in my Department in the late 1980s about the destination of those exports. The letter was based on information believed then to be accurate. But the detailed inquiries which I subsequently set in hand, and which I have described to the House today, now show a different picture.
In preparing an answer to a recent parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), I asked my officials to look at the state of export licences in general over this period. I have had a check done on the number of applications by BMARC in the period 1986 to 1989 that enclosed the full supporting documentation, by which I mean end-user certificates, end-use statements or international import certificates. That showed that 36 per cent. of BMARC applications did not enclose the full supporting documentation, although I should add that the application form itself requires exporters to state the end user of the goods.
I have commissioned a sample survey of military list licence applications over a similar period, which suggests that, on average, 74 per cent. of all applications during the same period did not include the full supporting documentation. I must emphasise that that is supporting documentation. It would be entirely wrong to assume from the figures that I have given that a large proportion of exporters misled the Department. The survey has been passed to Customs and Excise.
The difficulties faced by the Export Licensing Unit in the late 1980s had already been made plain to the Trade and Industry Select Committee in 1991. They also featured in Sir Richard Scott's inquiry with regard to exports to Iraq. The failure of the Export Licensing Unit to insist in the past that full documentation was provided can, in part, be put down to the increase in licence applications, which doubled between the start of 1984 and the end of 1985, and reached a peak of 97,842 in 1987, placing a severe strain on the Export Licensing Unit.
My Department has already set out in answer to the Trade and Industry Select Committee the improvements made in export licensing practice. Action has been taken to ensure proper oversight of current licence applications by licensing staff, including a requirement in all cases for a full and unambiguous statement of the intended end use and end user.
As I explained to the House, the information relating to the licence applications by BMARC has been passed to Customs and Excise, to consider whether any export control offences may have been committed. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further.
On the more general issues relating to export licensing and the use of intelligence material, the Government will, of course, wish to consider carefully the recommendations from Sir Richard Scott's inquiry. In the meantime, and in the light of parliamentary interest in this particular matter, my Department would be very ready to co-operate if the Trade and Industry Select Committee wished to examine the issues raised by the allegation that Singapore was used as a conduit for arms exported by BMARC to Iran.
Dr. John Cunningham: It is to the great credit of my hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central
598
(Mr. Cousins) that this statement has been made today because, without their persistence in questioning the President of the Board of Trade, this latest fiasco of negligence and incompetence on the part of Ministers, and not just officials—I emphasise that—would never have come to light.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the background to the astonishing story that he has revealed today is the guidelines announced to the House on the sale of arms by the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Howe? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Howe said:
"We should maintain our consistent refusal to supply…lethal equipment to either side"
in the Iran-Iraq war, that:
"We should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict"
and finally, and most devastatingly, that the Government would, in line with this policy,
"continue to scrutinise rigorously all applications for export licences"?—[Official Report, 29 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 450.]
Of course, we know that, far from upholding any of those guidelines, Ministers and officials covertly ignored them all—that is the reality revealed by the right hon. Gentleman's statement.
Is not it also odd that the right hon. Gentleman said that on some occasions intelligence about those deals was given to his Department but that, on other occasions, intelligence was withheld? The House is entitled to ask what really was going on in the Government at this time when, publicly, we were said to be denying weapons of war to Iran and Iraq but, privately, Ministers were conniving in their supply?
How is it that the right hon. Gentleman's Department apparently did not know about such things while Mr. Alan Clark, then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, told my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) in December 1990:
"Shortly after acquiring PRB, Astra Holdings plc consulted the MOD about certain contracts which the company had inherited through its acquisition."—[Official Report, 18 December 1990; Vol. 183, c. 133.]
Was that information, too, withheld by his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence from the Department of Trade and Industry? Would the right hon. Gentleman like to explain that to the House? How is it that one Government Department knew of the sensitivity and implications of those contracts while apparently another one did not?
How is it that Mr. Gerald James, the former chairman, was able to say, and substantiate the fact with documents, that anyone would have to be blind and deaf not to know that arms were going to Iran from BMARC? Are our intelligence services all blind and deaf? Are our officials all blind and deaf? Of course, Mr. James was referring specifically to a non-executive director of his company who subsequently became Minister of State for Defence Procurement. That says something about prime ministerial judgment, does it not? Of course, the reference is to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Why was it that apparently throughout this time, the Ministers responsible were not asking any searching questions of their officials about the course of events?
Once again, not because of any honesty on the part of the Government, or because of any desire for openness, and certainly not because of any competence on their part,

599
the House and the country have learnt of yet another scandal—another piece of unvarnished Government duplicity. And the credit for these revelations goes to my hon. Friends, not the President.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to recognise the seriousness of the matter. That is why I have taken the extremely unusual step of making an oral statement in reply to written parliamentary questions. But he has overstated the case and in many ways misrepresented what I have put to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the guidelines which, as he rightly says, it was the Government's clear intention to implement. It is because that was the Government's intention that there were at one time 97,000 licence applications. Nothing is clearer than the fact that the Government had put in place a system designed to implement the guidelines.
It is also beyond question—this is not news to the House—that the arrangements did not prove to be watertight, but that fact is being explored and examined by Sir Richard Scott. This issue overlaps with his inquiry—hence the number of licences is as relevant to this case as it is to the Scott inquiry, which is dealing with matters relating to Iraq.
I do not believe that Ministers "connived". I have seen no evidence to support that view. There is a world of difference between saying that people deliberately connived or covertly ignored and the other apparent interpretation of the evidence that I have put to the House: which is that the system was on such a scale that a limited number of issues escaped the net and connections were not made in every case as a result of intelligence that might have been differently interpreted.
I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that his interpretation, and the extreme language that he used, will not, on mature reflection, prove to have been justified.
Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House will recognise that he was absolutely right to come and make the full statement that he has made today? Some of the events to which he refers took place nine years ago, and at one time about 90,000 export licence applications were involved; and certain companies—some of them foreign with British subsidiaries—were trying to avoid the export licence requirements.
My right hon. Friend is nevertheless correct to suggest that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry investigate the matter further. The new Intelligence and Security Committee has already been examining the use made of our intelligence, and whether the Government Departments that are its customers are fully apprised of any information that intelligence may have. Is my right hon. Friend therefore aware that I think it right—without prejudice to the views of my colleagues on the Committee—that although the Trade and Industry Select Committee, with its responsibilities for DTI export licensing, should look further into the matter, the Intelligence and Security Committee will be interested in doing so as well?
Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I say at once that my Department would co-operate with any inquiry that he saw fit to establish in the name of his Committee. He will, I hope, find that we have done a great deal to tackle the dissemination of intelligence since these events took place; but this is an important matter and I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's views.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Did it really need expensively gathered intelligence to make clear to Ministers the fairly obvious point that Singapore was hardly a credible end destination for any of these items? Who in the Government is prepared to take responsibility for that obvious oversight? As the Department has responsibility for company directors, will the right hon. Gentleman authorise an independent inquiry into the amount of knowledge held by all the directors of the board of the company, and into why they thought that the end destination was Singapore?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that I have referred all matters of which I am currently aware to the enforcement authority, Customs and Excise. It is its responsibility now to make such decisions.
Sir Cranley Onslow: Whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter might turn out to be—I do not believe that my right hon. Friend is wrong in telling people not to leap to the kind of conclusions that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) is so anxious to draw—my right hon. Friend clearly deserves to be commended for the way in which he has handled this very difficult matter.
In response to my right hon. Friend's comments about the Trade and Industry Select Committee, may I say, as a member of that Committee, that I hope very much that it will agree to resume its previous inquiries and that it will do so as soon as possible?
Mr. Heseltine: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. If his views prove to be those of the Committee of which he is a distinguished member, my Department will offer full co-operation.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that if 36 per cent. of BMARC's military export licences were not properly filled in, it was in breach of the export control order system, and that his own Department has conspired and colluded in that breach of the export control orders? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask himself these questions: who knew; and who benefited? How is the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) ever to clear his name in the face of this disgrace, this dishonour and these deceits? Is it not time for Scott II?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman will wish to reflect carefully on what he said, because, if I remember correctly, the figures that I gave the House for the number of BMARC applications, and for the other applications, were for the period that included times when my right hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) was not a member of the board of the company concerned, so what the House is considering is an extension of the evidence that is already before Sir Richard Scott.
We understand—it has been clearly discussed and ventilated—the fact that, under the strain of the pressures of scale, the licensing system was not as effectively administered as one would have liked with hindsight. It is important to recognise that the forms may have contained the information, but the supporting documents were not, in the cases to which I referred, available in every case. That is the issue, but it was quite clear from the survey that I carried out—it was a sample; I can say no more

601
than that—that there was no special treatment for BMARC. Indeed, from the survey, it appears that the position for the average company was a great deal less satisfactory than it was for BMARC.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The former BMARC factory at Faldingworth is in my constituency. May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a very candid and comprehensive statement today? Is he aware, however, that trade union officials, in conversations that I have had with them at that site, have made it absolutely clear to me that no member of the staff there, or in their view a non-executive director, such as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, would have had or could have had any knowledge of the end destination of the goods?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has had to say. He will know that what he has said is consistent with what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has already told the House.
Mr. Allan Rogers: The President of the Board of Trade will be aware that, between 1989 and 1992, I tabled a series of written questions to his Department and to the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Indeed, I wrote to the Prime Minister on this issue. Every one of the answers denied that there were exports of arms into Iran and Iraq, through Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia or anywhere else—even South Africa.
In view of the statement that the President of the Board of Trade made today, will he look back on the answers to those questions and perhaps rectify them? He has stated that the Department responsible for prosecutions or for investigating breaches of export control is Customs and Excise. Following the couple of referrals that he has made, has any action been taken by Customs and Excise? And who is the Minister responsible for Customs and Excise? Is it the Chief Secretary to the Treasury?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will himself wish to look at any parliamentary questions that have, in his view, been answered potentially inaccurately. If he wishes to table them again, we shall of course consider them fully.
Mr. Rogers: I did five years ago.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman makes the very point. We are dealing with a long period of time and a large number of licences. It is, I hope, for the Select Committee to investigate the issues that might arise. The cost of asking officials to check through all those licences, over all that time, would have to be weighed against the public interest in the likely evidence that might emerge. I have made it as clear as I can that my Department will co-operate in any way that is possible; but, as the House knows, Customs and Excise is an independent prosecuting authority.
Mr. Stephen Byers: In the light of today's statement, will the President of the Board of Trade urge his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to disclose the evidence that he has given the Scott inquiry concerning his role as a director of BMARC? Will he confirm that the details that he has disclosed to us this afternoon concerning BMARC are contained in
602
documents that were subject to a public interest immunity certificate signed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 2 or 3 September 1992, when he was Minister of State for Defence Procurement?
Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that there will be widespread concern about the fact that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was prepared to see the innocent directors of Matrix Churchill go to gaol rather than disclose documents that would have been politically damaging to him?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises serious points, but in raising them now he ought to have referred to the fact that those matters have been exhaustively considered by the Scott inquiry, and that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has dealt specifically with them. It will now be for Sir Richard Scott to publish, as he sees fit, any comments that he considers appropriate.
Mr. Alex Salmond: The President of the Board of Trade has told the House twice that, in his opinion, connections should have been made with the earlier intelligence information. Will he now specify who should have made the connections, why they did not do so and what, in his opinion, should happen to them now? Does he consider that the line of responsibility for this failure of policy stops with officials or with Ministers?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has raised the very question that I think a Select Committee would explore. The House is fully aware, however, that Ministers do not make decisions about the disciplining of civil servants; that is a matter that the permanent secretaries of the individual Departments would have to address.
As for ministerial responsibility, the issue that would be explored is whether Ministers knew that these events were taking place. How Ministers could have known that the situation was developing, in the circumstances, is for subsequent examination. I have given the House the information that is currently available to me, but it was clear from what I had to say that until very recently the facts that I have revealed today were not widely understood.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that some of the accusations and innuendos that Opposition Members have delivered today in regard to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are a disgrace? Is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has already said, in a public statement to the House and outside, that he will co-operate fully with the Scott inquiry, and that Lord Justice Scott is the correct person to investigate those matters?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has made a statement to the House about this matter, and I think that that is the most substantial evidence that he could be expected to produce.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is it not now requisite upon the Prime Minister, in view of the sleaze-stained record of his Government, that he establish yet another public inquiry—this time into the extraordinary obtuseness of his Ministers?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has failed to realise that it was not my right hon. Friend's Government.
Mr. Peter Hain: May I seek clarification from the President of the Board of Trade? Is he really saying that this crucial matter of national security involving the export of arms to an illegitimate destination is all a matter for civil servants and is nothing to do with him, that he should not have known and that ministerial responsibility is out of the window?
Mr. Heseltine: I did not say that. I merely said that if there were an inquiry by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry into this specific matter, which I have said I would welcome, these things would become clearer. At that stage, we could have the debate that the hon. Gentleman has suggested.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of today's statement by the President of the Board of Trade, will my constituent Mr. Gerald James now be offered an apology for all the leaking by Government Departments, Ministers and civil servants against him, and for the assassination of his character in the past three years as he insisted that he was right in his allegations? As it was he who stated in 1990 that, when Astra took over BMARC in 1988, he found that it was running a secret order book that was being managed by three other directors of the company, and as everything that has been said today points to the fact that his allegations at that time were true, does he not deserve an apology and should he not receive one?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that, as I said in my statement, those matters are being considered by the investigating authorities. It is not for me to try to double-guess or to influence those authorities in any way.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The President of the Board of Trade said earlier that it was not for Ministers to discipline civil servants. Was it not the President of the Board of Trade who, in another guise—that of the Secretary of State for Defence—hounded Clive Ponting out of a job?
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: And he told the truth.
Mr. Skinner: Yes. In this seedy affair, is it not time that some ministerial heads rolled? Why is it that the arrogant Government we have now seem to think that they are not responsible for anything? When will someone have the guts to resign?
Mr. Heseltine: As on so many other occasions, the hon. Gentleman's memory has failed him. I came to the House with a full explanation of what happened at that time and the House supported me in what I had to say.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I have in my hand a letter of 12 June from his constituent Gerald James, who has recently been in ill health. Does it do the House of Commons or the Government any credit to say, "Wait until Scott"? May we have an answer here and now to the question whether Gerald James did tell the truth and persons in government—1 am being very cautious; it would be wrong to express an opinion as to who—suppressed the truth? In fairness to that individual, who has been in contact with many Members of Parliament on both sides of the House, should there not be a statement about his
604
position before Sir Richard Scott reports? Indeed, it is astonishing to some of us that Sir Richard Scott is supposed to be the vehicle that considers such complicated matters, which some of us would have thought were outside his original remit.
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, having set up an independent inquiry and having independent enforcement agencies, it would be wrong for a Minister to anticipate conclusions that they have not yet reached.
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: In respect of the allegations being made against the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the President of the Board of Trade says that we must await Sir Richard Scott's report. Does he not recognise that there is a problem, in that the Scott inquiry was set up to look into arms to Iraq, whereas BMARC concerns arms to Iran and Sir Richard Scott has said that there is a problem about that?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right, but I was referring to a wide range of issues, including the dissemination of intelligence and the licensing system, both of which are being considered by Sir Richard Scott. In addition to my reference to the Scott inquiry, I referred to the responsibilities of Customs and Excise and the possibility that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and now, as we heard, the Intelligence and Security Committee, might take an interest in the matter.
Sir David Steel: Does not the President of the Board of Trade accept that the matter goes much wider than form filling, or the lack of it, in the Department of Trade and Industry? At the time, the House was given assurances—to me and to other hon. Members—about the guidelines being rigorously enforced. Ministers presided over a period when war was raging between Iran and Iraq and there was a sudden increase in demands for export licences made to Government Departments in this country for innocent places such as Singapore. Did no one in the Government put two and two together?
Mr. Heseltine: Again, those are matters that would be explored by the Trade and Industry Select Committee. I have asked such questions myself. There are complications. The House will be as surprised as I was to hear about one of the reasons why the licences increased on such a scale. It was not the result of the issues that we are discussing today, but because of the technological advances that took place in such things as laptop computers, which meant a huge increase in the number of pieces of equipment for which business people had to apply for licences. That was one reason for the large increase in the number of applications—[Interruption.] I must say that it is intolerable that when one comes to the House to explain a matter of this importance, all one gets from the Opposition is sniggering indifference to the real subject under debate.
Mr. Andrew Miller: I presume that the President of the Board of Trade presides over the Board of Trade. It seems odd that, in defending the figure of 36 per cent. of BMARC applications, he referred to an even worse figure—74 per cent., I think, of all applications. Is it reasonable to assume that those included applications for other countries for which there

605
should be arms embargoes—or, at least, the Government state that there are embargoes? As part of his review, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that he researches recent parliamentary questions about other countries for which there are arms embargoes and that the House gets the truth about the situation affecting other countries involved, in particular Burma and Iraq?
Mr. Heseltine: It is because I was so concerned that the House should have the whole story that I made this oral statement. If the hon. Gentleman has further specific questions for me, I shall do my best to give him accurate answers.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: The House will note that, when given the opportunity to do so by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), the right hon. Gentleman declined to defend the role of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in all this. Does the President of the Board of trade accept that the added evidence that he has presented to the House today of the fiasco surrounding the guidelines for the export of arms to Iran and Iraq adds great weight to the claims of my constituents and others in the Coventry area, who were deprived of their jobs as a result of intervention in Matrix Churchill, for proper compensation for them and for the directors who lost their jobs as a result of the failure of Government policy in that whole area?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that I and many of my colleagues have given evidence to the Scott inquiry and we look forward to what he has to say.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Before the Secretary of State cloaks himself in too much virtue for coming here, will he confirm that this morning, before we were informed that there was to be a statement, I tabled a further written parliamentary question asking why I had not received the letter that was promised to me on 28 April and when the Secretary of State intended to write to me? Does he accept that if we were to believe everything in this statement, the Government would seem to be the classic Government of wise monkeys who see no evil and hear no evil to a quite remarkable extent? Does he accept that, as far back as 1990, the Ministry of Defence seized files from Astra, the owner of BMARC, as part of a fraud investigation? Those files referred to Astra and BMARC trade with Iraq and Iran. Were the files handed to the DTI then? If not, why not? If they were, why have we had to wait five years for this statement?
The Secretary of State referred to the fact that the ship of state was not watertight in respect of these issues. Does he accept that that is something of an understatement? It is a distinguishing feature that, until a few minutes ago,
606
the captain of the ship was sitting next to one of the chief saboteurs. Does he also accept that this is not so much a matter for Select Committees, but one of old-fashioned integrity, which requires resignations? Is not the truth that BMARC knew that lethal equipment was being sold illegally to Iran via Singapore, that the DTI knew that arms were being sold illegally to Iran via Singapore and that Ministers knew that the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) knew that such arms were being sold illegally to Iran?
May we have a far more wide-reaching inquiry than anything that has been suggested today? The Secretary of State should be absolutely clear that this is not a matter for any previous Government. It is a matter for this Government, including every right hon. and hon. Member who sits on the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman apparently tabled a parliamentary question today. I had no knowledge of that. If he tabled it today, how could I possibly have knowledge of it? It is a novel idea that the Table Office should telephone me to say, that a question has been tabled. I am a bit out of touch with such things because I have not tabled any questions for some time, but I thought that the procedure was that questions were tabled at the Table Office and not in Departments. If the hon. Gentleman were so anxious to convey the urgency of the matter to me, he might have done me the courtesy of writing to me in my Department. Perhaps then I would have known about it.
The hon. Gentleman must decide what he wants. He tabled parliamentary questions, and we have conducted a very detailed examination into a range of very serious matters. I presume that that is what he would have wanted us to do. That is why we have not answered his questions. As soon as I was in a position to answer his questions, I came to the House. It is pure coincidence that he tabled a parliamentary question today.
The question of the files in connection with Astra, as I understand it, was to do with the prosecution of a former BMARC director and arose from the particular issue of the MOD police raids that took place. Again, those matters must be considered in the total context. I have tried to answer as accurately as I can the questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  EDUCATION
  That the Education (Fees and Awards) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No.1241) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.[Mr Conway.]
  Question agreed to.

Electoral Reform
4.17 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control parliamentary election expenses within limits set nationally and in each constituency; to establish a national registration system for political parties; to require companies who donate to parties to establish accountable political funds; and for connected purposes.
Our general election system is potentially corrupt. It can be—and almost certainly has been—abused by the rich, the powerful and criminals to buy influence and honours from political parties. The law places strict limits on all election moneys that are spent in local areas on saying, "Vote for Blair" or, "Vote for Major", but there are no controls whatever on moneys spent on saying, "Vote Labour" or, "Vote Conservative".
Vast sums have increasingly been spent on so-called national spending and have been concentrated in the 150 constituencies where elections are won and lost. For every pound spent in constituencies, £8 is spent nationally. The Bill seeks to limit such spending, ban secret overseas donations, make the accounts of political parties transparent, restore some credibility to the honours system and stop attempts by companies such as Imperial Tobacco to subvert Government policy for its own anti-social ends.
Today, I had the pleasure of welcoming to Parliament representatives of the Latvian Saema. We take great pride in our democracy and claim that it is the mother of democracies, but our system is long overdue for a great deal of care and maintenance. In that area, we are in a foolish position. For more than 100 years, we rigidly controlled local spending by candidates and had severe penalties for overspenders. Having introduced reforms to control bribing and treating, an aberration in the law in 1974 allowed parties to spend unlimited amounts.
While the law frets about the minnows of spending, the fat salmon go by unhindered. The Bill is supported by all Opposition parties and even a progressive group in the Conservative party seeks such reforms.
There is no better example of the abuses that have occurred than of Imperial Tobacco's handing over of 2,000 poster sites to the Conservative party in 1992. In a letter to me, its marketing manager explained why. He said:
"Labour and Liberal Democrats had said they would support a ban on tobacco advertising. Speaking as a tobacco company we'd like to see the Conservative party re-elected because we believe they will continue to oppose the advertising ban."
The Conservatives have delivered on that.
Nothing in the future prevents any person or company, here or abroad, or even any country, however malign their interest might be, from spending unlimited millions—billions, if they want—on campaigning for any party. If not yet corrupted, our system certainly invites corruption. Vote buying has returned to British elections. Scandals have involved many parties, including the Labour party, to which, it has been claimed, people with criminal records or criminal intent, such as Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Costas, have given money. It has been claimed that Hong Kong business men have contributed to the Conservative party—that Sir Yue-Kong Pao gave £1 million and that Li Ka-Shing contributed £100,000. It has been claimed that two fugitives from British justice, Mr. Asil Nadir and Mr. Octav Botnar, contributed £440,000 and £1 million respectively to the Conservative party, and we know of the case of Mr. Mohamed Fayed.
608
It is a great shame that the Select Committee on Home Affairs did not produce the answers that the House wanted. First, it sought not to have the investigation and then to delay and weaken it by denying witnesses to the House, including witnesses from the Conservative party. It did Parliament no service whatever by producing an anodyne report that did not deal with a serious problem. It is a great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), that he produced, in an amendment, a splendid report that gives us some practical reforms for the future.
The case of Mr. Asil Nadir is even more worrying because it reveals that the sums he gave the Conservative party had been channelled through firms abroad and that the Conservative party was not clear what its sources were. In a statement, the former Treasurer, Lord McAlpine, claimed that Asil Nadir had met him in 1991 and tried to persuade him to ensure that criminal charges against him would be dropped. It was suggested that that would be in return for the donations he had made to the Conservative party.
I have other examples of how money is used subversively. There is a correlation between the sums of money given by companies and the honours that members of those companies have received in the system. The figures have been given to the House on many occasions. The rate for peerages seems to be about £500,000 and that for knighthoods seems to be about £250,000. It is disgraceful that our democracy should be so besmirched by such practices.
It should be the duty of all right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that we put democracy back on an even keel. We must stop what is now going on. It is possible for democracy to be subverted by the wealthy, the powerful, the criminal and those—such as tobacco companies—who want to use their contributions for purposes that are contrary to the interests of the people and to buy their own or their party's way to power. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.24 pm
Mr. David Shaw: I oppose the Bill because it is one-sided. Labour and the trade unions were hardly mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), and the structure that would result from the proposals in the Bill would be open to abuse. The Bill would bring political parties under the control of the state and the Government of the day, and we would have no democracy. The proposals would lead to state funding of political parties, which is what Labour's 1992 manifesto called for. I believe that the Bill is based on a fundamental misconception about the financing of the Conservative party.
The hon. Member for Newport, West failed to open up the mysteries of trade union and Labour party funding, but we can find many secret arrangements the Labour party puts together to get funds from as many different sources as possible. What we find is that the trade unions own and control the Labour party and its finances. We find in the accounts of the Labour party that 70 per cent. of funding comes from the trade unions directly.
We cannot find the major donors from the Labour party's accounts, but, by going to the trade union accounts, we can discover that four or five major unions give

609
£1 million pounds apiece to the Labour party. I wish that the Conservative party could rely on four or five people to donate £1 million apiece, election after election. It is easy for the leader of the Labour party to raise money. He just has to make four or five telephone calls, and £1 million turns up as a result of each.
The Labour party has a problem, and that is what lies behind the Bill. Membership of the Labour party has not been going up, as the publicity machine would have us believe. If one reads the accounts carefully, we see that the party is not taking off the list people who are not paying their subscriptions. The Labour party's most recent accounts showed that contributions from the membership had gone down.
Writers who sell their books offshore—gosh knows where their money is, but it is not easily detectable onshore—and the pop stars who support the Labour party, we wonder how much of their money is onshore, may announce their support for the Labour party, but the accounts show that they are not donating very much and certainly not to the extent about which they sing and write.
The secrecy behind the Labour party's accounts is considerable. Although there is £4.7 million of direct financing, a large amount of indirect financing goes into what I call the off-balance sheet and off-profit and loss accounts. Some £2.2 million does not go to the main accounts, but directly to the general election funds. The Walworth road property arrangements—whereby the trade unions own that property—have been varied so that the rental agreement now covers the decorating and maintenance of the property by the tenant, the Labour party. The trade unions pick up the bill for that.
There is a business plan, in which £2 million a year is donated to the Labour party. People may ask whether that affects the control of the Labour party, and it is clear from the accounts that it does. The accounts suggest that the business plan is managed by a group of guarantor unions— the GMB, the Union of Communications Workers, the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers and the Transport and General Workers Union—Which is defined as the control group. Therefore, I believe that they control the Labour party.
One area of the Labour party's financing is open and available for people to discover. It has taken a pensions holiday and not paid into its pension funds for the past two years. Some might think that the Labour party has "done a Maxwell" on its own pensioners.
The Labour party also sets up secret companies. A company called Common Campaign Ltd. was set up in August 1994 to finance newspaper advertising by the Labour party during the general election. That is outside Labour party rules, which require donations of £5,000 and more to be disclosed. The company was set up by Labour party supporters in an attempt to avoid such disclosure.
I have not much time to go into as much detail as I should like, but some further points need to be made. Not only do the trade unions, representing 8 million or fewer people, control the Labour party, they constitute a powerful group of organisations behind that party. Almost £1 billion in assets are shown in the trade union accounts. There is a £200 million annual cash flow, £300 million in directly owned assets and £400 million in pension fund
610
assets. All those resources are used to help one political party when a general election comes, so there are almost £1 billion worth of assets behind the Labour party. The Conservative party's financing pales into insignificance in comparison.
The Walworth road development trust, which has recently been set up, receives a contribution of £244,000 in support from the GMB, and that does not even come from the GMB's political funds, but from its direct funds, so Conservative members of the union support that loan to the Labour party. The Labour party's business plan has been set, and the GMB has put a £75,000 general guarantee from its general funds behind that Labour party development plan.
Another form in which the Labour party gets help from the unions is grants to parliamentary candidates. The GMB donates £30,000 for those, and other unions make similar donations. Those are not only the national affiliation; the local affiliations of the GMB account for about £294,000. Other unions do likewise. The GMB's central Labour party affiliation accounts for more than £1 million.
Then there is the Labour party's by-election insurance fund, towards which the GMB also contributes, as it does to the Labour party conference. There is a sinister operation based in Walworth road called the trade unions for a Labour victory levy, with mysterious staff operating out of Labour party headquarters. The GMB alone contributes £94,000 to it.
Trade unions are contributing to the Labour party in all sorts of different ways. I have not had time to mention the 1992 general election, in which trade union advertising cost as much as the Conservative party spent, whereas the Labour party itself spent still more on advertising. NALGO spent £1 million on advertising alone, and the trade unions were happy because, in a confidential memorandum, it was said:
"The evidence for both the 1987 and 1992 elections is that where there was well co-ordinated union involvement, involving many unions, with a co-ordinator in place early and with time to properly co-ordinate activities, then the election result was significantly better than average. An example of excellent union involvement was York…Croydon, North-West…Norwich, North".
In all those constituencies, the trade unions put in resources out of all proportion to the legal election funds and to anything that was allowed under the law. They put those resources together and provided extra money to get Labour candidates returned.
There are many reasons for opposing the Bill. The Labour party has lots of secret funds. Through its leader and its leadership, it gains money from the trade unions through all sorts of different accounts and in all sorts of different ways. The Conservative party must do everything to resist that, for the sake of democracy, because we are outgunned financially by a narrow band of people who are not widely representative.
When it is alleged that one gets a return from donating to the Conservative party, we should remember the words of Mr. Fayed, who said that he had given £250,000 but got nothing in return. That is evidence that, if one donates to the Conservative party, there is no guarantee of anything in return. One donor made that clear. If one donates to the Labour party, however, one has total control, according to the Labour party's own accounts. The Bill seeks to promote the Labour's party sources of

611
finance and funding and to make sure that the Conservative party has even more difficulty raising money. Labour goes in for secret financing—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Whip to bully a Conservative Back Bencher and stop him calling a Division of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker: If there was an incident, I did not see it.
Question agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Paddy Tipping, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Dennis Turner and Mr. David Winnick.

Electoral Reform
  ELECTORAL REFORM
  Mr. Paul Flynn accordingly presented a Bill to control parliamentary election expenses within limits set nationally and in each constituency; to establish a national registration system for political parties; to require companies who donate to parties to establish accountable political funds; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
Opposition Day
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Housing Market
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to announce to the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.38 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move,
  That this House, concerned by the continuing depressed state of the housing market, the reduction in the building of houses for rent, and the impact this has on the construction industry, and recognising the plight of owner-occupiers trapped by negative equity and hard hit by rising housing costs, calls on the Government to abandon policies such as the proposals to limit the help available from income support with mortgage interest payments which can only reinforce insecurity and delay recovery.
  There may be a little common ground between the two sides of the House, at least on the fact that the housing market has had a bad time and is struggling. Ministers put on brave smiles and there was talk of the recovery that the Prime Minister promised would start on the Friday after the last general election. The smiles have become a little forced over the months, as recovery limped into sight and then gave up. There has been no sustained growth and no bounce, and anyone looking at the scene at the moment must be worried.
  The Halifax building society's house price index is down 1.5 per cent. in the year to April 1995. There has been a cumulative decline of 10 to 15 per cent. since 1990, which continues. There are almost 1,000 repossessions a week—about 50,000 a year. Depending on which figures one reads, between 700,000 and 1.2 million people may be trapped in negative equity.
  Housing costs are increasing, partly as a result of interest rate increases, partly as a result of reductions in mortgage interest relief at source and partly as a result of income support mortgage interest withdrawal. The insurance tax adds minor insult to major injury in that respect.
  The amount of rented accommodation built this year is the smallest in 50 years. Council rents have increased by three times the rate of inflation as a matter of Government policy. The homelessness figures continue to tell a tale of misery and despair.
  There are times—I suppose that it is the law of averages—when I agree with the Prime Minister about something. He said, as recently as a week or two ago, that the crazy situation existing towards the end of the 1980s was one of the explanations for present discontent. I do not disagree with that, but I parted company from him when he added—I interpret loosely—"Not me, Guv," when it came to whose fault it was.
  The Prime Minister may be interested to know that efforts have been made to try to find out what the public think about the matter. I am told that tomorrow, an ICM poll will be published in The Guardian, and that one of the questions that it asked was:
  "In your view, who is most to blame for the fact that over 1 million people bought houses in the late 1980s which are now worth less than they paid for them?"

  613
  I concede right away that 12 per cent. of respondents said that they did not know, so I suppose one must allow something for public ignorance, but very many people replied, and most people had a clear opinion. Estate agents and the councils that sold the houses were held to be at fault by 6 per cent. of the sample. The people who bought them—that is the Prime Minister's favourite horse—were to blame according to 11 per cent. The banks and building societies who lent them their money were blamed by 13 per cent. The Government were blamed by a resounding 62 per cent.—home and dry by a straight.
  So "Not me, Guv" begins to appear, at least in the public's opinion, a very odd defence. It may be worth reminding the House that, in the time when things went out of control, the man who became the Prime Minister was involved in those things regarding which the Prime Minister now points the finger of blame. It is also worth recalling that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury between June 1987 and July 1989 and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury between July 1989 and July 1990, the guilty period, was presumably one of the guilty men—the present Secretary of State for Social Security.
  The one consolation—I am always anxious to bring good news—is that there was an opinion poll of the public asking who specifically, in terms of political names, was to blame, and the Secretary of State will be glad to know that he scored "nul points" in that poll. It is another triumph for the charisma that is his trademark.
  Most people blame Lady Thatcher, which is hardly surprising. I watched Lady Thatcher on television last night, and I thought that she is starting to appear more and more like someone rehearsing for the part of Lady Bracknell in "The Importance of Being Earnest". I think the producer's opinion was, "It was a wonderful character vignette, my dear, but just a way over the top."
  In any event, Lady Thatcher is noticed and remembered. The present Prime Minister, although very much involved in all that, scored only 7 per cent. in the poll, and his trouble is that he is almost all unnoticed, unremarked and largely anonymous, as he was on that occasion.
  The specific problem in the late 1980s has been noticed by some of the more civilised members of the Government. Perhaps I should be careful damning him in that way, but the Secretary of State for National Heritage, a year or two ago, made an interesting speech in which he worried about the yuppie revolution and decided that it was built on sand:
  "The wheeler-dealer was the man of the moment. The best returns were to be found in trading financial assets. Demand for property seemed inexhaustible…But the system was giving the wrong signals. Far from being sure-fire winners, many were, in fact, sure-fire losers."
  Very properly, the Secretary of State was, by implication, regretting the part of his Government in that bad time.
  We should agree that we are paying a price, and it is ridiculous to shift blame on to the buyers of flats or semis, presumably on the rather twisted logic that they were rash enough to listen to the Government.
  The past has its lessons. The problem is that the past is the past. More importantly, the current policy threatens to compound those past errors. Several factors appear to contribute to the present discontent, and the one common factor among them is that they are linked to Government policy.
  614
  The first factor, in terms of the construction industry alone in terms of house-building activity, is that the Government fail to allow the use of capital receipts to support and stimulate the construction industry. Firms, as everyone in the House knows who reads the financial pages, are lining up to point at and complain about that low rate of activity. Many have their feeling of frustration compounded by a sense of betrayal. They feel that they have been treated with ingratitude. In sociological terms, we may have a new phenomenon. It is called "McAlpine's grievance", and refers to the feeling that there was no reward for—no doubt at times painful—financial service to the party.
  In any event, there is undoubtedly in this society a painful—to use the word again—lack of rented accommodation. There is a dispute about how much is available. The Government claim about £2 billion, but certainly substantial sums are available which I believe should be used in the way that I have suggested.
  Mr. Den Dover: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the capital receipts in local authorities' bank accounts. In the past, I have supported the use of that money to upgrade old housing stock, but will the hon. Gentleman say what he would like those capital receipts to be used for? Does he accept that, if they are used, council tax rates in the various local authorities will have to increase because of the loss of interest on them?
  Mr. Dewar: I am the last person to appeal to for expertise about English local government finance. It is to a certain extent a matter of discretion, but I should have thought that those capital receipts should be spent on major rehabilitation to try to save the crumbling existing stock and efforts to meet the undoubted lack of decent rented accommodation. Most of the property that fell into the latter category has been shifted out by right-to-buy sales, and in those circumstances it would be socially useful, and would make economic sense, to replace it. I hope that we shall continue to have the hon. Gentleman's support in that respect.
  I want to discuss two specific aspects which are of some relevance, and I do so because they are both directly the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Security. The first is housing benefit, and I shall discuss that comparatively briefly.
  There has been a spectacular increase in housing benefit. I believe that the total has doubled, or approximately doubled, since 1988 in real terms—it is increasing towards £8 billion—and the private sector has been especially problematical in that respect.
  I do not think that anyone will disagree that that is a direct reflection of the Government's policy. It is linked to the switch of subsidy from bricks and mortar to the individual. It is also linked, to be fair, to recession and low wages, but the main cause has been Government policy. That has, to be fair, been very directly recognised by Ministers, for example, in "The Growth of Social Security", the publication for which the Secretary of State was responsible—I suppose it is now getting on for a year ago.
  I am worried that the complex changes that are now being introduced, of which we do not know the details, will not make much of an impact on the problem. Of course we accept that, if there is abuse—if landlords are conniving to force up rents with their tenants, knowing that the taxpayer will pick up the bill—that is a problem.

  615
  As the House will know, rent officers have powers that allow them, when a case is referred to them—which in my part of the world is done in every private sector case—to judge whether there is exploitation of the type that I have described and ensure that housing benefit-applicable rents are limited.
  Now we have a rather more complicated, but I am not sure—
  Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Would this be an appropriate moment for me to ask the hon. Gentleman for his opinion on the proposal of his colleague the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) for mortgage benefit, which I think is supported by the Commission for Social Justice? I recall that, when we last had one of these exchanges, the hon. Gentleman rather dismissed the Commission for Social Justice. Does he also dismiss the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich for mortgage benefit?
  Mr. Dewar: I rather enjoy the hon. Gentleman's Uriah Heep approach and the obsequious way in which he slips his question into the debate. He has probably been practising hard in his constituency, which is highly marginal, but I fear that it will do him no good. I will certainly come to an appropriate point in a minute or two and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait rooted to his seat until then.
  The new system involves average reference rents, which are calculated and based upon the size of dwelling units and not according to the type of dwelling units. That is one inflexibility. Once it has been set, that is the applicable amount for housing benefit purposes, plus half the difference between that figure and the appropriate rent determined by the rent officer. I do not think that that will prove a great weapon for progress.
  If the local authority uses its discretion to meet that excess, will the Minister confirm whether it will have to do so from a cash-limited fund which is 0.3 per cent of the local authority's private sector benefit expenditure? Is there not a very real and almost inevitable danger that, in that situation, many people will be asked to dig into their income support payments in order to meet the gap that will appear? That is a very worrying feature, upon which I invite the Minister to comment. I also invite him to say a word or two about the more pressing subject of special needs and housing association rents. The House recognises that they will be higher than average because of the security, staff on site and amenity services which are often included in rent structures. There is particular concern that, because the rents will be high, tenants will find that their rent is not covered by housing benefit.
  Many hon. Members have received a good deal of correspondence from women's aid refuges about that matter. The provision of 24-hour cover on site must be paid for. If we do not have a special arrangement either to exempt or to take account of those factors, there may be very real difficulties.
  We have not yet seen the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee. We know that the changes come into force in October and that time is short. In a letter to me of 23 May, the right hon. Gentleman said that no decisions had been taken, and that consultations were going on with local authorities and the Institute of Rent Officers. It would be useful if the right hon. Gentleman would say something today to reassure the many people who are worried about that issue, and perhaps also allow
  616
  hon. Members to answer the many inquiries that they have received from their constituents in that regard. It is an important matter.
  I recognise that it is a matter for the usual channels but, as an addendum, I express the hope that we will debate those issues before the House rises. Those very important changes will almost certainly come into effect before the House returns after the summer recess. It would be extremely bad if the debate on those issues were squeezed out and we were running to catch up after the event if the arrangements proved unsatisfactory.
  Finally, on housing benefit—I crave your slight indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it is not often that I wish to thank a Minister—I ask the right hon. Gentleman to pass on my thanks to the Secretary of State for Scotland, who has now decided to defer and reconsider market testing the rent officer system in Scotland. That arrangement was never contemplated in England, but it was to come into force in Scotland.
  When I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland about the matter a year ago last April, I was given short shrift and told, in the politest possible manner, to mind my own business and that the proposal would go ahead. However, it has now been postponed for at least a year, when it will be considered afresh. I do not think that that defeat for the deregulation programme should go unnoticed, and I thank the Secretary of State for it.
  I now turn to protection payments for mortgage interest on income support. I do not want to rehearse the facts of which we are all aware: that support will be withdrawn for the first nine months for any new borrower who makes an application after the system comes into effect, and that existing borrowers will receive no assistance for two months and assistance at 50 per cent. of the normal rate for four months. I shall simply reiterate my belief and explain why I hold it.
  The withdrawal of support is likely further to depress the market, reinforce uncertainty and burden the majority of home owners with an unwanted additional cost. The measures must be viewed in context. Rising interest rates have had a considerable impact in my constituency and, I suspect, in every part of the country. They may have been necessary in view of the financial situation, but they have had an impact. There is a heavy presence of negative equity, and we have seen the reduction in mortgage interest relief which Baroness Thatcher has so criticised in the past few days.
  Further reduction in mortgage interest relief should not be on anyone's agenda at this stage. It is out of the question, in view of the current state of the housing market. There have been two cuts in relief—indeed, if one adopts Baroness Thatcher's perspective, we have had three cuts, because there was a reduction from 40 per cent. before the further reductions to 20 per cent. and then 15 per cent. Perhaps, in his reply, the Minister will give us a categorical assurance that further cuts are not on his agenda, given the way in which he has punished the housing market in the past year or two.
  Mr. Charles Hendry: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, on more than one occasion, his hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has called for mortgage interest tax relief to be phased out

  617
  over five to 10 years? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to the House whether he supports his hon. Friend in that view, or whether he now disagrees with him?
  Mr. Dewar: I have made the position very clear. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would know that that is not on our agenda, and we do not believe that it should be on the Government's agenda either—although there have been indications that it is very much on their agenda.
  I made the serious point to the Minister earlier that it is a great mistake to canvass every possibility for the future and assume that they are policy commitments. If we applied that approach to the Conservative party, we would come up with the most outré and unlikely series of proposals which I would not have the brass neck to hang around anyone's neck in an election campaign. I do not regard myself as a man of much delicacy or sympathetic feeling, but I commend that attitude to the hon. Member for High Peak on this occasion. We must consider the practicalities and the cost when dealing with mortgage interest protection.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): The hon. Gentleman suggests that the further reduction of mortgage interest tax relief should not be on anyone's agenda. However, it was clearly on the agenda of the Labour party's housing spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), when he conducted an interview with the Shelter magazine "Roof". The magazine made it absolutely clear that it believed that it was a serious proposal, and contrasted it with much of the hon. Gentleman's so-called "Yes, Minister" contributions. It was apparently still on the agenda of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) this morning when he was interviewed on the "Today" programme. He certainly had not ruled it out.
  Mr. Frank Dobson: Speech.
  Mr. Lilley: No, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask this question. The hon. Gentleman was asked—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but interventions, by their nature, should be short. I call Mr. Dewar.
  Mr. Dewar: I think that I have dealt with the matter fairly clearly, so I intend to move on. I have made it clear that reductions in MIRAS would be extraordinarily unwise in the present situation. Leaving aside that qualification, they are not on the Labour party's agenda. I cannot make that any clearer, and I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman must be satisfied with my explanation.
  Mr. Lilley: The transcript of this morning's interview states:
  "Mr. James Naughtie: Is it clear precisely what your policy is on mortgage tax relief if there were to be a Labour Government? Donald Dewar: No, we have not committed ourselves to cut it".
  Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman sounds like someone who is trying to prove that Bacon wrote the sonnets of Shakespeare—it is a particularly unrewarding activity. I suggest that he should be happy with the clear and unambiguous statement that I have given him. That is the sensible thing to do.
  618
  I turn to income support and mortgage interest, because that brings us to one of the little entertainments of recent days: the Skipton story. I hope that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is not offended, but I did not know a great deal about Skipton. I know that Skipton castle was razed to the ground in 1645 by the parliamentary forces. That seems a rather attractive idea, but it is not one that I commend.
  I remember that Lytton Strachey, when dealing with Lord Hartington—that Whig grandee of Gladstone's period and head of the great house of Cavendish—was wont to growl in an undertone:
  "the proudest moment of my life was when my pig won first prize at Skipton fair".
  However, I confess that I do not think that that takes us much further down the road.
  I want to make another confession; I was taken by surprise by the Prime Minister's announcement. I telephoned the Skipton building society, and was told that it had not made an announcement. I was very puzzled—though, to be fair, all was explained when the Prime Minister kindly wrote to me saying that the plan had been confided to the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, by the chief executive. The hon. Gentleman therefore, in a sense, had inside information. It was suggested that I should accuse the hon. Gentleman of trying to curry favour with the Government, but such an appalling pun would not pass my lips.
  The Skipton building society has about 0.5 per cent. of the mortgage market and about 1 per cent. of the building society market. Of course, the question that arises is, what happens to the other 99 per cent? I take the view—and I would think that this theme would be especially popular with the Secretary of State—that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The Skipton is going to pay about £2 million per annum for what will be a fairly expensive loss leader and marketing tool. It is entitled to do that, but we should not regard it as a precedent for the industry as a whole.
  The Skipton is offering narrow unemployment cover for free, but if one wants to add sickness or accident insurance, one has to pay. One gets a 30 per cent. discount, but one still has to pay. Anne Ashworth, the personal finance editor of The Times, said that the scheme will not last for ever and added:
  "The description'free' is not entirely accurate…as a building society is a mutual organisation, which belongs to its members the cost is being met by the customers."
  I do not know whether anyone will follow the Skipton, or whether the chief executive is right about the doubts he expressed about that. In any event, it is wrong to assume that the Skipton is going to continue to finance that free lunch for ever.
  What Mortgage magazine has a table of all the top building societies that measures the interest paid on an average mortgage at two, five and 10 years. At two years, the House will be glad to know, the Skipton was the 81st most expensive out of 83. At five years, it was doing somewhat better, at 71st out of 82. At 10 years, it was 61st out of 63. Perhaps that is why the Skipton can afford it.
  The Skipton also has a problem of long-term arrears, which was also interesting because, of investors with arrears over 12 months, average debt was spectacularly higher than with any other building society in the table. It

  619
  has been suggested—I only repeat it—that that might explain some of the society's interest in that sort of insurance.
  What is true is that the costs are set to increase as a result of the Government's initiative. As one of our papers in Scotland, The Scotsman, said, it is a double whammy. It reckons that, between April and October this year, the cost of an average mortgage in Scotland will go up by 11.8 per cent, and puts the income support mortgage insurance premium at almost £200 a year.
  It may be that there are more friendly commentators. One of the few friends who seems to have given the time of day to the Secretary of State's argument is the Association of British Insurers. I take it as a witness. It said last week that the premium would be equivalent to 0.5 per cent. on current mortgage rates, which, on an average mortgage, is about £200 to £250. I am happy to take that as an expert and unbiased view.
  The Government's scheme will add to the
  "already intolerable burden of taxation"
  that people have to face. That quotation is from the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. I am not clear why he should be sitting happily on the Front Bench when, after his Government have been in power for 15 years, he adduces that we face an "intolerable burden of taxation". Be that as it may, costs will go up and that will be unwelcome.
  To evaluate the Skipton offer, or any of the other private insurance policies, we must look at the small print. The Skipton, for example, allows an excess of 60 days in respect of mortgage payments, which is standard and I make no complaint about it. People cannot be in arrears, which knocks out a lot of vulnerable people. One must be in work and not aware of impending unemployment. That would rule out about half of the Conservative Members. Those are common exceptions.
  Voluntary redundancy rules people out, and carers are unlikely to get coverage on most policies; the self-employed may be able to establish entitlement only by filing for bankruptcy. Block cover is being offered by the Skipton, but it is block cover that has taken on a new meaning.
  It is interesting to note that, originally, only 5 per cent. of people took out such coverage. I concede that that figure has gone up to 30 per cent. for recent mortgages, which is not surprising, given the publicity and fears. Even so, I am advised that 12 to 15 per cent. of those taking out such coverage fall out of the schemes within the first year.
  It would be unfair to say that the Secretary of State has become an advertising billboard for one company or another, but, on 26 January, he sang the praises of General Accident Direct. It offered £4.50 per £100 for such insurance cover, but it was cherry-picking. That was the bottom rate of a system of differential rates depending on age, sex, post code and employment. If we follow that pattern, the danger is that those who most need cover will find it hardest to get and pay most for it.
  General Accident Direct gave a good reply to our inquiries, in which it frankly set out the details.
  Ms Liz Lynne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the cut in income support for mortgage interest payment, many disabled people and people with
  620
  long-term illnesses will suffer because many insurance companies will not cover them, and those that do will force them to pay increased premiums?
  Mr. Dewar: I certainly agree that, on precedents, that is true. The Secretary of State no doubt will say that that will all change and some chemistry will set to work, but the evidence so far is all against him.
  At the end of the day, General Accident Direct's offer is motivated by the phrase "If you don't score, it will cost you more." That, understandably, is the principle on which private insurance works.
  Let us not forget the Department of the Environment. It commissioned research from the university of Loughborough, putting public money into necessary public research. The one startling fact that emerged—and one that I properly highlight—is that, of the claims that were made under private insurance policies, two thirds were unsuccessful. It is not just a matter of getting cover: once one has it, with all the exceptions and difficulties, very little may result from it.
  To be fair to Secretary of State, he recognised that fact in his article in The Times on 10 January, in which he wrote:
  "Some insurance policies prove unsatisfactory. Either they do not cover some risks or the companies take refuge in the small print."
  I agree. He has got to go a long way to establish that those difficulties can be overcome. There is justified scepticism about believing that this is not a case of trying to persuade the private insurance sector to move into a sort of cover with which, for good reasons, it has not been traditionally involved. It is not a suitable case for treatment from their point of view.
  I accept that I am open to the charge that I would say that, wouldn't I? I am on the Opposition Benches, and I do not like the scheme. However, there is almost unanimity on the matter, which is quite impressive.
  Some may be prejudiced about the Secretary of State's views. He tells us that Council of Mortgage Lenders is a vested interest to be discounted. I should have thought that it had a lot of experience and expertise to offer. Its chief executive commented on the Loughborough report, and the results were quite extraordinary. We all heard the interview. I do not have a transcript of it, but I have some of the correspondence that followed.
  We were told that Mr. Adrian Coles had made ill-judged remarks to discredit the Government's proposals,
  "but, as so often when people resort to distortions he has simply succeeded in discrediting himself, and blackening the previously high reputation of the building society movement."
  After that indictment, the reply of the chairman of the Council of Mortgage Lenders must have been a great disappointment to the Secretary of State. It said:
  "The Chartered Institute of Housing is unable to support the planned changes in Income Support for Mortgage Interest … We believe that the changes will target marginal home owners and will inevitably feed through to increasing costs for local authorities. We also believe that a government committed to the expansion of home ownership should not be countenancing a package of measures which will severely dent confidence in what is already a stagnated housing market."
  It went on to say that the proposals
  "will dampen down the demand from new borrowers taking out mortgages for the first time."

  621
  The TSB Group is a group of which not even the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) could find a trace in donations to the Labour party, although I have no doubt that, if I suggested it, he might well make the allegation. I am summarising quite a complex letter, but Claire Weaver, the group's senior manager for Government affairs, said:
  "The upshot of all this"—
  her arguments—
  "is that there is likely to be an increase in the level of repossessions, the housing market will become even further depressed, negative equity will increase, and the 'feel good' factor—so elusive for so long—will take even longer to come through."
  Mike Blackburn, the chief executive of the Halifax building society, might be thought to be a witness of some credibility in this sphere. The Times of 22 March reports:
  "Mike Blackburn … yesterday warned the Government that unless it was prepared to rethink its proposed cuts in mortgage income support, repossessions would rise and the most vulnerable would be left without a safety net."
  It seems that there is an almost overwhelming, irrefutable weight of evidence that—to put it even in the most tentative way—the Government are running risks that they should not run, risks that are based on prejudice and not on a real assessment of the situation.
  I repeat briefly the point that I made a long time ago, on 26 January. I do not understand why a Government who talk a great deal about home ownership should be withdrawing this safety net from the most vulnerable. There is nothing to stop people taking out additional cover, something of which the Secretary of State would no doubt approve—indeed, I, too, might approve of it—but why should we force people to take on additional burdens and withdraw help from those on income support who own their own homes, help which is not challenged for those who rent their homes?
  There is discrimination against home ownership. At the end of the day, income support mortgage interest payments are the equivalent of rent. They do not reduce the capital; they are merely a rent paid to service the capital. If one withdraws that help on the grounds that it is wrong that the state should give it, the logic, presumably, is that one should do the same for people who live in rented accommodation.
  The only distinction would be an odd one—that only wealthy people own their own homes. That is self-evidently untrue. No one would argue that we should withdraw housing benefit from those who are most hard pressed; why should we withdraw it from home owners? In particular, why should we put up with such a suggestion from this Government?
  The Secretary of State will remember that, on 26 January, he said:
  "The Labour party has only one objective locally and nationally: to become the nation's landlord. We are the party of home ownership, and we will remain so."—[Official Report, 26 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 501.]
  That makes two fine statements of old Tory prejudices, the one as inaccurate as the other, and becoming demonstrably more inaccurate as the record unfolds.
  We have seen the Government's salami tactics in parallel spheres, so perhaps we could ask the Secretary of State whether he is going to draw a line under the nine-month period, or whether, if he gets the scheme
  622
  limping into action, we shall be told it will be 12 or 18 months, or perhaps abolition? Can we draw a line under the nine-month period, or will the Secretary of State come back for more?
  In all seriousness, Conservative Members are probably not yet under a great deal of pressure, because we are only moving towards the new system, but I believe that it will become an important issue. Certainly in my part of the world, a large number of people are struggling to maintain their position in the home market in the face of rising costs. The problem will grow, and we shall hear much more about it at a constituency level.
  The Secretary of State should listen to the case that I am trying to make. It is strange for me to say so, but I think that he should listen to Lady Thatcher, because she is someone who recognises a betrayal when she sees one. I should have thought that she is someone whose instincts he would respect, as she was once, and spiritually still is, his political standard bearer. He should listen to the Skipton building society which, after all, was of some assistance to the Government, but let us remember what it is essentially saying. Let us remember what John Goodfellow said, the one stick to which the Secretary of State has been able to cling in stormy waters. He disagrees with Government policy; he is moving to
  "limit the damage in a frail housing market"
  and to try to protect his customers against what he thinks will happen to many other customers who are left to fend for themselves. The Secretary of State should listen to the construction industry, and to home owners in every part of the country who are in duress and see no prospect of relief.
  The Daily Mail, another unlikely witness for the Labour party and one which is usually loyal to the last, was driven to ask in a pained headline on 3 May: "What do the Tories have against the hard pressed home buyer?" That question will echo with increasing resonance across the country. I am trying to save the Secretary of State from his own folly and error, not in the interests of his party, but in the interests of the country. I believe that he should think again.
  5.15 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "reaffirms its commitment to enabling people to buy their own homes, which four out of five people aspire to do; welcomes the fact that the cost of home ownership relative to incomes is at an historically low level; recognises that the existing system of Income Support Mortgage Interest leaves seven out of ten households without cover for their housing costs when unable to work; welcomes the Government's proposed reforms which will help ensure that new home buyers protect their homes against the risk of unemployment; welcomes the innovation taking place in the lending and insurance markets to provide good quality and affordable cover; rejects proposals to spend even more taxpayers' money by introducing a mortgage benefit scheme that will effectively underwrite private borrowing; and is confident that proper management of this major household expense by comprehensive insurance schemes, backed by lenders and insurers, will contribute significantly to a return of market stability.".
  I have some sympathy with Opposition Front Benchers on their misfortune in their choice of subject for Supply days. On the previous Supply day, they chose to have a debate on inequality, hoping that they could have a rerun of the issues raised by the Rowntree report. On the very

  623
  day planned for the debate, the Institute for Fiscal Studies released its evaluation of the statistics, which blew a hole in the Labour party's thesis that the poor were getting poorer. Today, the Labour party wanted to have a debate on income support for mortgage interest, but, between that decision being taken and today, the Skipton building society has blown a hole in its thesis.
  Before I deal with the general topic, I shall answer the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) about the two changes that we are introducing in housing benefit. First, he asked whether it would be necessary for people to draw on their income support or other forms of income in order to meet their contribution to rents if they are living in above-average properties. I should make it clear that the change applies to new claimants, and the system will therefore build gradually.
  New claimants will usually have a choice about the sort of property that they occupy and only if they choose to occupy a property of above the reference level rent would they face that prospect at all. Then, of course, they would have the opportunity to negotiate the rent down. The evidence from those in analogous circumstances where the rent officer has limited the amount of rent eligible for housing benefit suggests that they are often successful.
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about women's refuges and other hostels. I do not want to pre-empt my consideration of the Social Security Advisory Committee's report and advice on the matter, but I can say that I shall approach with distinct sympathy the case for exempting such hostels once I have considered its evidence. I hope that that fact will act as guidance so that people do not get too unnecessarily worked up about it.
  Mr. John Denham: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Southampton the current cost of housing benefit in cases where the city council exercises its discretion is more than £800,000 a year? The signs at the moment are that the sum to which it will be limited next year is £140,000. How can the Secretary of State expect such a cut in expenditure to be made without its greatly increasing the insecurity of those in greatest need?
  Mr. Lilley: The new system will build slowly and relate only to the new cases coming on stream, not to existing cases. Therefore, over a period, we would expect a larger sum to be involved.
  Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I should like to make a little progress first. I have not yet got on to the main subject of the debate.
  Mr. Betts: It is on that point.
  Mr. Lilley: In that case, I shall give way.
  Mr. Betts: The right hon. Gentleman has explained that the system will apply only to new claimants. I can follow his argument—although it is difficult to—as it applies to someone who moves into a property for the first time. A new claimant, however, may also be someone who already lives in a property and then becomes unemployed or suffers a fall in his income. Does he envisage someone in that position being able to negotiate a reduction in his rent, so that he can afford it in the new circumstances?
  Mr. Lilley: That can already happen now. The current arrangements are that there is a period of exemption from
  624
  restrictions. That will be carried over into the new system—a period during which people will be entitled to live in the property with full housing benefit. If a rent officer declares that the premises have a rent above the allowable amount for housing benefit, the same can happen now. As I say, the same sort of arrangements will apply under the new system.
  The main subject of today's debate has been income support for mortgage interest, and the last half hour has made three things clear about the Labour party's position. First, Labour does not have an agreed policy to help the 70 per cent. of home owners for whom income support is not available if they lose their jobs. The second is that the Opposition still hanker, as always, after much higher public spending, but they dare not commit themselves publicly to it. The third is that, to hide their confusion, they resort to scaremongering and talking down the housing market. That is the best the Opposition have to offer the House today.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden rested his case against the Government's plans in part on his criticisms of the mortgage protection policies sold by mortgage lenders. He claimed that those policies were unclear about what protection they did or did not offer; yet he himself refuses to make clear what protection Labour's policies will or will not offer to home owners, let alone how much they will cost. The hon. Gentleman criticises the small print of the insurance policies, but will not give us even the headlines of Labour party policies. He has given us no policies at all. So before complaining about the mote in the eye of the insurers he should perhaps remove the beam from his own.
  This morning on the "Today" programme, the chairman of the House-Builders Federation made the point that in most respects the outlook for prospective home owners should be very attractive. I agree with him. Incomes are rising and are set to rise further. Unemployment is falling steadily. The price of housing is low, relative to incomes—the lowest for about 10 years. Interest rates are at the lower end of their historic range. The overall cost of buying a home, after the tax changes that we have announced, is still £130 a month less than it was five years ago.
  The only thing holding the housing market back is the sense of job insecurity among potential first-time buyers in today's competitive world. Increasingly, people realise that the state safety net for mortgage interest lets 70 per cent. of those who lose their jobs fall through it, so they hesitate to start on the road to home ownership. Listening to the Opposition, one would think that the present system of income support for mortgage interest was satisfactory, was available to everyone out of work, and prevented repossessions. That is nonsense.
  The current system is highly unsatisfactory. It leaves 70 per cent. of people with mortgages without any help if they lose their jobs. People with working spouses, redundancy money, savings, part-time work or early retirement income do not qualify. As a result, about 150,000 people on unemployment benefit get not a penny of income support for their mortgages, and 50,000 people a year have their homes repossessed. Yet the cost of income support for mortgage interest has risen from £30

  625
  million to over £1 billion in 15 years, and its very availability has discouraged the growth of comprehensive private mortgage insurance.
  Mr. David Nicholson: What my right hon. Friend is saying about the apparent ineffectiveness of the present system is extremely telling. The self-employed are a very important group in many of our constituencies—a group who have suffered greatly during the recession of the past four or five years. Is it not true that they would not usually qualify for this protection, especially if they have a spouse in work or some capital? Is it not therefore necessary to look again at the system and to try, as I hope the new system will, to help people in an even-handed way?
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The Opposition have made much of the difficulties that self-employed people may have when claiming under some private insurance policies, but they make nothing of the difficulties that they may face when claiming under the state system. The same problems of determining whether someone's business is just going through a difficult period or has had to cease altogether, so the person is genuinely out of work, apply in the state system as in the private system.
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on the point about insurance?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall be talking about insurance for quite a long while. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to what I have to say before commenting.
  There are only three possible options in response to the situation that I have outlined. The first is to do nothing; to leave the 70 per cent. of home owners unprotected; to let repossessions continue; and to leave the housing market depressed by the resulting insecurity, particularly for first-time buyers. That option means letting the taxpayer continue to pick up the tab, not just for past bad lending but for any unwise future lending. That is the Dewar option.
  The second option is to expand the state system into a mortgage benefit scheme for anyone with no or low income. That does address the issue. Almost all the lobby groups which the hon. Gentleman so approvingly quoted advocate this option—but it would have a huge cost. Even the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux accepts that it would cost upwards of £600 million. Coupled with reversing our proposals, the cost could easily be nearer £1 billion a year or more.
  The Borrie Commission on Social Justice, advocated this sort of mortgage interest benefit and was prepared to finance it by ending mortgage interest tax relief. The Labour Front-Bench housing spokesman adopted this policy in his interview with the Shelter magazine Roof. He said:
  "I do think a mortgage benefit scheme has substantial advantages … if part of its costs were met by the further phasing out of MIRAS, so be it."
  When I challenged the hon. Gentleman last time, he accepted that that was his policy and berated me for having
  "the gall to criticise the Labour party for having no positive proposals".—[Official Report, 26 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 508.]
  626
  He claimed that Labour in fact had one.
  Today, we understand that the policy is temporarily in limbo. A close study of Hansard will reveal that the hon. Member for Garscadden merely said that it would be wrong at present to cut and eliminate mortgage interest tax relief, but that the Labour party would be prepared to do that if it ever got back to power. Will the hon. Gentleman rule that out now?
  Mr. Dewar: I made it clear that it was not on the agenda—a perfectly straightforward statement. As the Government have cut mortgage interest relief twice—arguably three times—in the past couple of years, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he wants that reversed, as some of the papers are suggesting, or whether he rules out the possibility?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall deal with both points. We are going to be in the business of reducing taxes as the economy grows and as we curb the growth of public expenditure. I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's other point—
  Mr. Dewar: As the right hon. Gentleman seems so keen, I would not want to deprive him of the chance to answer both questions. My question was whether he would categorically rule out further reductions, given the Government's record. Secondly, I wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would comment on the report in The Daily Telegraph today, which states that, in order to head off a leadership challenge in October—not a very honourable determining factor—the Government are going to effect a U-turn.
  Mr. Lilley: I am glad to note that the hon. Gentleman cannot remember what his second point was either—
  Mr. Dewar: That was my second point. Read Hansard.
  Mr. Lilley: I shall read it, and I shall certainly apologise if I have got it wrong. The question sounded different the first time around. The hon. Gentleman will have to ask The Daily Telegraph about its sources; and matters of taxation are for the Chancellor. We know that my right hon. and learned Friend and this party are in the business of getting taxes down in the future. The Opposition are not in the business of ruling out tax cuts for the future.
  The hon. Gentleman has said that the abolition of this tax relief is not on his agenda: he has not got an agenda to put it on.
  Mr. Hendry: When my right hon. Friend referred to the article in Roof, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) shook his head. Yet the minutes of one of the meetings of the all-party group on homelessness have the hon. Gentleman saying:
  "The phasing out of the"
  mortgage tax relief
  "subsidy would be a much safer policy, especially when combined with the introduction of the Mortgage Benefit Scheme".
  Does not that make it clear where he stands?
  Mr. Lilley: Absolutely. I think that the hon. Member for Greenwich, the housing spokesman for the Labour party, is much more forthcoming about his policies than the rest of the fringe would like him to be.
  Shelter certainly got a different impression in the course of its interview. It said that, under scrutiny, the hon. Member for Greenwich, relied heavily on "Yes,

  627
  Minister" responses, such as, "I cannot quantify that," "I am not saying that I am committed to that figure," and the ubiquitous, "We will certainly want to look at that."
  But when it came to mortgage benefit, a genuine policy initiative that is clearly music to the ears of the budget-battered lenders, Shelter was given the impression that it was a clear commitment, even though most of what the hon. Gentleman said manifestly was not.
  The third option is to encourage the spread of private insurance, and ensure that everyone taking out a new mortgage has proper protection, by insurance or otherwise, against the threat of a spell of unemployment. For periods longer than nine months, of course, income support for mortgage interest will be available on the same conditions as at present. That is the Government option. We are determined to encourage cheaper, better, more comprehensive insurance. The Opposition may not like it, but it is clear that we are going to succeed.
  Let me take cost, quality and coverage in turn. When I first debated this issue in the House, I predicted that the cost of insurance would fall. In the past, mortgage insurance was expensive. Only a few people took it out. A disproportionate number of them were poor risks—people who had some reason to suspect that they might lose their jobs. Consequently, insurers faced high costs and charged high premiums. And the lenders added high commissions on top—often about 30 per cent. of the premium. Following my announcement, the first thing to happen was the entry of direct insurance schemes cutting out that commission. That is why General Accident Direct was able to cut the typical premium from £7 per £100 to £4.50. That is not a huge sum compared with the cost of insuring household contents or the buildings fabric.
  Then the House-Builders Federation showed the effect of pooling risks. It told me that builders will offer cover, to anyone buying an average-priced new house, for the first three years for just £150. That is £1 a week. I understand that, already, a third of people buying new houses have that cover.
  Then the building societies began to respond to our new proposals. The Leader of the Opposition was rather flummoxed, not to say disappointed, when last week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister revealed that the Skipton building society plans to offer insurance for all its policy holders free of charge.
  Ms Lynne: Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Skipton building society will give free cover to disabled people, to those with a long-term medical condition or to those who have consulted a doctor on a medical condition within the past three years?
  Mr. Lilley: The cover is for unemployment. We are considering the treatment of those with pre-existing medical conditions and those with long-term conditions, and I shall respond on that point when I have considered the recommendations from the Social Security Advisory Committee on that. We want, essentially, to mesh in our system with what can be made available realistically by the private sector.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I was most interested last week when the matter of the Skipton building society was raised. I am not sure that the Skipton building society was not as surprised as I was. I ask a specific question of my right hon. Friend. If a building society is to offer insurance for free, where will the money
  628
  come from to do that? Does it not mean that savers will get less? Is there not a risk that fewer people will put money into building societies?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall come to that point, but the brief answer is that it will come out of its margins.
  I rather suspect that the hon. Member for Garscadden got a ticking off from the Leader of the Opposition for allowing him to blunder into good news by mistake, and the hon. Gentleman was immediately dispatched to discredit Skipton's plans. First he wrote, as he admitted today, to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, casting doubts on the existence of those plans. The hon. Gentleman wrote:
  "I was very concerned by your reference to the Skipton Building Society in Prime Ministers' Questions today, in which you said that the Society is introducing an insurance scheme which will provide 'cover for all of its borrowers without increasing premiums'. The implication was that those of us who follow these matters had missed an announcement about the Society's plans."
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote back and said:
  "I fear you did miss news of the Skipton Building Society's plans. You might like to refer to the article in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday 20 May about their scheme."
  Mr. Dewar: This is all good fun and really rather unimportant, but as the Secretary of State has made the charges, I must say to him, yes, I did miss the newspaper article, which was on page B9 of the "Money-go-round" section. It was the middle paragraph of a diary. When I telephoned and spoke to Mr. Alan Scotter, the director of sales and marketing for the building society, that afternoon, he told me that he had made no announcement whatever, that he could not confirm or deny the truth of what the Prime Minister had said, and he gave me, very clearly, the impression that it had been very surprised indeed that this had been said. We now know how the Prime Minister knew. It was not from any public announcement but from the fact that the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is sitting beside the Secretary of State, had had a conversation—I presume it was social—with the chief executive, who had confided in him. He had not made any announcement to the general public.
  Mr. Lilley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the way in which I got to know about this originally was through reading The Daily Telegraph. My hon. Friend, who happens to be strategically placed, also has his sources of information. But as the hon. Gentleman said, it was a singularly unimportant point on which to detain the House at such length.
  Having failed to disprove the existence of the policy, the hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that Skipton could offer free insurance only by putting up its interest rates. The society has denied that and is quoted in The Sunday Times as saying:
  "Any society could afford to provide free policies—just look at their profits."
  Indeed, building society margins at present are at an all-time record.
  This morning, the hon. Gentleman was reduced to arguing that Skipton was just a tiny maverick which no one else would follow. "It has only 1 per cent. of the market," he said. Alas, there is now detailed evidence that his pessimism—perhaps it is optimism from the Opposition's

  629
  point of view—is unfounded. The Mortgage Finance Gazette, together with Special Risk Services, has carried out a comprehensive survey of lenders. It says that
  "virtually all large building societies"
  completed its questionnaire—so the survey covers 75 per cent. of the new lending in this country. It reported:
  "Two-thirds of the sample planned to buy block protection for their borrowers. Of that two-thirds, over 60 per cent. plan to give it away free."
  It concluded:
  "The results of this survey should provide … comfort to the government … it is likely that block protection for borrowers will become the norm."
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is free to intervene if he wants to discredit that, too.
  Mr. Dewar: I am not in the business of discrediting in that sense. I have fairly reflected what has been said by the industry itself in my contribution. I have had the good sense to consult the industry again over the past 24 hours, and we have had rather a different picture. The best thing that I can say to the Secretary of State is that we shall all have to wait and see what emerges. I have taken good advice and see no reason to retract what I have suggested.
  Mr. Lilley: I think that I have given the hon. Gentleman a very good reason to retract—an objective, anonymous survey, covering 75 per cent. of lenders—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) intervenes from a sedentary position, as is his wont, because he is very reluctant ever to expose himself to criticism.
  The second issue was the quality of insurance policies. Opposition attacks have rested heavily on criticisms of existing mortgage protection policies, voiced by Loughborough university, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. The Loughborough study was not primarily designed to examine mortgage protection policies, and its observations on that subject, particularly on the success of claims, were based on interviews with just 12 people. NACAB has wider experience of the difficulties that have arisen with policies, precisely because people with difficulties go to their local citizens advice bureau. I am happy to say, however, that NACAB now serves on the monitoring committee for the code of practice governing the sale of creditor insurance. The Government recently approved a strengthened version of that code requiring lenders to spell out limitations of policies and ensure that they are appropriate to borrowers' needs. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux recently said that the new industry guidelines being drafted to cover the types of policy for sale did address their main concern.
  Finally, there is the Council of Mortgage Lenders. Banks and building societies are the principal beneficiaries of the present income support for mortgage interest scheme; indeed, we pay roughly £1 billion of taxpayers' money a year directly into their coffers. It is natural that they should want to retain the system in full and, if possible, expand it into a mortgage benefit scheme. The director general of the Council of Mortgage Lenders recently said:
  630
  "we would especially like to work with Labour on working up a mortgage benefit scheme."
  The council seems to believe that that is the Labour party's policy. The remark was made in the same issue of Shelter's magazine.
  The director general seems to take Labour's housing spokesman rather more seriously than does the hon. Member for Garscadden. Unfortunately, the director general's understandable enthusiasm for state-subsidised mortgage insurance tempted him to rubbish private mortgage protection policies as
  "not really worth a great deal".
  He seemed to forget for a moment that most of those policies are sold for a hefty commission by his own members.
  Unlike Mr. Adrian Coles, I do not believe that banks and building societies have been cynically selling worthless policies to their borrowers. After all, it is in the lender's interest to ensure that insurance policies pay out when the borrower loses his job. The Mortgage Finance Gazette survey that I mentioned earlier found that the overwhelming majority of lenders were happy with the way in which claims were dealt with by the insurers. In fact, one of the largest insurers revealed that it paid out on 80 per cent. of claims, and that the level of complaints that it received was almost negligible.
  When lenders negotiate block insurance for their borrowers, they will have an even stronger incentive and leverage to ensure that the policies are of high quality, do not contain hidden escape clauses and pay out readily on genuine claims: otherwise the lender's loans will not be serviced when the borrower is in difficulties.
  It is, of course, probable that private insurance rather than income support will discourage some kinds of irresponsible lending. In particular, it will discourage lending for equity withdrawal—second, third and even fourth mortgages. One fact to emerge from the Loughborough university study is that 50 per cent. of borrowers in arrears had extended or increased their mortgages, or taken on extra mortgages. The new arrangements for income support will discourage a resurgence of such lending in future.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Earlier, the Secretary of State kept talking about mortgage providers providing free insurance. An impeccably right-wing Conservative such as the right hon. Gentleman must know that it cannot really be free; someone must be paying for it, directly or indirectly. This so-called free mortgage insurance reminds me of the promises of Ministers when we debated eye testing some years ago that of course opticians would conduct the tests for free because of the pressures of the market. That free eye testing never transpired, and this free mortgage insurance will not transpire either.
  Mr. Lilley: Surely it is clear that the process of competition drives down costs and forces people to take the cost of providing cover out of their otherwise higher-than-normal margins. It is to their competitive advantage to do so.
  The third area of concern during our last debate, and since, was the coverage of insurance for different categories of people. In January, the hon. Member for Garscadden said that because of our policy
  "there will be great difficulties for the self-employed".

  631
  In fact—as I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson)—an increasing number of insurance companies, including those providing direct mortgage and block insurance, cover self-employment.
  The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said that many contract workers
  "will find that they are uninsurable".—[Official Report, 26 January 1995; Vol. 523, c. 496–529.]
  Again, policies of the type negotiated by the Skipton building society do cover contract workers.
  The Association of British Insurers has reiterated that
  "virtually anyone who is able to obtain a mortgage should be able to purchase insurance to go with it—even special categories of mortgage holders such as the self-employed, single parent and part-time workers."
  In short, I am confident that we are well set to see the rapid expansion of low-cost, high-quality comprehensive insurance.
  Members of the Labour party—like their unfortunate, flummoxed leader—are left equally bewildered. Their problem is that they still do not understand the creative, innovative, cost-cutting power of free enterprise when it is released from the distortions of state subsidy and intervention. There could be no clearer evidence that the party is still the old Labour party: hostile to private enterprise, ignorant of how it works and instinctively preferring to rely on subsidised state provision.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I was encouraged by my right hon. Friend's response to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). Does he intend under the legislation to outlaw discrimination against disabled people, to make it illegal for mortgage lenders to refuse to provide mortgage insurance for disabled people under block schemes? Would they, at the very least, be required to look at each individual case and not discriminate against categories of people? Will my right hon. Friend undertake, on behalf of the Government, to monitor the position? In the event that the private system fails to provide adequate mortgage cover for disabled people, will he ensure that his Department affords other protection?
  Mr. Lilley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance that, when considering the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee and the representations made to it, we shall look closely at the interaction of the proposals and our measures to improve the position of disabled people, to ensure that we do not take away with one hand what we give with the other. I do not wish to spell out the details, but that will be the underlying approach, which I think will be shared by my hon. Friend and, indeed, the whole House.
  Less than a month ago, having given his interview to Shelter, the hon. Member for Greenwich—Labour's housing spokesman—went to a conference organised by Shelter. There he promised that a Labour Government would repeal our reforms to income support for mortgage interest. In due course, that would cost hundreds of millions of pounds and leave 70 per cent. of mortgage payers unprotected. Will the hon. Member for Garscadden reaffirm his colleague's pledge? Is Labour's policy to withdraw the changes that we have made in income support if it ever becomes the Government?
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State accept that I did not do what he claims I did? At that conference—the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon
  632
  (Mr. Curry) was present—I gave a clear undertaking that we would fight the introduction of the proposals tooth and nail. We believe that they will be very damaging to the market, and will cause hardship to individuals. We said that we would do everything to stop them coming into effect.
  Mr. Lilley: According to the report that I received—not from my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon or any other political source, but from a non-political source—the hon. Member for Greenwich clearly did what I said that he had done, but if he says that he did not I entirely accept his word. I believe that in the House we should accept an hon. Member's word. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon was not the source.
  The upshot is that we do not know whether the Opposition would repeal the measures. The Opposition have made no policy statement about whether they would repeal them. That is another item that is not on their non-agenda.
  The hon. Member for Garscadden had the cheek to raise the question of taxation. As I said then, our policy is to reduce taxes when it is prudent to do so, but the only way to afford tax reductions is to curb public spending growth. That must inevitably involve curbing the growth of social security spending because it accounts for more than 40 per cent. of what central Government spend.
  In the past two years, I have set out, introduced legislation on and begun to implement a programme of reform to ensure that the social security budget does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay, yet the Labour party has opposed nearly every reform—not just this measure, but the measures on pensions, unemployment benefits and incapacity benefit. In effect, it has rejected the bulk of the £4 billion of savings a year by the end of the century which I have put in train. Even if it is not persuaded by the housing spokesman to commit itself to £600 million of extra spending on a new mortgage benefit, Labour must tell the country how it would finance up to £4 billion of savings that it wishes to forgo.
  The Opposition paint an unremittingly gloomy picture of the housing outlook. They then fail to agree on any remedies or policies. The hon. Member for Garscadden offers nothing to help people who have no mortgage protection. Labour's record confirms that it is the enemy of a free housing market. It destroyed private renting, it opposed council house sales and it wants to abolish mortgage interest tax relief entirely.
  The hon. Gentleman offers nothing to help first-time buyers and he does his best to undermine their confidence by blatant scaremongering. As I have demonstrated, however, the outlook for housing is a lot brighter than he suggests and our reforms of income support for mortgage interest will help make prospects brighter still. Our policies should lead to the development of high-quality insurance, giving wide coverage at modest cost. That will ensure that most prospective first-time buyers will be offered low-cost mortgage insurance against jobs lost. That will boost their confidence and so strengthen the housing market.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Barry Jones: The debate has been begun by two of our most coherent debaters. I like the style of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow,

  633
  Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), which is frank and at times quite tart. He is an honest debater. The Secretary of State for Social Security can be a persuasive debater, if at times over-sanguine. In today's debate, he ducked and weaved with some mischief and managed to sit down without acknowledging too many of the great errors that his Government have committed. What should be emphasised throughout the debate is that, for 16 years, Her Majesty's Government have had control over and given the lead in housing. It is not good enough for Ministers to refer over and again to what they perceive to be defects in the policies of Her Majesty's Opposition when it is the Government who carry responsibility and must face up to some worrying situations.
  The context of our debate, as it affects people, is wretched. One miserable statistic is that, in the past five years, 295,000 of our fellow citizens have suffered repossession. Another worrying statistic is that more than 1.2 million of them suffer negative equity. I define the first as a misery, and the second as a continuing and deep worry for those who are affected.
  I make a plea to the Government: do not end the income support safety net for home buyers who have suffered a loss of employment. That is a real plea and I hope that it does not fall on deaf ears in the months ahead. The second plea is more positive. I hope that the Government will sanction greater release of council house receipts so that, over a period, we can get some of that money into the housing market.
  I should like to raise matters that concern north Wales. In 1992, Alyn and Deeside council was able to complete only 22 houses. In the same year, only 42 houses could be completed by Clwyd county council. The local authorities in Clwyd—Delyn, Glyndwr, Wrexham and Colwyn—were not able to complete one home in 1992. In that year, throughout Wales, there were only 133 completions by local authorities—a wretched figure. The great city of Cardiff was able to complete only six houses. That offers a pretty miserable scene when one considers the fact that Cardiff city council represents the capital of Wales and that city has a pressing housing problem.
  Mr. Hendry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jones: I will not give way at this point. I want to make a brief speech and many hon. Members will seek to catch Madam Deputy Speaker's eye.
  There are two fundamental requirements for fellow citizens: they should have a home and, secondly, they should have a job. I take the view that some form of housing is the priority, even before a job. One cannot have a civilised existence without a home. Anyone without it is in serious trouble. To say that a house should come before a job is a bold statement to make in any debate, but that is the view that I have formed after only 25 years in the House and after holding at least 50 surgeries or advice bureaux every year.
  My proposal to the Secretary of State is that he should lead the Government in a greater and more urgent attack on the tens of thousands of aging houses for which councils have taken responsibility. There should be a much bigger programme of council house building. More tenancies should be made available for people who live on their own.
  634
  Senior citizens will always tell us that the sheltered housing in which they live is excellent. My own council makes a wonderful effort in that direction, but I find that there are not enough sheltered housing schemes for senior citizens. That means that throughout the country we cannot evacuate single elderly people from three-bedroom council houses. If we could do that, we would be able to give younger people with a family and children a better start in life.
  If we wanted to contribute, as a House of Commons and as a Government, to the sum of human happiness, building more homes would be a great priority. If we could do that, we could employ jobless construction workers in Wales, who number tens of thousands. If we could put the unemployed construction worker back to work to make those houses, we could give a better start in life to younger people who have no home of their own.
  I am sure that I am not the only Member of Parliament who finds that most of his time in his surgeries is taken up by people with housing problems. The particular problem that I should like to highlight involves young couples who come to see a Member of Parliament, who are living apart but who are married or have a stable partnership, who have young children and who find that they must make appointments to see each other because they have no settled home of their own. I find it difficult to interview couples such as those. That problem should add urgency to the Government's approach to their housing policy.
  It is also clear to me that we have many houses that were built soon after the end of world war two; we have dilapidation. I cannot be the only Member of Parliament who receives petitions from worried local authority tenants in certain estates and streets, who say that it is time that their homes were modernised. All that those citizens are asking for is new windows and doors and central heating.
  If we were able to meet that urgent necessity for tens of thousands of our fellow citizens, we could do better for them and enable them to have better lives and to realise their full potential. The Government have neglected the opportunity to take the lead and to give the industry a boost. Since 1979, the Government have had access to about £125 billion of North sea oil revenues. Too little of it has gone into the housing industry.
  Although the Government can point to advances and improvements and to a housing programme, it is not a programme that will tackle our deep-seated problems. If the Government want to be seen to be in favour of the enhancement of the lives of those who are suffering from very real difficulties, they should give top priority to housing.
  I must inform the Secretary of State that we have a serious housing problem in Wales and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales would be able to tackle it to more effect, I presume, if he had more assistance from the Treasury. The Secretary of State for Social Security should tell his right hon. Friend that, if the Government are serious about tackling unemployment as well as housing, they must release more receipts from the sale of council houses. That is a top priority in Wales, as it is throughout the country, and I very much hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind the matters that I have raised.
  6.2 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I agree with what the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said about the importance of housing, although not with all his remarks.
  First, I must declare an interest, as I am the chairman of the National House Building Council. We do not build houses but give structural warranties on new houses and so are, in effect, a consumer protection body.
  Furthermore—and nearer to the subject of this debate—I was Secretary of State for Social Services in another Government between 1981 and 1987 and, with that experience, I find it extremely difficult to take entirely seriously the Opposition's claim to be the natural protector of the home owner, even less the champion of the new, would-be home buyer. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we all remember well Labour's opposition to council house sales. If Labour policy had prevailed, local authorities would still be the landlords for hundreds of thousands of tenants and 1.5 million council tenants would have been deprived of the opportunity of ownership.
  Labour's policy announcement of 10 years ago is perhaps less well remembered, but has some similarities to my right hon. Friend's arguments. In 1985, I was about to publish the Government's proposals on social security reform, but was pre-empted by the Opposition, who had a radical new plan for housing. That plan amounted to the abolition of mortgage tax relief and the creation of a new housing allowance. Between 2 million and 3 million people would have lost out directly as a result.
  The tradition that the Opposition spokesman for housing outlined—he is spokesman for housing now, but having listened to this debate I would not bet on his remaining spokesman long—
  Mr. Dewar: Me?
  Sir Norman Fowler: No, the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). He is following in the tradition of what the Opposition have been saying for the past 10 years. I still require a great deal of persuasion that their line has changed.
  Mr. Raynsford: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will check the records and accept that what he is alleging is incorrect. That set of policy proposals came from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and was never endorsed as Labour party policy. In fact, the proposals were rejected by the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman's attempt to present them as Labour party policy is incorrect and misleading and I hope that he will withdraw that assertion.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am interested in that statement. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the 1985 proposals, as I was, I will not withdraw it. The hon. Gentleman had better check his facts, as I have done. I looked it up in Hansard. We debated those proposals on the Floor of the House at the time. They were not the AMA's proposals but those of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), if the hon. Gentleman wants to know. I have the Hansard here and I can show it to him if he wants to check.
  The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), said that the reduction in mortgage tax relief is
  636
  "not on the Labour party's agenda"
  in present circumstances, and he also mentioned the small print of the insurance companies. I would want to examine the small print of his assurance very carefully.
  At the very least, the Labour party's credentials on mortgage tax relief are suspect. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it is clear that there are those in the Labour party, including some Labour Front-Bench figures, who would do away with mortgage tax relief altogether. That is another reason why I am not inclined to take lectures on housing from the Labour party.
  As for the Opposition's attack on social security changes, the principle of those changes is difficult to dispute. I understand the concern that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman quite fairly expressed and the quotations from the housing industry. Anyone with any experience in that area would know that there is concern.
  The principles of the changes that the Government propose are difficult to dispute, however. Social security remains a vast budget. It is accepted now much more so than in the mid-1980s that we should target help to the people who need it. That principle is accepted now, but it was not then; it is certainly accepted by the Labour party's social commission. In addition, we must also be selective about what the social security system can do. In other words, if provision can be made in the private sector, through normal insurance, it is sensible for the Government to follow that avenue, which is precisely what they are doing in this case.
  I understand the complaint about timing, but provided that provision can be made, and the evidence of the insurers is that it can—I hate to mention Skipton building society again—there is nothing to detain us in that regard. Indeed, judging by everything that has come from the Labour Front Bench today, if there ever were a Labour Government, as far as I understand the Opposition's policy—I am willing to give way again—such a measure would not be repealed.
  My concern about the housing market does not relate to social security, but to mortgage tax relief—a subject that is not mentioned in the Opposition motion. My concern is about the Conservative manifesto pledge to
  "bring home ownership within the reach of more families",
  which is of fundamental importance. I am conscious that my old boss, my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, has been setting out her views on that very subject and on several others at the same time. On the radio this morning I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security nobly coming up with the charitable interpretation that Lady Thatcher had been laying about the Labour party. We must all hope that, if that indeed was her purpose, it never enters her mind to lay about the Government.
  I see that Lady Thatcher's comments in her interview with David Frost about those hon. Members who had the Whip withdrawn are in The Times under the headline "Thatcher says Major treated rebels like a bossy headmaster". She is quoted as saying:
  "Really, I don't like it when [the Government] act like an overpowering headmaster. It's no good. It won't do … each of these [rebels] has been elected by their constituents".
  I look back with fondness on those much gentler times when my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher was in power. The Cabinet was rather like a gathering of old pals—all at one in policy. There were no disagreements and no leaks. As Secretary of State, one had only to ask for something and one would be given it. "Of course,

  637
  Norman," Lady Thatcher would always say, "if you want more money for the health service, you must have it." No pressure was ever brought on the parliamentary party in any respect whatever. The rumour that the Single European Act was pushed through on a guillotine is, of course, a total misreading of history. Those who differed from Lady Thatcher on policy were allowed—no, they were not allowed, they were encouraged—to set out their reservations. It was, of course, the role of the Chief Whip to facilitate such constructive discussion.
  The House may take it from what I have said that I am not an uncritical adherent of all of Lady Thatcher's historical account, interesting as it is, but on housing, she has got it absolutely right. It is a great pity that the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), started the process of reducing mortgage tax relief in the 1991 and 1993 Budgets and that that process was continued in November 1993.
  We all know that the Treasury wanted to reduce and, preferably, end mortgage tax relief. That is no secret. It would like to reduce and end other things too. But mortgage tax relief has led to much of the increase in home ownership over past years. More than 4 million more householders own their homes today than in 1979. That is a record of which this Government should be very proud and which should be extended. I repeat that that is what our manifesto promised.
  Yet today—we have to take note of the position because we cannot run away from it—sales of second-hand houses are down, starts of new houses are down, and a respected body such as the House-Builders Federation predicts that prices could fall as the year progresses. We should not deplore the past; we should ask what—practically—can be done. I do not believe that we should have a negative equity relief scheme such as I have heard advocated. I do not think that the Government can take on the obligation to guarantee a particular price for individual houses. The Government can, however, encourage the market generally, especially first-time buyers.
  There are two reasons why help for the first-time buyer would be going with the grain. First, there is no question that to be a home owner remains the public's aspiration. All surveys show that. That is not a reason to neglect other areas of housing policy such as housing associations and the rented sector. The main hope of recovery comes from giving help to those who want to buy. Secondly, given inflation, the price of houses and interest rates, it is an exceptionally good time to buy a house, but some confidence and encouragement are needed. The Government can give that encouragement.
  There should be a mortgage tax scheme—I am not trying to turn the clock back to where we were at the beginning of the 1990s—aimed specifically at helping first-time buyers. That scheme would have a number of elements. There would be an increase in the rate of mortgage relief to, say, 25 per cent. There would be an increase in the MIRAS threshold to, say, £40,000 or £50,000. That special relief would taper over a 10-year period to a point where normal tax relief would take its place. Clearly, I accept that there are other ways of achieving the goal, but targeting first-time, new home buyers would not only help thousands of couples to realise their ambition to be home owners—I repeat that that
  638
  ambition still exists—but have a knock-on effect in the housing market and get sales moving again. There would be a dual effect.
  The Labour motion fails partly because it makes no mention of any kind of scheme for first-time buyers. Indeed, I do not think that Labour Members can really say that, in Government, they would preserve tax relief. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State showed that quite clearly. They are not prepared to say that that would be their position were they in Government. The motion also fails on the ground of Labour party history. I do not think that any objective analysis of the Labour party's position over the past 10 or 15 years shows that its heart is in extending home ownership. Indeed, it has fought against many of the most important developments.
  Nevertheless, having said that about the Labour motion, I hope that Ministers will take from this debate a message that action in housing is needed urgently.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I very warmly support his proposition that we need to give an incentive to first-time buyers, not least because I made precisely that proposal in the House three weeks ago in an Adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning which I initiated. My right hon. Friend carries considerable weight with the Government because of his experience in many high offices of state. Will he assure me that, with me, he will weigh very heavily on the Government to bring about the proposal whereby MIRAS is increased to a standard rate of 25 per cent. up to a threshold of £50,000 for first-time buyers? If he agrees to do that, the campaign will be very successful. May I have his support?
  Sir Norman Fowler: With respect to my hon. Friend, I thought that that is exactly what I was doing. I have been weighing in over the weekend. I have even appeared on the "Today" programme to put forward my proposition. No man can make a greater sacrifice and get up that early. In all seriousness, I agree very much with my hon. Friend. I say in the most friendly way conceivable that I would not wish Ministers to go away from this debate rejecting the Labour motion—which I reject—with its policies and its history, and with the feeling that nothing is required to be done.
  Mr. Betts: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall not give way again as I am nearing the end of my speech. We should aim to extend home ownership. That was what we said in our 1992 manifesto. We should help the first-time buyer. We set out our aims in our manifesto and we should be guided by them.
  6.18 pm
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: It is difficult to over-estimate the importance of housing, not only to the national economy but to individuals and families. A house is the single biggest item which the majority of families will buy in their lives. People in the United Kingdom spend between them more than £30 billion a year on housing. Some 30 per cent. of our total net wealth is in housing.
  Although this debate is specifically on the housing market, we must be careful not to lose sight of the most important principle of housing policy: to ensure that

  639
  everyone has some sort of roof over his or her head, regardless of who owns it, and that the accommodation is warm, healthy and not overcrowded. Hundreds of thousands of families in Britain today long for a home that fits those criteria. Security and stability are important, too. People want not just a good quality home; they want to know with a degree of certainty that they will still have it next week and next year. With the shortage of council house developments and the decline of the private rented sector in recent years, people have looked to owner-occupation as a way to get a secure home, despite the fact that many people—particularly the elderly, the young and the mobile—find it more convenient to rent.
  In the 1980s, a mood of euphoria surrounded the housing market. It has now gone, perhaps never to return. The idea, fostered by the Government, that housing was a dead cert bet, not just for profitable investment but for a secure future, has now been blown out of the water. As another hon. Member said, we must ask why we are in this position and why we are having this debate. Who have been in power for the past 16 years? Who refused to allow local authorities to invest money from council house sales in building new homes to replace them, despite the fact that one million households are on waiting lists? Who stoked up the economy in 1987–88 with what many people believe were cynical tax cuts for short-term political gain? The result was an excessive boom and the housing market has paid the price in excessive interest rates. The economy then had to be damped down.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Lady has just observed that the tax cuts of 1987 and 1988 were intended for short-term political gain. As she would be the first to challenge the Government if they introduced a tax cut in the immediate run-up to an election, when does she think would be an appropriate time to have one?
  Mrs. Maddock: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, my view is that people are not asking for tax cuts at the moment. Last Sunday's papers show that people are only too happy to pay for what they believe the nation needs, such as a better health service. When the economy is booming and doing well, and when people have good jobs and homes, perhaps one could think about tax cuts, but we are certainly not in that position now.
  Whose reliance on mortgage interest tax relief conspicuously failed to provide proper support for those on low incomes? The Minister's speech today was evidence of that. Now mortgage interest relief at source is being phased out with no thought about how that fits in with an overall housing strategy. The Government's economic short-termism has created mayhem with interest rates—some describe it as a rollercoaster—which has thrown the housing market into turmoil. Since the Government have been in office, inflation has been as high as 22 per cent. and almost as low almost 1 per cent. Interest rates have gone from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. to 7 per cent. to 15 per cent. to 5.25 per cent., and they are probably on their way up again.
  Who now propose cuts in housing benefit which will deter private landlords from letting houses? Who propose cuts to income support for mortgage holders, which everyone in housing, whatever the sector, agrees will lead to more repossessions and homelessness? And who now propose less help for those with mortgages when they lose their jobs? It is the current Government—the same people
  640
  who are nervously milling around the button marked "emergency reverse". We heard proposals in that respect this afternoon.
  We are in the present position because of the way in which the Government have played around with the economy and the housing market for what we and many other people believe was short-term electoral gain. Where the Government should have ensured stability, they have played fast and loose with interest rates and tax cuts. Where they should have encouraged sensible, sustainable home ownership, they have led families into mortgage misery with arrears piling up, unable to move because they owe more than their homes are worth. Where the Government should have brought security, they have brought a flood of repossessions—more than 300,000 in the past five years—and with them, family breakdowns, stress and other serious problems.
  For millions more people, the Government's policies have brought an ever-present fear of homelessness, which haunts them day and night. If the Englishman's home is his castle, the Government have let down the drawbridge, drained the moat and sent the guards away, leaving the occupants vulnerable to attacks from the dark knights of sickness, unemployment and recession. For many, the fear is that they will lose not just their homes but their livelihoods. A considerable proportion of small businesses are set up with bank loans using family homes as collateral. According to a survey carried out last year, more than 60 per cent. of overdrafts to small businesses in 1994 depended at least partly on personal collateral, which is nearly always the family home. In that way, home and job are tied up together so that if the one is lost, so is the other. Such a double blow—a double whammy—can be shattering.
  The Government are guilty of an astonishing misdirection of priorities. They have concentrated all their fire on grants, loans and other incentives to tempt people into home ownership but then largely abdicated their responsibility for helping people when they are threatened with losing their homes. The Government have regularly espoused the virtues of the free market but they have tilted that market to encourage entry into home ownership at unsustainable levels. They allowed mortgage interest tax relief to fuel spiralling house prices in boom times, but when people need it most they decide to take it away without a word of warning.
  Unlike the Government, the Liberal Democrats have been consistent in their policy. We have always believed that MIRAS and income support for mortgage holders should be replaced by a much more coherent, effective and means-tested benefit that will help home owners on low incomes, and we have been roundly condemned by Conservative Members for daring to suggest that we would do that. Yet that it is precisely what the Government have been doing in recent years. But the Government have not just phased out MIRAS for new mortgage holders: they have taken it away from the very people whom they tempted into owner-occupation in the first place.
  I do not remember the Government saying, "Buy a house but be careful how much you spend because we are thinking of cutting mortgage interest tax relief." Their message has always been, "Buy a house. Get a mortgage. We are on your side and we shall support you. You can

  641
  rely on us." It is another broken promise and people are so angry about it that today we have heard Conservative Members proposing to reverse it.
  The Government could have not have picked a worse time to begin to reduce MIRAS. They are kicking the market when it is down. The time to cut MIRAS gradually is when the market is healthy, and we should not hit those people with existing mortgages who have made their financial plans on that basis. We as Liberal Democrats have always said that we would phase MIRAS out slowly over two Parliaments. We would not hit the market with 10 per cent. cuts in 12 months, as the Government have done, and we certainly would not do anything with the market as it is at the moment.
  The Labour party's record is not much better. For years it has prevaricated about what to do about mortgage interest tax relief. Despite the fact that the Rowntree foundation, Shelter, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the National Housing Forum and even its own Commission on Social Justice have recommended replacing MIRAS with a mortgage benefit, the Labour party has prevaricated. Once again, on a major policy issue we are less than sure where Labour stands. I think that the message I got from Labour today was that, like ourselves, it does not want to do anything at the moment. But where the Labour party stands on mortgage interest tax relief in the long run remains unclear.
  The Government have pursued a chain of policies across the housing spectrum which have encompassed a blind faith in owner-occupation and a determination to run down the public sector, regardless of the consequences. The Government's negative attitude to social housing has led to cut after cut in new building, until we have reached the stage where fewer affordable homes to rent will be built in this financial year than in any year since the war. Yet there are now 2 million households in unsuitable accommodation. Some are in hostels or board and lodgings, while others are squatting, sleeping on friends' floors and are often forced to share with a host household.
  In the Budget, total housing spending for the next three years was cut by more than £1.5 billion. While housing need has never been higher, investment has not been lower for a long time. Perhaps the most frustrating thing for many of us is that we can see where the money is going: it is paying the unemployment benefit, income support, housing benefit and family credit of the construction workers who have lost their jobs.
  The case of a gentleman in my constituency illustrates clearly where 16 years of Tory housing policies have led us. He worked in the construction industry earning a good salary in the boom 1980s and took out a mortgage on a house at a high price at that time. As things got worse, however, he lost his job. Although the Government help him with his interest payments, he is trapped in that house. When he goes to the employment office, he is told that he must take a job at wages which he knows full well will not cover the payments on his house. Being a responsible man, he goes to the people who lent him the money for his mortgage, who say that they will repossess his home as soon as he defaults when he gets a job. His next stop is the housing association, where he is told that if that occurs he will knowingly be homeless and therefore the housing
  642
  association will not have any responsibility towards him. That encapsulates clearly what has happened as a result of the Government's policies in the past 16 years.
  The Government should be investing in building affordable new housing to rent in the public sector, and they could start with a phased release of the capital receipts which are held in local authority bank accounts. We know that the Government will say "What about the public sector borrowing requirement?" But respectable people in finance know that if there is the will to change the way we work, we could do it. We could get more money invested in housing, and that would mean more jobs.
  We need a comprehensive mortgage benefit. The Government should be using the money saved by the cuts that they have made in MIRAS to create a coherent and reinforced safety net for mortgage holders. That is what my party has proposed for a number of years. Another subject which needs tackling is housing benefit, which traps people in poverty because they cannot afford to work.
  We certainly need to see an end to boom and bust economics. We need an accountable central bank which looks after interest rates—which the bank itself would set, subject to targets set by Parliament—to take politics out of interest rates and avoid interest rate variability. We have consistently put forward those proposals in recent years, and we have warned the Government about the consequences of their short-term economics for housing and the economy. They have not listened, and we are paying the price. That is one of the reasons for the debate today.
  It is vital to our economic future that we have a flexible and stable housing market. People who are tied up by negative equity or who are held by housing shortages are not just being trapped in cramped or sub-standard accommodation. They are often being locked out of work and into poverty. They are being held back from reaching their full potential, and our economy is suffering as a result.
  The national debate on housing has reached a crucial point, and the choice is fairly stark. Either housing will continue to descend to the level of a party political football—with the Government using blind and illogical measures to push home ownership to unsustainable levels while increasingly abandoning mortgage holders to the effects of the economy—or we can take the alternative route that my party has proposed. We need a strong safety net for home owners and tenants alike so that families can feel secure in their homes even when they are under threat in their jobs. We do not need the Government's proposals to hit income support for mortgage holders. It would be wrong to do that at any time, but people in all sectors of housing believe that now is definitely not the time for the Government's proposals. It is time that the Government started to listen to people. More importantly, it is time that they took responsibility for their actions over the past 16 years.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Charles Hendry: First, I declare an interest in that I am the chairman of a group of companies involved in the private rented sector. On a non-pecuniary basis, I am chairman of the all-party homelessness group, a trustee of the Big Issue charitable trust and a friend of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, whose report in many ways stimulated this debate.

  643
  It has to be one of life's more unpleasant experiences to wake up to the dulcet tones of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on "Today" saying that we are to have a debate on housing this week. That is what we heard last week.
  Mr. Dobson: I was telling the truth.
  Mr. Hendry: We always expect the hon. Gentleman to tell the truth, but that does not make it any more pleasant.
  We discovered today that soundbites and media presentation are rather more important than the Opposition's policies. I have listened intently to the speeches made so far in the debate, and we are no nearer knowing where Labour currently stands on this issue. One might have thought that a policy would come out of an Opposition Supply day.
  We do not know yet what Labour's policy is towards a mortgage benefit. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) intervened on the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to ask about that, and was told that the hon. Gentleman would come back to the subject. He did not do so, and has now left the Chamber. He may have left it to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) to deal with in his winding-up speech. I hope that he will do so.
  We do not know whether the Labour party wants to extend the current scheme. We know that 70 per cent. of people are not covered by it at present. We know that it is not adequate, but we do not know whether the Labour party would extend it to cover more people. Labour Members are simply saying what they believe to be politically popular to catch another few minutes' slot on the news tonight or tomorrow morning.
  It is cynical in the extreme for the Labour party to choose this subject for a Supply day debate. In many ways, the empty Opposition Benches bear that view out. Labour Members know that they cannot speak with a straight face on the housing market and home ownership, and they have decided to remain absent from the debate.
  Mr. Raynsford: Where are all the Tory Members?
  Mr. Hendry: It is not our Supply day. The Opposition have chosen the subject. We know that, within a few hours, the Labour Whips will be scurrying around the House asking whether their Back Benchers can speak in the debate as they are a bit short of hon. Members who want to speak.
  Mr. David Martin: The Whips are already doing that.
  Mr. Hendry: That shows the depth of the Labour party's thinking and its commitment.
  We can tell from the Labour party's record how committed it is. When we introduced the right to buy—the most important measure for extending home ownership ever—the Labour party opposed it. Even when the national party had decided grudgingly to accept it, Labour-controlled local authorities throughout the country were doing their best to thwart it.
  We know that home owners would be hit by a Labour Government because of Labour's spending policies. The Labour party may not commit to them now, but if it were in office it could not bear to keep the lid on them. That
  644
  would inevitably lead to higher taxes and to high interest rates—one of the most damaging factors for home owners.
  Day by day, home owners see the cost of Labour. If people aspire to improve their house and push it up a council tax band, or aspire to buy a better house, everywhere we look, band by band, Labour councils cost them more—from £99 in band A to nearly £300 for more expensive properties. That shows Labour's commitment to home ownership.
  If the Labour party wants to try to be the friend of home owners, perhaps it should start by recognising some of the facts. Since 1971, the number of houses has increased by 3.25 million, and 2 million of them have been built since the Government came to power 16 years ago.
  The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said that the number of houses being built by the council in his constituency had dropped, but he did not tell us how many more homes were being built by housing associations. How sad it is that he chose to show us only a small and distorted element of the picture.
  Mr. Betts: Is not the hon. Gentleman in danger of misleading the House, albeit inadvertently? The truth is that, last year, only 500 council houses were built and the number of housing association properties built fell. Fewer properties for rent were built last year than in any year since the war. Housing association new build has not replaced council new build. The total for both combined has fallen to the lowest level ever.
  Mr. Hendry: Certainly the total number of houses built has fallen, but a key factor is the number of new lettings taking place. The figure for last year shows a key movement in the rented sector. The number of new lettings has been rising consistently in recent years, and last year it was at its highest level—
  Mr. Dobson: Since when?
  Mr. Hendry: For the hon. Gentleman's information, it was the highest level ever. Perhaps he would like to use that soundbite when he is next on the "Today" programme.
  The number of mortgages has increased dramatically. In 1980, only 6.2 million people had mortgages; now, 10.4 million have them, and that figure has not dropped during the recent difficult years in the housing market. Year on year, the number of people taking out mortgages has grown.
  On the other side of the spectrum, in 11 successive quarters, the number of families accepted as homeless has dropped. It is a shame that political parties and the pressure groups outside, which are so ready to see two months of bad figures as a trend, will sometimes not see 11 quarters of good figures as something to be welcomed. The home ownership ratio—the ratio between peoples' incomes and the cost of buying a house—is at its most favourable for 10 years. There is a tremendous improvement in many of the housing indicators, and the House should welcome them.
  We should also welcome the fact that housing standards have never been higher. The housing improvement survey, taking into account the way in which standards were measured and changes were brought in, shows that housing standards are better than they have ever been.

  645
  That has happened in the context of a Government spending commitment of more than £20 billion on housing this year, last year and the year before.
  The debate shows us the Labour party scurrying about the political spectrum, not because of an issue of principle but because it has spotted some potential votes of which it may be able to catch hold. That will not wash in the longer run.
  We hope that the hon. Member for Greenwich will tell us where he now stands on MIRAS, because we know that he has called for it to be phased out over a period of five to 10 years. He is minuted as having said that, so I hope that if that is not his view now he will distance himself clearly from it. We know one answer that we shall not hear—that Labour will commit itself absolutely to holding down public spending to avoid rising interest rates, which are the biggest curse that affect people who own their own homes.
  Fundamentally, the debate is about repossessions. Their number has fallen. The level now is 35 per cent.—one third—below its peak. There are also encouraging figures on the level of arrears. The number of people who are more than 12 months in arrears has fallen by a quarter. There has also been a fall in the total amount of arrears.
  Much has been made of levels of negative equity. I understand the concern, but let us recognise the facts there, too. There are now 1.2 million homes with a total negative equity of £7.2 billion. That compares with 1.8 million homes two years ago, when the total negative equity was just below £12 billion. The total level of negative equity per property has dropped from £6,500 to £5,800. All those indicators show a move in the right direction, and many families who were experiencing negative equity a year ago have now moved out of it altogether.
  We cannot rewrite history, but we can be absolutely certain about one thing—that almost all the repossessions could have been avoided if there had been comprehensive mortgage protection. We shall not find anybody who has lost his home in recent years who does not now wish that he had taken out a mortgage insurance policy.
  What the Government are proposing is right, not only for the taxpayer but for home owners, because it would give them the security that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said was so important. We insure our furniture, our treasured possessions and our lives; we even insure our holidays in case they are cancelled or we cannot take them. Surely it makes sense to insure the most important purchase that we shall ever make in our lives—our home, which is the roof above our family's heads.
  Seventy per cent. of people would not be covered by income support if they lost their job. The cruelty of the Opposition's approach is that it gives a false sense of security and makes more people believe that they would be covered by income support than has ever been the case. Indeed, in the past, too many people have erroneously believed that they were covered and, tragically, have found out to their cost that they were not.
  The building societies are responding constructively. We have heard what the Skipton building society is doing. If it is the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration represents
  646
  the constituency of Skipton and Ripon that has encouraged the Skipton to be so constructive, I wish that all building societies would set up their headquarters there. There may be discussions about how far such a scheme would go, but after the discussion this morning with the chief executive of one of the largest building societies in the country, I know that other societies are considering following the Skipton's lead.
  The response of the Association of British Insurers to the Government's proposals has already been mentioned, but it may be worth picking up a couple of points from it. For example, it says:
  "Unlike income support, there is no savings test, and the circumstances of other members of the family are not taken into account.
  It is reasonable to expect that as a result of the recently-announced changes in income support, more people will take out mortgage protection insurance. This factor, combined with falling unemployment, should reduce the cost of such insurance … There are likely to be very few people who will meet a mortgage lender's eligibility criteria but who will not be eligible for Mortgage Payment Protection insurance."
  That is the voice of the organisation that represents the firms that would be responsible for providing the insurance. It believes that the firms can do it, and do it in a comprehensive way—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenwich may laugh, but there will be a moral, if not legal, obligation on those organisations. Even before they have started to develop policies in intricate detail, they believe that they can meet the objective. I find it slightly sad that Labour's housing spokesman finds that something to giggle at.
  We must recognise the limited extent of the Government's proposal. They do not propose the removal of income support for all time, but for a limited period—the first nine months of new mortgages. On an average mortgage of about £33,000 at an interest rate of 8 per cent. the total cost would be £2,000 over nine months. We should see the proposal in context. We have had discussions about how much the premiums should be and whether they should be £150 or £250, which would mean an extra £3 or £5 a week.
  We should ask people whether they would rather spend £3 or £5 on a house that is £1,000 or £2,000 more expensive or have an absolutely cast-iron assurance that, if they lost their job or fell into difficult circumstances, they would not lose the roof over their head. The policy offers greater security than has ever been available before.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch spoke about the double whammy of people losing their jobs and then losing their houses. If everyone took out mortgage insurance, we could remove that threat, and if a person lost their job, they could be assured that they would not also lose the roof over their head. There are also other exemptions, such as involve people who are over 60. The Government are consulting further as to whether those exemptions should be extended.
  We must look at the subject in context. We must also ask the building societies to examine the way in which they operate. In the past, they have been too quick to lend people money without taking them aside and saying, "Interest rates may be low at the moment, but if they went up to 12 or 15 per cent. could you afford it?" There should be almost an obligation on building societies to encourage people to think, "Maybe I can afford that mortgage now,

  647
  but if my circumstances changed, if one partner stopped working or lost their job, could we continue to afford the mortgage at a higher rate of interest?".
  Not surprisingly, there have been some comments on MIRAS, following the comment of Baroness Thatcher last night. It should perhaps be remembered that the biggest change in mortgage interest tax relief happened in the 1988 Budget, when double mortgage relief was removed. It was not removed overnight; it was phased out. We should recall that that created a tremendous growth in the property market before it dropped overnight. Perhaps the right hon. and noble Lady might care to remember who was in charge of the Administration at that time. She spoke about the level at which interest relief was payable being increased to £30,000, but had it been increased in line with the rate of inflation under her Administration, it would have been £60,000 rather than £30,000.
  If home ownership is the way in which people prefer to live, and independent surveys by Shelter and other organisations suggest that 80 per cent. of people want to own their own homes, it seems strange that Government subsidies support the non-preferred systems of housing, such as renting, but are being removed from the preferred system of housing.
  There is a good, but not absolutely comprehensive, case for assisting first-time buyers as this is an uniquely favourable time for many of them to enter the market, but we should view any move to extend MIRAS for first-time buyers against the background of falling interest rates. People who buy a house now on an average mortgage will pay £130 a month less than they would have paid in October 1990.
  We have heard repeated calls for more money to be ploughed into building 100,000 new houses, or whatever, a year. I am certain that if 100,000 new houses were being built, the Opposition would say that the figure should be 200,000. Whatever the figure, we can be certain that the Opposition will double it.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that that observation leads on to another problem for us to ponder? We have not managed to free up the rental market enough and, even after the reforms, we have still to do a great deal more to reduce the pressure on the housing market.
  Mr. Hendry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I hope that the Government will move in that direction because the private rented sector has a key part to play in the balance and it needs further development.
  The solution should not always be to build more social housing. There are about 100,000 empty flats above shops. Not only are they a wasted resource, but bringing people back into city and town centres is a socially desirable objective. There are some 780,000 empty properties in Britain. Many of them are owned by local authorities—predominantly Labour-controlled authorities—but the overwhelming majority are in the private sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) suggested, we should encourage those properties back into use.
  Mr. Dobson: What about Suffolk Coastal?
  Mr. Hendry: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, again from a sedentary position and with his usual charm that so endears him to the people of the country says, "What about Suffolk Coastal?".
  The case for Suffolk Coastal is quite remarkable. That local authority has sold off the overwhelming majority of its social housing stock in a large-scale voluntary transfer. It has shown tremendous responsibility by keeping a small number of houses to meet the needs of homelessness in the borough. That is a way forward that many others should follow. A small percentage of residual stock is kept empty to enable the local authority to house homeless people with great speed. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
  We should also encourage housing associations to feel the exciting and exhilarating wind of competition. I hope that the Government will soon announce that the housing association grants will also be made available to private developers and that money will be recycled to housing associations by extending the right to buy to those who live in housing association properties.
  We must also take steps to make the housing waiting lists in local authorities operate better and more efficiently. The Government have already put forward proposals and I hope that it will not be long before they make a firm commitment to them.
  As joint chairman of the all-party group on homelessness, there is nothing I want to see more than the scourge of homelessness removed. The Government's proposal, whereby everybody would have mortgage protection insurance, is a key element in that process. It would mean that we could begin to remove once and for all the fear of people who lose their jobs that they may also lose their homes.
  It is sad that, once again, in today's debate Labour has shown that where there is a choice between easy popularity and responsible government, easy popularity always wins and responsible government is relegated.
  6.57 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: I must comment straight away on the speech by the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) who, despite his clear knowledge of the subject that we are debating today and the range of interests that he rightly disclosed, would appear to be living in a different country. He talks about letting being at an all-time high, but overlooks the fact that a significant proportion of new rentals are simply transfers within the local government market, and if one removes them from the statistics, the figures are far from the level that he would lead us to believe.
  The hon. Gentleman talks about the number of repossessions falling, but overlooks the fact that they are still running at more than 50,000 a year. There are 1,000 a week and the number is rising. If I were on the Conservative Benches, the last thing in the world that I would want to refer to is repossessions. If one walks down the streets in the well-to-do suburbs that many Conservative Members represent, one can see that the "For Sale" signs are going back up. Repossessions are again increasing in number.
  The hon. Gentleman talks about negative equity as if the Government had achieved some marvellous success in reducing it. He tells us that there are only 1.25 million home owners whose houses are worth less than the

  649
  mortgage taken out on them. What sort of achievement is that? He did not tell us that it is an enormous number, nor did he mention that it is increasing yet again.
  Mr. Hendry indicated dissent.
  Mr. Robinson: It is increasing again; repossessions are increasing and negative equity is increasing, and we are confronted with a genuine crisis in the market. The hon. Member for High Peak, as chairman of the all-party homelessness and housing need group, which must be one of the most socially oriented and worthwhile organisations in the House, should be deeply worried about those issues instead of trying to place the best gloss on what is a terrible position for the Government.
  However, there is one matter on which I would tend to agree with the hon. Member for High Peak, yet again I must fundamentally disagree with him. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State returning to the Chamber, because I wanted to intervene in his speech about that issue—insurance—earlier. I am grateful that he has returned.
  I happen to agree with the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for High Peak that, if we could achieve a comprehensive insurance policy to cover mortgages for those who have taken them out, that would be very worth while. Throughout the House we would agree—it has been said already and it bears repeating—that there are two essential things in the lives of our citizens. One is a job—or jobs, in two-parent families, if they can get them—and the other is a house. If one places the other at risk, it is a dramatic situation.
  I said earlier, and I say again now that the Secretary of State is back, that the fact that we have approximately 1.25 million people with negative equity, that there are 50,000 repossessions a year and the figure is increasing, and that we have so much homelessness, to which the hon. Member for High Peak—chairman of the all-party homelessness group—referred, shows that there is a major problem.
  The uncertainty will persist because, whatever the Secretary of State says about Labour Front-Bench Members and our proposals, there are a few precious months before we shall have to declare them as the next Government. It will happen. We shall have to. There is no doubt about that.
  However, we are now worried about what the Government will do about that position. The Secretary of State got off lightly earlier because he was able to focus on the narrow issue in the Opposition motion of insurance for mortgages. If he is really telling us that he is confident that, on the back of that remarkable initiative from the Skipton, we shall now have a nationwide—"cast-iron", I think, was the phrase used by the hon. Member for High Peak—insurance policy covering all mortgage holders, I would rejoice with him. It would be a tremendous achievement.
  However, the Secretary of State knows as well as I do that subscribing for insurance for mortgage risks is an extremely difficult, if not impossible, proposition, with the best will in the world. I defy any of the big insurance companies to come up with a policy that will work. We know that two thirds of people who have taken out insurance have found, when they came to cash it in, that
  650
  it did not work. Those are the figures that we have. If the Secretary of State wants to correct me, I would be delighted to hear him do so.
  Mr. Lilley: It is Department of Employment research.
  Mr. Robinson: I know.
  Mr. Lilley: Twelve claimants were interviewed.
  Mr. Robinson: I have no doubt that, as the Secretary of State is so committed to that issue—it is important and I am with him on it—he will do better research to find out what the true figure is.
  I shall come to another matter in a moment, because "sophistry" is an in word at the moment and the Secretary of State was indulging in a great deal of it in his speech. However, I challenge the right hon. Gentleman, in his heart of hearts, to give us the terms of the policies that will be underwritten, which will give a cast-iron guarantee to people who have mortgages that, in the event that they lose their job, they will be able to cash in the policies and prevent a repossession. I do not believe that it is possible, and it is a cruel hoax on the people to put it as a realistic proposition.
  Then the Secretary of State said that the policy would pay for itself—that that would come from the margins because the Skipton building society was offering free insurance to gain a competitive advantage. Correct. He then said, "But of course all the others will follow suit". I say that there is no competitive advantage once the whole market is covered and all mortgage lenders are doing the same thing.
  If the Secretary of State, who is the arch apostle of market forces—the one who believes in supply and demand, the profit motive and so on—believes that, once a pattern of behaviour is established for all providers in a given service, they will continue to do that out of their own margins, he lives in cloud cuckoo land. Obviously, mortgage lenders will pass on the costs. It would be worth doing if it could be done properly, but all it will do, in the meantime, is depress the market further by making the cost of borrowing more expensive.
  That brings us to the nub of the Opposition's case—the timing of these perverse proposals. When the market is flat on its back, one does not go on kicking it. When one is in a hole, one does not go on digging. When a company or an industrial sector is in difficulties, one does not clobber it further. That is the golden rule for anyone who wants to handle pragmatically and constructively problems that inevitably arise in various sectors and at various times in the economy.
  Instead of doing that, the Government, for a reason that I cannot understand, have chosen to tackle insurance, social service provision for mortgage interest and tax relief on mortgage interest. At the very time when we need measures to revive and sustain the market, the Government have chosen to indulge in those perverse measures to depress it further.
  It is equally inane to pretend that no crisis exists. Some figures were mentioned earlier, but we know that sales of existing housing are down. We know that starts on new houses—I heard the figure today—are at an all-time low, lower than since the second world war.

  651
  We know that prices are down. The Halifax building society's figures say that they are 1 per cent. down on a year ago, and 10 to 15 per cent. down on a few years ago. There are 1 million people in negative equity and the number is increasing.
  The construction industry is the next example that I give the House. I read today, sadly, in the "Companies & Markets" section of the Financial Times, that a major provincial house builder had issued a profit warning. The chief executive said that the company was being clobbered because it was the first house builder to announce a profits warning, and that the company felt it right that it should let its shareholders know the way things stood. However, he says—it is clearly quoted in the Financial Times—that the company is only the first in a series of similar companies in the house building industry that will announce severe profit warnings.
  If that does not amount to a crisis, I do not know what does. Moreover, we all know it. I do not want to indulge in describing the problems that we have in Coventry, but it is simply incorrect that in Coventry, the private sector is replacing the houses that the public sector no longer builds—to take another argument from the speech of the hon. Member for High Peak. The private sector is not nearly replacing what we have lost from the public sector's building programme.
  We are in crisis, and we need remedial action from the Government. It is no good trying, as the Secretary of State, perhaps smugly, has done today, to sneak out of the debate on the narrow issue of insurance and to say, "We shall now have a nationwide programme put in place to deal with that"—first, because he knows that, in all probability, it will not work and, secondly, because he knows that, in itself, it will not be remotely enough to solve the major problem in the housing market.
  It is not for me necessarily to say what I think should be done, but the Government could do two things. Obviously, I do not speak for Labour Front-Bench Members, but I wish not to speak to them or for them. I want to speak to the Government and persuade the Government to do something; they are the people who can do it. They are the people who suffer most from the instability in the market. They are the people who suffer most from the pervading sense of insecurity that the job position is creating, which now also permeates the housing market.
  The Government could do two things, one of which is Labour policy. They could allow a phased release of the housing capital receipts in the possession of local authorities, to be spent on affordable rented accommodation. If the Government were not ideologically blinkered against that, they would realise that it is the obvious thing to do. The resources are there. That is within the borrowing requirement already as they are capital receipts. I know that it can be argued within the Treasury and within Departments whether we need to increase the public sector borrowing requirement. In my opinion, it need not be treated in that way.
  The second thing that the Government could do—which would, in all probability, involve a further increase in borrowing and in the PSBR—would be to help first-time buyers. That proposal has been made from the Government Back Benches and it merits Government consideration. The alternative is to sit the whole thing out and say, "It will get better; we do not have to worry. If we simply sit back, the thing will recover in the normal
  652
  course of events." No doubt it will. Perhaps it will. But how many more people will have their homes unnecessarily repossessed as a result of that laid-back attitude?
  I am sure that every Conservative Member would have a different attitude if it were their house, their mother's house or a family house that was going to be repossessed. Let us think about it for a second in that context. If it was so, Conservative Members would have a totally different attitude.
  One might sit back and say, "Let's leave it to the market," but how many more people do we needlessly have to put through that hoop, and how much longer do many people who need housing have to wait, simply because the Government believe that the market will right itself in the fulness of time? I will be second to no one in subscribing to the usefulness of market forces. But the point of government is to reinforce market forces and to make them work effectively through Government action when it is required. I put it to the Secretary of State that it is one of those occasions in the market at this time. If he could get beyond his narrow ideological focus and come closer to the real human suffering involved, I believe that he would take action to deal with the problem.
  7.9 pm
  Mr. George Walden: Having listened to some of the contributions to the debate, I am reminded of how difficult it is becoming to discuss a whole series of absolutely fundamental subjects openly and frankly in this place. For example, hon. Members on both sides of the House know that the social security budget cannot continue at anything like its present level. Yet neither Front Bench can address openly the question of radical cuts—although I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, who has made some suggestions in that regard.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that we cannot continue indefinitely spending more and more on the national health service, yet we must all pretend that we can. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have known for years that mortgage tax relief is indiscriminate, expensive, wasteful and inflationary, and that it militates against the private rented sector and distorts the entire economy. Yet no one can say that outright.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was notable for a certain shiftiness—uncharacteristic in a man who is so upright as to be elongated—on the question of mortgage tax relief. It is a sterile sort of debate when no one is able to tell the truth for fear that someone out there may be listening. The reason for that collective reticence is simple: we are all afraid of making the insecure middle classes feel even more insecure. I somehow doubt that it makes them feel better to know that their elected representatives are avoiding the issue.
  The debate in the media and in the pubs is really about whether the Government should take action to inflate house prices artificially. If we cut through much of the debate on both sides of the House, we shall find that that is what we are discussing today. One does not have to be a genius to understand the politics of the matter: people quite like it when they are given money for nothing. The more owner-occupiers there are, the easier it is for us to

  653
  ingratiate ourselves to 70 per cent. of the country at a stroke by giving them money for nothing. Who does not feel a secret gratification when told that his or her main capital asset is worth more than it really is?
  The trouble is that we can fool the public only some of the time. We are having this debate today because the housing market became a farce in the late 1980s. The farce then became a circus and the circus became a pantomime, and many people who were assured at the time that they would enjoy the pantomime are now running to us in tears. For a few years the British public were led to believe that every Englishman's home was worth the price of a castle, or at least the price of a gatehouse from which one could hope one day to graduate to the castle. It was a cruel illusion.
  It is convenient for us to pretend today that that situation resulted entirely from artificially low interest rates due to shadowing the deutschmark. It is very easy for us to shuffle all our problems, in one form or another, on to the exchange rate mechanism. The truth is far less comforting—particularly for my party, I am sorry to say. The truth is that the last Administration wilfully, wrongheadedly and irresponsibly encouraged people to believe the myth that home ownership of itself brings economic security and unearned financial gains.
  Let us go to the root of the matter in so far as my party is concerned. The slogan "a home-owning democracy" is as appealing as motherhood, but unlike motherhood it is not a primary necessity for civilisation. The phrase is a logical nonsense; even worse, it is a dangerous nonsense in terms of modern Conservative philosophy. Of course, no one can oppose home ownership—it is a measure of where we have come to that it is necessary to spell that out. If we accept the idea that we can have a real democracy only when people own their own homes, we are back in the 19th century pre-reform days. If a real democracy can exist only when people own their own homes, the United States, with its high levels of rented accommodation, cannot be much of a democracy. So we are talking absurdities when we use the phrase "a home-owning democracy".
  The modern Conservative party is supposed to be about choice and responsibility—that is how I understand it, but perhaps I am mistaken. People must decide themselves whether they want to own their own homes and how they should invest their savings or capital. It is for them to decide whether they should rent instead. A combination of Labour's bigotry against landlords and the tax privileges that we hand out to home owners has resulted in a scandalously overdeveloped private rented market. In that sense, we have deprived people of choice. Instead, we have fed them with illusion. That is a fundamental reason why they are so angry with the Government now.
  At the heart of the whole dismal business lies a contradiction in our political thinking. It is summed up in two conflicting political slogans. The first is, "Get on your bike," which I think makes excellent sense in an international as well as a national context; and the second slogan is, "Get on the housing ladder," which is a cruel and a cynical nonsense. However one dresses it up, the Government of the day tipped the public the wink that buying a house was a sure-fire investment underwritten by Government subsidies and guarantees.
  654
  For that reason, it is absurd to say—I was sorry to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say it on the "Today" programme this morning—that 80 per cent. of people want to own their own homes. Of course they will say that if one asks them. If one asks them whether they want bigger houses than the ones they own at present, they will probably say yes to that as well. It has been dinned into them that home ownership is the only route to financial security. And behind it all is the secret hope that, who knows, one day we could all clamber back on the house-price carousel and set the whole unstable machine spinning again.
  It is not merely a question of economic policy or the ups and downs of the housing market; it is a question of the relationship between Governments and the electorate. Do we want to treat the public as economic morons? Do we want to lead them into financial extravagance and irresponsibility by encouraging them to believe that their future can be based securely on inflated and publicly subsidised house prices?
  So much for the inglorious past; we start from where we are, which is in a deep black hole. Climbing out of the hole is the easiest thing in the world: all one has to do is rig up some rescue package involving the rate or amount of mortgage tax relief or to devise some scheme designed to help first-time home buyers. I was sorry to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) advance just such a proposal. Most of such schemes—I mean no offence to my right hon. Friend or to any other hon. Members on either side of the House who have advocated them—are of dubious economic honesty. I say that because, consciously or unconsciously, we all know perfectly well that the effect of those schemes will be to provide an artificial stimulus to the housing market, which will result in rising prices.
  If we were to do what some hon. Members on both sides of the House have suggested, the result would be higher prices—perhaps just at the margin, we must not exaggerate; but higher prices nevertheless. My right hon. Friend thought that knock-on effects of that kind would prove positive. But what would really happen? Higher house prices would feed through into higher mortgages in a country where mortgage debt is wholly disproportionate to individual earnings and to our national wealth. That, in turn, would increase pressure for higher wages and that, in turn, would impact on inflation and competition. Macro-economically, the effect would be to divert funds from investment in the productive economy into sterile bricks and mortar.
  The policy of the present Administration to date seems to me to have been highly responsible. They have trimmed back the inflation-producing machine of mortgage tax relief and stressed that they have no wish for a housing boom. They have begun shifting the burden for insuring mortgages to where it belongs. I am entirely behind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on that and he deserves personal credit, all the more so because it is naturally unpopular to have to tell people that they must take responsibility for their own actions. There has been, I am glad to say, some easing up on the use of the infantile slogan of "a home-owning democracy", although it still crops up from time to time.
  We are now told that the country cannot take the medicine and that because some people arc caught in negative equity, the solution must be to give the whole damn shooting match a boost. I understand that the

  655
  medicine is not pleasant. I face people on the doorstep and at surgeries, as do other hon. Members. It would help ease the pain if the Government were to explain frankly that the medicine is for the long-term health of the economy and that we should continue to take it.
  The aim cannot, and must not, be higher house prices. We want stable and sensible house prices and the encouragement of a private rented sector. We should remember that the international financial community watches debates such as this. The question for it is whether the Government are serious in their anti-inflation policies or whether they are going to play games with their people and, therefore, with inflation. If we start fooling around with tax relief, in whatever way, on the pretext that it is temporary, who will believe it? Once mortgage tax relief is raised, who would dare bring it down again, given the trembling middle classes out there?
  I cannot remember whether it was inside or outside the House, but I have said that the fundamental problem with Britain is that it is overhoused and undereducated. Let me explain what I mean by overhoused. I took the trouble to check the housing position in France and Germany. Obviously, my figures are general, but they are interesting.
  Roughly speaking, we are by far the best-housed people in Europe in terms of rooms per household. Certainly we are better housed than people in France or Germany. We can see that from anecdotal evidence from going around the country. We may think that some of those rows of houses are rather tedious and some are getting on in age, but they are quite luxurious in their way. They are two-down, three-up and have a garden and so on. The figure for Britain is roughly five rooms per household. I am not talking about the condition of housing. There are problems with that, but let us not exaggerate. A lot of those houses are in perfectly good condition and are good living units, to give them a clinical name.
  In Germany, a much richer country, there are four rooms on average per household. In France, again a richer country than us, there are three. We know, again anecdotally, that people in France or Germany are not tremendously generously housed. A lot of people live in flats or rented accommodation.
  I make that point simply to stress that Britain does not consist solely of people living in cardboard boxes or people with housing problems. I acknowledge those problems, but this country consists mainly of people who are overhoused and overmortgaged. There are masses and masses of people who are overmortgaged in comparison with their earnings. Their lives, again considering international statistics, are distorted by the amount that they are forced or feel obliged—or sometimes are encouraged by Conservative Governments—to spend on their houses. They have high mortgages and they sit at home sweating and eating baked beans.
  In other countries, the tendency is for people to spend less on housing and more on amusing themselves, on restaurants, entertainment and so on. Given the choice, I know which way I would like to swing our culture, not least, of course, for economic reasons. It is important for us to recognise in this debate that the entire British financial housing structure is askew, for some of the reasons that I mentioned earlier.
  We are told constantly that there is a housing crisis, and the hon. Member for Garscadden gave us the usual list—the Halifax building society and so on. Lists of such
  656
  bodies crop up in the press every day. Every single one of those bodies is profoundly self-interested in a rise in house prices, and the sooner the better, because they are all in business. They make money out of it. There is nothing that they would like better than to have the Government pour in more money so that their profits can rise. That is what we are talking about.
  Believe it or not, I have a little residual realism about the matter. If some independent body could prove to me that such were the catastrophic effects of past policies that the British housing market stands on the edge of a precipice and that it was serious because of the overweening importance of that market and the way that it is linked to all sorts of other financial activities, such as insurance, I would have to take a serious view of a grave situation. I would have to take that view if the independent assessment were that bad, but I have yet to see such evidence. I discount most of the other evidence as self-interested.
  I am more impressed by the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Discounting his political necessities, the fundamentals of what he said are right. We have interest rates down and so on. All that is true. I do not want the housing market to take off or go up; I want it to stay where it is rather than go sharply down.
  For all those reasons, although I am very much aware of the people who are suffering out there and of the short-term political advantages of throwing them a few more dud fivers to follow the others that we have thrown at them over the years, my inclination would be to do nothing, in an informed way. Naturally, being a realist, I would keep an eye out for any signs of the market really going over the cliff. In that case, we could not stand back and do nothing.
  The debate is fundamentally about whether we should bolster popular illusions about the worth of people's assets or tell them the truth. In recent days, we have heard siren calls from someone not completely exempt from responsibility for the hole that we are in. The advice that we got from my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher was that we should throw money into the hole. Of course, some hon. Members will remember that that was not the sort of advice that she gave in office. When she was confronted with problems, the last thing she said we should do was to throw money at them.
  However, houses—bricks and mortar—it seems, are special. They are a form of spiritual entity for some people, and if they are in trouble, we have to shovel money in their direction. One might suspect, listening to some of these siren calls, that their motive was cheap populism—were it not for the fact that populism never comes cheap.
  I am sorry to have taken so long, but, to sum up, it seems to me that the fortunes of the Conservative party have reached the stage where it has nothing to lose by acting responsibly. We might even get some credit for it.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I wish to draw the House's attention to another aspect of housing. The housing market in my area is in crisis. I represent an Ayrshire constituency which has been subjected to a three-pronged attack by the Government through the early wind-up of the development corporation, the stock transfer of Scottish Homes

  657
  properties and the continuing attacks on local government housing. The Government's involvement in all three aspects will force massive changes in the tenancy rights of tenants the length and breadth of Ayrshire. Nothing less than an attack on the principle of public sector housing is the charge.
  As a Member of Parliament representing a Scottish new town constituency, I am very concerned about the plans to dispose of the development corporation's housing stock before the end of next year. Just two weeks ago, the development corporation authorised the sale of 160 general purpose properties to an association known as the Irvine Housing Association in advance of wind-up at a total cost of some £1.6 million—that works out at an average of some £9,000 per property—despite assurances given by the Scottish Office that all tenants of the new town would be balloted before the wind-up and would have the option to transfer to the local authority landlord. The sale seems to fly in the face of those assurances.
  Irvine development corporation is only one of Scotland's five corporations to be transferring major parts of its general needs housing stock to other landlords in advance of wind-up and apparently without there being any bidding to protect the interests of the taxpayer. By next year, nearly one quarter of all the development corporation's tenancies could be under the control of Irvine Housing Association without the tenants having any choice about who their landlord will be.
  I understand that the Scottish Office has a policy of diversification. Surely part of that diversification should be that tenants are given choice, but what choice have development corporation tenants in getting any rationale into housing policy if the new tenancy is forced on them? Perhaps the Scottish Office is obsessed with taking housing out of local authority control and putting it in the hands of housing associations. Polls taken in Scotland in development corporation areas suggest that more than 95 per cent. of tenants would, given the option, transfer from Scottish Homes to the local authority. The sale, at about £9,000 a property, is becoming known as the sale of the century.
  Despite the apparent modification of the guarantees to development corporation tenants, at least some of those tenants have the choice of the local authority as their landlord. However, that choice is being denied to the tenants of Scottish Homes properties in my constituency and across Scotland. Scottish Homes is disposing of its stock just as Irvine development corporation did, but its tenants are being denied the opportunity to transfer to the local authority landlord.
  One has to ask why there is such an anomaly. Scottish Homes tenants cannot understand why they are being denied choice. The only reason why the Scottish Office and Scottish Homes can come up with is that it affords Scottish Homes the opportunity to gain a capital receipt which can then be used to build more homes and pay for investment in housing.
  Some two months ago, I obtained figures from James Mellon, the chairman of Scottish Homes, which showed how much Scottish Homes had raised through stock transfer. Until the end of March this year, Scottish Homes sold off nearly 10,500 properties at a combined price of about £65 million. That works out at an average of just over £6,000 for each property. I do not think that that
  658
  represents a very good deal for the taxpayer. Indeed, it proves that Government dogma is ensuring that public sector housing is sold at knock-down prices, and another sell-off is becoming known as the sale of the century.
  Tenants of Scottish Homes have a right to be angered by the way in which their homes are being sold. Scottish Homes has spent more than £3 million establishing and bankrolling housing associations, while only £25,000 has been allocated by Scottish Homes to tell tenants what their rights will be under the new stock transfer.
  Tory attacks on the development corporation and Scottish Homes tenants have been the more obvious methods adopted by the Scottish Office to undermine public sector housing, but the systematic underfunding of local authority housing has done the most damage. In 1979, nearly 5,000 homes were built by Scottish councils. By 1982, the number had dropped to just over 2,000 and, last year, fewer than 500 new council houses were built for rent. Those figures speak volumes about the Government's view of Scottish housing. More people than ever before are being made homeless because of mortgage arrears and family breakdown, but the number of council houses being built for rent has been literally decimated in the 16 years of this Government's rule.
  The Government's housing policies are wholly out of step with the needs of modern society, especially in Scotland. I see that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is now in his seat. Perhaps he can suggest to his colleagues that the Government's housing policies ignore the massive housing crisis and causes cardboard cities and people living rough to move out of the cities and into towns like those in my constituency. They ignore the contradiction in denying Scottish Homes tenants the choice of a local authority landlord while people living in the property next door have that choice because they have a different public sector landlord.
  Something is wrong with Government policy—it is fundamentally flawed and requires to be examined. In Ayrshire, public sector housing is under a three-pronged attack which has been masterminded—if that is the right word—by the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Ministers bunkered in new St. Andrew's house. They are out of touch with what the public want from public housing and out of touch with the reality with what it means to spend 12 years on a council waiting list for a house that there is virtually no chance of getting.
  The Government's housing policies have failed. The more constituents I have met in the past three years, the more I have become convinced that that is true. The Government's crazy policies have failed my constituents in particular, but they have also failed Scotland and the whole of Britain. It is time that the electorate were given a chance to implement a repossession order on every Government Ministry occupied by the current Administration. That would be the best policy for housing in this country and one that I would commend to the House.
  7.37 pm
  Mr. David Martin: It has been worth waiting to hear the high standard of contributions made to the debate. I am thinking especially of that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) with whose speech I wholly agreed. He made a thoughtful

  659
  and worthy contribution to a debate on a serious subject which has interested me for many years, especially as it has in my lifetime—certainly my political lifetime—been grounded in mythology.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said that Labour's hostility to home ownership goes back some 15 years. I think that it goes back further and has also affected my party over the years. The bomb damage caused by the second world war meant massive devastation, mainly to rented accommodation, especially in London. The Rent Acts, which had been introduced after 1917 to deal with the problems of the first world war, were kept in place. Things were made worse after the second world war by all the controls that remained on house building and on the occupation of houses—imposed understandably in some cases, but ideologically by the Labour party in others. There was hostility to ownership and a belief that the Rent Acts should remain, controlling rented housing.
  Under Harold Macmillan, as Housing Minister, 300,000 houses a year were promised and 300,000 were built in the course of the 1950s. There was no relief from the Rent Acts until 1957, when common sense returned and there was an attempt to revive the rented sector. But then, Rachman and others ruined the political field, and we unfortunately returned to the ideological battle lines drawn up between rented accommodation and the private sector.
  The only options were to own a property or to be in public sector houses—in a council house. Housing associations were not much in evidence then; there were similar bodies, but the movement had not yet taken off.
  In 1965 came another Rent Act, which made matters even worse for the rented sector and made it even more imperative that people buy their own homes rather than look to the private rented sector. Throughout the 13 years of Conservative rule—the Churchill, Eden, Macmillan and Douglas-Home Governments—the public sector had been expanded, and it reached its peak in the 1970s, with all that sky-rise housing. The idea was to get people as fast as possible into "units of accommodation"—to use the clinical expression of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham—even if surrounding neighbourhoods were ruined and demolished. They were badly built, often jerry built. Since then, many of them have had bombs put under them and we have started again.
  Throughout, the choice lay between home ownership or public sector housing: the parties divided along those lines. The Labour party's hostility to home ownership was taken on by the Conservatives' property-owning democracy slogans that were so well dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham.
  Little wonder then, as my hon. Friend said, that people became acclimatised to the idea that they must own a home. Failing that, they would hope for a council tenancy near their parents, or at least aspire to getting on the waiting list for one. There was never enough money; there were never enough houses. Instead, waiting lists got longer and longer. Sub-committees were formed in councils, with all the attendant temptations to corruption, in the form of special housing lists: "You come to me and I'll get you a house." That sort of culture entered local government, because the need for housing could never be met.
  660
  How to get some sort of sense into the market? In 1975, more legislation was passed which made rented accommodation in the private sector even more difficult. So we come to the mix of the late 1970s and early 1980s, when housing associations came in to try to hold the ring between the death of the private rented sector and the alternative of owning a home. This move was not so much ideologically based. Over the years I have visited many of the initiatives implemented by Portsmouth Housing Trust. Only last Friday I visited some. The trust has certainly plugged gaps in housing need over the years.
  Apart from the Rent Acts, we cannot look at the problem without taking into account another extremely distorting factor in the market—mortgage interest relief. It is important to look at its origins. To do that, we need to go back even further than my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham took us. Before 1974 people could get interest relief on any borrowing, not just borrowing for a mortgage. Today is not the first time house prices have spiralled upwards beyond people's ability to pay to stay in them—bankrupting some of them in the process. Others have had their houses repossessed.
  In 1972–73 I wanted to enter the housing market. I had practised at the Bar for two or three years, I was living in London and I wanted to buy a house jointly with my brother, having begun save some money. I was living in a controlled tenancy, paying £12 a week with my brother for half a house in Kensington. What a rent to be paying for a property of that kind! No wonder the private rented sector died.
  The house that we had been looking at was in Peel street, just north of Kensington High street. Just as we became interested in it, the price doubled, and the mortgage became too expensive for us. In the end, I did not own a house until 1980, when house prices, having fallen considerably in the late 1970s, returned to the sort of level that would enable me to enter the market.
  Having seen the stoking up of the market that interest relief on borrowing had brought about, the Labour Government in 1974 introduced mortgage interest relief, allowable on no more than £25,000 paid for a property. That was intended to cap spiralling prices, which had been stoked up by borrowing in 1972–73.
  In subsequent years the market levelled out. From the later 1970s until the early 1980s it was a good, buoyant market that people could afford to enter. Much of it was subsidised by mortgage interest relief, but that was not then as noticeable as it later became.
  In the 1980s the cost of money—for buying houses, antiques or cars—was highly affordable: money was cheap. It became very cheap in the middle and late 1980s. That factor fed through into the housing market.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham have taken us down memory lane, to the time when Baroness Thatcher headed the Government. She was good at spending money while saying that she was not doing so and that Ministers should not do so. My right hon. Friend, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), was a successful Secretary of State when health and social security were still combined in one Department, but I clearly remember that expenditure in the Department did not fall during the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. The rhetoric in Cabinet may have suggested otherwise, but it certainly did not fall.

  661
  One of the features of Baroness Thatcher's Government was much rhetoric about cuts in expenditure, while in practice expenditure rose and rose, in every area. I nearly choked last night when I heard her saying on television that the Government's policy on mortgage interest relief represented the destruction of all that she believed in. Her Government cut it. I was therefore relieved to hear my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) remind the House that, in 1988, Baroness Thatcher's Chancellor removed double mortgage interest relief, which had meant that two people in a property could together get relief on the sum of £60,000. Baroness Thatcher therefore presided over a Government who cut mortgage interest relief.
  The results were tremendous, showing just how important a part of purchasing houses mortgage interest relief can be. In the delay before the relief was disallowed, many of the people who are still suffering from negative equity today quickly entered the market.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said that, in those days, there were no leaks, but that is not my memory of that Government. I think that there was a certain irony in his saying it, as there was a sort of leak that went around—namely, that Baroness Thatcher was rather keen, in those days, on mortgage interest relief and did not want her Chancellor to cut it. She wanted it to be increased. So it was increased from £25,000 to £30,000. It was a pathetic amount. When it was introduced in 1974, £25,000 bought a substantial part of a house, but £25,000 in the Thatcher years, and then £30,000, was a little blip as far as the market was concerned. It was not a significant increase. It withered on the vine, quite frankly. It was kept at £30,000 for year after year and became more and more insignificant, particularly as house prices went up, if I remember correctly.
  Mr. Walden: I am sorry to interrupt, but it is significant to point out that, although £30,000 may not have seemed much to us, who, perhaps, have to buy houses in London, the national average for a house was still only about £60,000, and therefore that £30,000—because houses are cheaper in the north—still represented about 50 per cent. of the cost of the average house nationally.
  Mr. Martin: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has corrected the apparent drift of what I was saying. I really meant that, by the time of the boom at the end of the 1980s, £25,000 was an insignificant part, and when it was increased to £30,000, it had a more significant effect on the market, and had the deleterious effect that my hon. Friend pointed out in his excellent speech. By the closing year of Baroness Thatcher's Government, it was a far more insignificant part of the total house purchase than it had been when it was increased to £30,000, and it was certainly more insignificant than £25,000 had been in 1974.
  If anyone had wished to preserve the policy on mortgage interest relief—which, apparently, on television last night, I heard Baroness Thatcher say by implication that she wished to do—Baroness Thatcher's Government would certainly have put up mortgage interest, not only to £30,000 but probably to something like £60,000 to keep pace. That is really the context in which I meant my
  662
  remarks. When mortgage interest relief was increased to £30,000, that was a significant sum of money to certain people in certain parts of the country.
  Now, interest rates are the most significant factor to consider when purchasing a house. It would be wholly wrong, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, to provide subsidy to the very people who are getting the best bargains, certainly since the 1950s, on cheap houses, many of which are repossessions, I confess. I do not rule out from blame the way in which, in the late 1980s, the Government fuelled and increased the expectations of people to own their own homes. They did encourage 22-year-old deputy or assistant managers of building societies to lend not one and a half times one's income but up to four times one's income. They also based mortgages on the joint incomes. That fuelled the whole crazy spiral. It had to stop, and it has stopped. First-time buyers are now able to get into the market, and certainly do not require more subsidy to do so.
  What I would have said in addition to that was far better said by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. The illusions to which he referred really gave us a cold shower.
  I have another matter to raise—I hope that I do not run so horribly over time that I shall never be called again in this Session, because if I did I would have to sit through even more speeches without catching anybody's eye and would have to make my speech to the Lobby rather than the Chamber—and it concerns elderly people who live in houses that they own outright; the mortgage has been paid off; the husband died some years ago; and there is a small occupational pension.
  In my constituency, there are quite a few elderly women with service occupational pensions from their late husband's service years and working life. Those people find that the savings that they had when the husband died are becoming less each year. They own their freehold property, that is true, but the problem is that the roof needs replacing; the chimney causes problems; the house needs repainting. Various parts of the house are beginning to rot. We all know, from owning houses ourselves, that one never sees the end of property maintenance. The bills are high, and now one must pay VAT on those bills, so they are even higher.
  An elderly woman cannot keep pace with the cost of the house. Perhaps she has been taught all her life—she came from a family that does this, and her husband made sure of it—not to live off the state, that she must work and save, and that that will see her out for her days. Unfortunately, in her mind, that is not the case as she sees her savings going down and down. Perhaps her husband left £35,000 when he died. Then it is £25,000. Then it is £15,000. She is getting nearer and nearer to £8,000 and then, of course, down to the £3,000. Of course we say to her, "There will be help when you get there. If you need to go into a rest home or nursing home, your house will be taken into consideration. You will not need to rely on the state until the proceeds of the sale of the house have been used."
  That does not impress the relatives, who intended to inherit the house, but that is the position. What can we do about it? That is a very real concern to people who are not used to being in that position. The capital limit at the moment is £8,000. We have to increase it. We have to take into account the income from the capital rather than the capital itself. I confess that it is expensive. I have

  663
  tabled a written question, which, unfortunately, had not been answered by today, to find out exactly how expensive it will be.
  To take into account the income for benefit purposes rather than the capital amount is not as expensive. It is very expensive, no doubt, just to disregard £10,000, £20,000, £30,000, £40,000, or £50,000 of income, but it is cheaper to take the income into account, and it is more reasonable. It would stop the tremendous acceleration in the loss of savings and the feeling of insecurity that comes into the minds of widows, particularly elderly widows, because women live so much longer than men.
  I shall leave that as a thought. It is obviously another debate for another time and I need to develop it, but that is an aspect of housing policy that needs to be looked at, particularly because of what happens when people in those circumstances become incapable of looking after themselves, and then we get into the rest home or nursing home angle and what happens to the inheritance of their house.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. John Denham: It was very interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), and particularly to his history of the development of the housing market. If I could summarise his speech, I would say that we have seen the problem of rapid over-inflation before in the housing market, created by the mistakes of Government policy. The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that it happened under the previous Conservative Government in the early 1970s, and was good enough to point out that it took a Labour Government to sort out the problems.
  Here we are again with problems created by a Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman failed to draw the logical conclusion, but others will: it will take a Labour Government once again to restore some sanity, security and stability to the housing market.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) that we do not and should not aim to see another bout of rapid inflation in house prices. Representing, as I do, a southern constituency, and being particularly interested in the politics of the south and of the southern voter, I recognise the temptation to devise policies that would temporarily stuff the pockets of voters with fivers or create the illusion of capital growth through rapid house price inflation, but, for reasons that have been well stated by Conservative Members, that is not a desirable housing or economic objective.
  There are, however, modest objectives that we should set which have not been addressed by the Government. Although we should certainly avoid stimulating an inflationary house price spiral, it is quite reasonable to say that we should aim to remove the fear from the housing market, that we should aim to remove the insecurity that exists in the housing market, and that we should aim to remove the obstacles to the perfectly reasonable aspiration to be able to move house when that is required, whether it is because of a growing family, or for reasons of work, family circumstance or personal choice. That is a real fear and insecurity in the housing market, and a real block on the reasonable aspirations of home owners.
  Despite the recent fall in the number of court orders in repossession cases, the bad news in the south-east is that the number rose by 14 per cent. in the first quarter of this
  664
  year compared with the first quarter of 1994. In my county of Hampshire, it was up by 9 per cent. That strongly suggests—as does the anecdotal evidence of advice agencies and housing organisations—that the fall in the number of repossessions that appeared to be emerging about a year ago has now been reversed, and mortgage lenders are now pursuing property owners.
  As has been said, 1,000 people a week are already losing their homes through repossession, and the figures seem to be rising. Those arrears problems will continue in the south-east. Reports from the Department of the Environment and a number of other sources suggest, significantly, that there is now almost a split in the pathway of those who have found themselves in arrears. Most reports suggest that about a third are working their way out of the problem; the downside is that the other two thirds are not reducing their arrears and, in general, show no real signs of being able to escape.
  The Department of the Environment report suggested that 200,000 families in that position are now at high risk of losing their homes through repossession. Despite the Prime Minister's promise not so long ago that repossessions had been ended, they are still a very real feature of the housing market, and the fear is great for the families involved.
  Many more people are suffering from negative equity. The Woolwich building society believes that, in the south-east, nearly one in five home owners with mortgages now have negative equity. That, however, does not give the complete picture of the problems faced by those with negative equity. The situation is not merely static; they do not simply owe more money than their homes are worth. Their position is a major obstacle to their ability to move.
  Moving, of course, does not depend only on the vendor's having equity in the property that he is selling. Costs are associated with it—costs of about £5,000, it is said. The combined number of those with negative equity and those who may owe exactly what their properties are worth but do not have the extra £5,000 to cover the cost of a move amounts, in the south-east, to about 830,000 households, or one in three.
  It is not surprising that many voters in the south of England feel deeply betrayed by the Government. Some have suffered repossession; many others have large arrears, and are making no progress in clearing them; many more—one in three—could not move today if they wanted to, because they owe too much on their properties. People are trapped in their homes, and trapped in insecurity.
  It is also not surprising that that has been reflected in the stagnation of the housing market. House prices overall in the south-east have moved little in the past year; that is hardly remarkable, if a third of the number of home owners with mortgages cannot even exercise the choice to move.
  I want to speak mainly about the home-owning sector, but I intend to respond to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), who is not present now. He talked more widely about the rented sector and the Government's record. I am well aware of the position in Southampton, because, until I became a Member of Parliament, I chaired the housing committee on Southampton city council.
  Back in late 1989 and 1990, we made a fairly systematic estimate of the number of rented houses that needed to be produced in the city over the next five to 10

  665
  years—socially rented houses, that is. We were not too bothered about whether they were let by the local authority or housing associations; that was a secondary issue. We decided that 500 new homes per year were required.
  We set about the exercise very seriously. We compiled a big register of all the development land in the city—land owned by the council, land owned by other public bodies, and privately owned land that might involve some leverage because of planning gain, for instance. We put the land into a pool and used it with housing associations. That was what the Government had asked us to do. We also launched an empty property strategy, which has been praised by Ministers and empty homes agencies, and cited as a model. That too was mentioned by the hon. Member for High Peak.
  Despite all that, however, the largest number of homes that it has been possible to produce in a year is 250—about half the number needed to make any significant impact on housing waiting lists in Southampton. Not enough resources are going into social housing to provide the homes that are needed for rent.
  Ironically, a number of Conservative Members talked loosely of freeing the private rented sector. We know that what the Government have done in that sector over the past few years has stimulated a massive spiral in the housing benefits bill, so that three times as much as four or five years ago is now being spent on housing benefit. Money that could have helped to provide more new social homes to rent is being eaten up each year.
  I have nothing against the provision of private sector rented accommodation, but too much of what Conservative Members say assumes that that will be paid for by the taxpayer through housing benefits. That mistaken policy has led to a far less efficient use of resources than spending the money on social housing.
  I have described the insecurity of home owners and the immobility in the housing market. Let me underline a point that has been made once or twice, but not in great detail. Insecurity in the housing market does not stand alone; it is not purely a matter of housing policy. It is a symptom, and at times a cause, of a wider insecurity. Home owners in the south face a barrage of problems, not least in the increasing unavailability of better-paid and more secure work. That can lead to initial problems with mortgage arrears and subsequently to repossessions.
  Earlier this evening, I learned that the Secretary of State for Employment is going to Southampton tomorrow to launch the unemployment figures. I hope to point out then that, over the past year—despite a fall in the headline unemployment rate—the city has lost hundreds of well-paid, formerly secure jobs in such firms as British Rail Maintenance Ltd., Standard Telephones, the oil refinery at Esso, Pirelli and the privatised utilities; and, of course, many jobs in the construction industry, which is now stagnating.
  Our economy is losing well-paid, secure work, and replacing it with badly paid, insecure work. That feeds into housing insecurity, and creates circumstances in which home owners—even if they are paying their bills today—are unsure whether they will be able to pay them in future, can take on new commitments or can move house.
  666
  It is against that background that we must assess the Government's present proposals. I do not believe that, at a time when the job market and the housing market are so insecure, further insecurity should be introduced. However one considers the current proposals, they cannot in any way improve the housing market or the position of someone who is in mortgage arrears or who is trapped in negative equity.
  The problem of insuring mortgage payments was well covered in a report published by the Association of British Insurers entitled "Risk, Insurance and Welfare". It said some interesting things about the position of people who face unemployment and the difficulties of insuring them. I must make the fair point that that document is not an ABI policy statement but a series of papers that it has commissioned. It is, however, significant that it has published them.
  It says:
  "It would seem, therefore, that the new realities have done little to change the arithmetic of unemployment insurance. Risk remains highly differentiated, with those most at risk being least able to afford higher premiums. Indeed, in some respects the arithmetic has worsened, for the socially necessary expenditures of the unemployed have increased, while state support has lessened, the availability of permanent well-paid jobs has declined, and the duration of spells of unemployment has lengthened."
  That is a fair description of the social context in which the Government are asking people to insure themselves against the inability to pay their mortgage.
  That ABI report fairly details the type of exclusions that exist on mortgage insurance policies. They normally exclude the first 30 days of unemployment or financial insolvency, unemployment occurring during the first 90 days of the plan with a new mortgage, unemployment beyond 12 months, people without regular or continuous work for at least 12 months prior to claiming, voluntary unemployment or insolvency, unemployment that is a recurrent, regular or seasonal feature of the job, and unemployment at the end of a fixed-term contract. All those are standard exclusions from the type of insurance policies that we are discussing. I shall ask a few questions about the confident predictions that the Secretary of State for Social Security made in his speech.
  The ABI report says:
  "While the financial rationale for these exclusions is self-evident the net result is to exclude many of those whose circumstances result from the trends towards a more flexible labour market: the long term unemployed and those in precarious forms of employment."
  The report makes an interesting comment which is important to the debate:
  "Moreover, these are the very same people who are not well served by social insurance … There is a sense in which private and social insurance is currently competitive rather than complementary. Policies linked to mortgages tend to exclude the first 60 or 90 days of unemployment which coincides with the period when mortgage interest does not attract assistance from Income Support. Moreover, with the introduction of Job Seekers Allowance, which lasts for only six months, more people will find themselves excluded from Income Support on account of their private insurance. As a consequence of this trap some families will stand to gain little or no financial benefit from their private insurance premiums."
  That point could be developed at much greater length, but it is interesting because it highlights a fact that the Secretary of State mentioned earlier. There are problems with the scope of cover in the state insurance—we can call it that—which is available to home owners. His

  667
  proposals do nothing to resolve those problems. They simply exacerbate them and expose people to greater cost and greater insecurity.
  It is worth putting on the record some of the real costs that are involved in the Government's proposals. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) for the calculation of these figures. He has considered the effect of the Budget announcements, which are really the subject of the debate, on people who do not have insurance against the inability to pay their mortgage. He points out that, without an insurance policy, if the average existing borrower is made redundant after October 1995, he stands to lose £590 as a direct result of the proposals. Without insurance, the average new borrower who is made redundant after October 1995 stands to lose £2,063 as a direct result of the 1994 Budget. It is worth putting those figures on the record, because they show just how much the Budget is taking from home owners.
  The Secretary of State believes that the insurance market will cope with that problem. He may come to regret the confidence with which he said that private insurers will cover the housing market in an adequate manner. He seemed sure about that this afternoon, but a number of questions need to be asked.
  For a start, the right hon. Gentleman was entirely dismissive of the evidence produced by the Department of the Environment's report on the difficulties of claiming on mortgage protection. He was entirely dismissive of the experience of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which has detailed many cases in which it is impossible to claim on mortgage protection policies. That is an important point.
  This part of the debate is not about whether people can get someone to sell them an insurance policy; it is about whether the insurance policy is any good when one has paid one's premiums to it over a period of years. The Government have been and are now especially wrong to resist the pressure to regulate the sale of such policies in a statutory manner. They have learnt nothing from their experience with the promotion of personal pensions, which were not properly regulated and all sorts of errors arose as a result.
  The income protection and mortgage protection market is not regulated in a statutory manner. There is clear evidence that mis-selling, misunderstandings in selling and unreasonable objections to claims are arising, yet the Government still resist pressure to introduce statutory regulation.
  If the Government go ahead with these measures, they will pay a high price when people pay out on policies and find that they are unable to claim on them when they need them.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's argument, to which I am not unsympathetic, but how would the Government regulate the industry in the granting of mortgage protection insurance policies? Does he not agree that, if the insurance industry accepts that that is the way in which the Government will go, it will devise policies that are reliable? Clearly, the building societies will be interested, and they will want to be paid in the event of a mortgage holder becoming unemployed or long-term sick.
  Mr. Denham: That intervention reminds me that I should have declared an interest at the outset. I receive a contribution towards my office costs from the National Union of Insurance Workers.
  I have got to the relevant part of my speech. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear with me, as I should like to cover some of the consequences in a moment. I think that he is suggesting that there will be pressure from mortgage lenders to ensure that policies can he claimed on. One would have expected that to be the case already to a degree, given that building societies lose out, sometimes on policies that they themselves have sold.
  The Secretary of State has said that many of the policies that people cannot claim on have been sold by building societies, yet, until now, there does not seem to have been any effective pressure from building societies to make those policies worth while. Perhaps the building societies have been keener to pick up the commission on selling the policy than to ensure that policies work.
  Generally, rather than relying, for example, on voluntary codes of conduct in the industry, it would be an advantage for codes of conduct to be given a statutory basis so that sanctions can be taken against companies that sell policies that do not work.
  Earlier this afternoon, I thought that the Secretary of State was discovering things that had never previously been discovered about the insurance industry, especially that it is in the business of giving free lunches. I must be cautious about this, as, having made one or two speeches about the industry, I have found that it queues up to offer hon. Members free lunches. I suspect that the truth is that someone pays for those lunches, and that that will be the case in the free schemes that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
  I have a series of questions about the Secretary of State's proposals. First, if the block insurance policies are so good, why have mortgage lenders been so opposed to his proposals? Indeed, why have they not promoted them to the 70 per cent. of borrowers who he says are not covered by such insurance? One would have thought that, in their own interests, it would have been worth the lenders' while to promote such policies, but they have not done so.
  Secondly, further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), will lenders be pressurised to restrict the people who are able to borrow if block policies are introduced? There are plenty of types of block insurance around—company sickness or whatever—but they are not generally available to everyone. I suspect that insurers will put pressure on lenders to exclude various people from mortgages because they will not be covered by the block insurance policies. I want an assurance from the Secretary of State that that will not happen.
  Thirdly, will people he any better able to claim on such policies than they are at present? Is the Secretary of State clear that there is no question of people being excluded because of existing health risks or business failure, or because it is alleged, after events, that they could have predicted redundancy?
  What will happen? Will the building societies be in the front line of assessing people's risks to a greater depth than at present, or will there be rows after the event about whose fault it was that the person was unable to continue

  669
  to pay the mortgage? Where will the responsibility lie if the insurance company refuses to pay up on the claim—with the borrower, the lender or the insurer?
  I hope that I am wrong, but the Government will push ahead with this policy, and I think that the Secretary of State was over-confident this afternoon. The negotiation of block insurance by lenders with insurers and the extension of the market will not remove the exclusions and the vulnerability that are inherent in this market. At the moment, the housing market does not need the greater insecurity that the measures will produce, and they should be withdrawn.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I will keep my comments shorter than planned and press on as fast as possible as other hon. Members want to speak. This has been an interesting debate because it has done much to demonstrate some of the clear differences between the two sides of the House. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate he will demonstrate that, so far, we have heard no policies from the Opposition Front Bench tonight. It is their debate, but amazingly no policy seems to be coming out. Perhaps that is part of new Labour: the idea is to talk a lot, but not to give much away. That is fair criticism and I hope that my hon. Friend will point it out.
  We have had a particularly good debate, especially on some of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who touched on an important point. Even though the record of Conservative Governments during the 1980s was impressive, both in terms of the number of people who got themselves into the housing market and in the way in which lettings increased, we now find ourselves at a critical point. We must examine what we have achieved and whether we should now be doing something else.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham went into the matter and said that, essentially, the policy of the 1980s was wrong. I disagree. He was being far too simplistic and failed to recognise that many people who prior to the 1980s would never have dreamed of being able to own their own homes have managed to achieve that. They have some essential capital for their old age or their family and they have got on to the ladder of the capital-owning democracy: I prefer to see it as such, rather than as the property-owning democracy. We must accept that, in future, assets must have greater convertibility so that people can deploy them. After all, a home is an asset. People should be able to deploy their assets against their old age and, for example, provision in care homes. Many people who would never have been in such a position are in that position now, which is a positive factor.
  There is a problem, however. After the housing boom of the late 1980s and the recession, too many people are locked into a depressing state of negative equity, with their properties not worth what they paid for them. That problem has been compounded by the fact that we have other instabilities in the marketplace—not merely higher unemployment, which we have been getting down, but more particularly because there has been a cultural change in the way in which people work. White collar workers
  670
  now face greater instability than ever before, mostly because the nature of their employment has changed dramatically.
  When I first started work in a private company, after leaving the Army, there were people who had worked for the company since they had left school at 16 or 17 and who were close to retirement. They had worked for one company right the way through and there were a number of them. By the time I left, I remember thinking that it was difficult to find such people. Most people seemed to be shifting in and out of employment and moving to different companies with greater regularity. That has meant that people to whom such stability gave some confidence about purchases, not least house purchases, have found themselves lacking that sense of stability and unsure where they might be.
  On top of that, with low inflation there are lower pay rises. Everyone will say that, logically, there is no difference between a pay rise of 3 per cent. with low inflation and a pay rise of 10 per cent. when inflation is running at 7 per cent., but people saw that extra in their pay packet and somehow felt better. They do not feel that now. That is a state of mind which exists with permanently lower levels of inflation and we have to work through that. It all means greater instability. People are less determined to spend their money.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is wrong in his assertion that the policy was wrong. He compared our position with that in other countries. Most interestingly, he seemed to allude to the fact that the United States has a much better rental market because it had not entered the house purchasing programme. Yet the percentage of home owners in the United States is roughly the same as here. The difference is that the Americans have easier access to a rental market which does not penalise the private sector owner who wants to rent out property. One can move 2,500 miles across America at the drop of a hat and rent not just a home but all the furniture in it at easy rates. The difference is that Americans will leave their houses behind and rent them out; they will move to rent somewhere else. There is greater freedom.
  If I have one criticism of any Government who have been in power, it is that we have ignored for too long the impact of having a constricted private rented sector, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) said. We have not done enough to sort that problem out and that is where the dilemma lies. The problem is not that too many people own their homes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, but that when they want to move it is difficult to find temporary accommodation elsewhere, which locks up their ability to take jobs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham went on to compare the situation here with France and Germany, which I found intriguing. Some of my family live in Italy and have had to buy homes. They have had experience of buying a home over a two-year period—that is the amount of time given to repay the loan. That is a huge, crushing burden on anyone not earning at the highest level. So such people do not get access to capital. We heard earlier that access to capital and cheaper money somehow created a problem. In fact, such access has released many people who would never have had the ability to purchase homes.

  671
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, yes, purchasing a home is special. It is no good pretending that it is just any other sort of investment. People do not live in stocks and shares. People do not bring up a family in a load of paper investments. Bricks and mortar are special. A house is connected with the family, a way of life, tangible things that one can touch which give us security. That is why there is so much emotion on the subject. That is why we find that, with such great instability, people are concerned and wondering what will happen next.
  Some have said that Lady Thatcher was wholly wrong to raise the issue of the housing market. I disagree. It is a very important point to raise. I do not think that the route that she is trying to persuade us to take is necessarily absolutely correct, but she is raising the fact that there is major concern about an emotive issue. We need to make certain that we focus on that issue, address that concern and point out to people why our policies will bear much greater fruit than some of the nonsense talked by Labour Members.
  Yes, mortgage interest relief at source is withering. It would continue to wither even if we did not change any of the levels because it would become a smaller and smaller part of the purchase. For a long time, I have believed that MIRAS must disappear, simply because it has tended to distort the market place. I accept, however, that since there is great instability, we need to think carefully about the impact of the reduction in MIRAS—not because it financially benefits people to the huge degree that some claim, but because it has a psychological effect: it sends a certain message. That message is compounded by other factors. There is some point in drawing breath, but I am not certain that we shall gain very much by reversing our position.
  It is rather pointless to go through some of the other problems, but when I look at what the Government are proposing, I accept wholly that there is a need for reform. There is no question but that mortgage protection has got out of hand and the Government are being bold in addressing it. I do not say that simply because I am a Conservative. Whatever Government were in power would have to address that problem. What is so brilliant about the Opposition is that they will not even begin to address the issue publicly. They talk about controlling public expenditure, but when the first opportunity arises to declare their interest they walk away from it at a rate of knots.
  Let us consider, for example, the report of the all-party Select Committee on Social Security, which was published on 8 June. I stress that it was an all-party report. Paragraph 89 of the conclusion says:
  "There is no simple or agreed answer to the question at what point does social security become unsupportable … The Committee does however agree that the uncontrolled and unplanned growth of social security spending is a cause for concern. Whilst a Government may wish to raise social security spending as a conscious act of policy, no Government should find itself driven inexorably to devoting a higher and higher proportion of GDP to fund the consequences taken by Ministers long departed, who perhaps misjudged demographic trends or the long term effects of their decisions."
  That is the crux of the matter that my right hon. and hon. Friends are addressing with the mortgage protection scheme.
  If Labour Members do not believe that and want to walk away from it, they should look at what came off the back of that report. Total benefit expenditure rose from
  672
  £6.6 billion in 1974 to £85.2 billion in 1994–95. Benefit expenditure less costs of unemployment as a percentage of GDP has increased for the past couple of years by around 11 per cent. The Select Committee report makes devastating reading.
  Where do Labour Members stand? They do not; they run away. They hold a debate which should not be called a housing debate but a crocodile tears debate. They have seen in the newspapers and heard through the media that there is a problem. The Opposition's job is to get up and pretend that they really care about what concerns people, say a lot of stuff about how they would sort things out in a general sense but for goodness sake avoid going near specifics.
  Anybody who consciously thinks that the Labour party will offer them anything by way of extra protection for their homes should forget it. The Labour party has made no particular pledge tonight. Labour Members have talked about lower income owners. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has said that they will look at ways to find money for lower income owners, but the Leader of his party says no, they will have a responsible view towards borrowing and expenditure and they will not allow themselves to get mixed up. Another spending pledge has been made; yet they keep telling the public that they will not go down such a road.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is developing a very interesting argument, but does he agree that a reduction in the welfare benefits available to cover mortgage interest for those with less than £8,000 in the bank who are made redundant—together with a reduction in MIRAS when the housing market is in the longest and perhaps deepest depression, certainly in my lifetime—is not very satisfactory? With 1.5 million people in negative equity, would it help to bring back the feel-good factor, which my hon. Friend and I know is so essential to this country, certainly if the Conservative party is to go into the next election with some confidence?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I said earlier quite clearly that I think that the Government need to draw breath and think carefully about the total impact of what we have been doing over the past 12 or 15 months with regard to home owners. We may need to think carefully about M1RAS—not because in the long term we do not think that it has a destabilising effect, but because in the short term we should consider the pressures that people are under. With respect, that is not what the Labour party is saying. The Labour party is pretending that it will have some magic wand to wave to benefit home owners, but it will not. People should be aware that it is perpetrating a fraud.
  It is no good pretending that there is a magic wand because there is not. The most important thing that home owners must recognise, as we all must, is that maintaining low interest rates and low inflation is ultimately the best guarantor of security in the housing market and the single most important factor that the Government can deliver. That goes hand in glove with expenditure and borrowing. Reducing expenditure and reducing the social security budget relate to the measure proposed. Reducing expenditure helps to lower inflation and with it interest rates. If we are not honest about that, we shall always be running way from reality. We have to be honest and to explain that that is the only way to achieve security for home owners.

  673
  The real question is not, as ever, what we should do, but what we should not be doing. Many things that we have been doing and some of the new taxes that we have introduced in the past 15 months have had a destabilising effect. So the message that I send to my right hon. and hon. Friends is that we should start reducing the burden of taxation. Ultimately, that is the best way to ensure that home owners benefit greatly, because they will have more of their own money to spend and they will feel better as a result. As they feel better, the market will stabilise. So let us get on with it and reduce taxes, as a Conservative party should, and stop playing at nonsense schemes with the Opposition.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: In any housing debate, we should state the basic premise that every individual in our society has the right to a home of a decent and acceptable standard. The Opposition believe that premise; I am not sure whether every Conservative Member who has spoken believes it. Those who pretend to believe it always make excuses about why it cannot be achieved.
  Most of the suggestions made by Conservative Members in this debate would not deal with the major problems that my constituents face. The major problem experienced by people who queue up to see me at my surgeries is that they cannot get a home at all. It is caused by Government restrictions on the ability of local authorities and housing associations to build homes. We have heard that in this financial year local authorities will build a total of 500 homes. That is less than half the total that Sheffield city council alone was building when the Conservative party came to power. The pretence that housing associations are being allowed to build to meet that gap is nonsense. They will build fewer than 20,000 homes in the current year.
  When the Government started restricting the building of homes for rent, we were told that investment in the public sector had to be restrained because it displaced investment in the private sector. The building of new homes in the private sector has not increased during the term of this Government and the total product of the Government's policy is to reduce house building from an average of 300,000 in the 1970s to fewer than 200,000 now. That is why so many young and not-so-young couples who come to see me at my surgeries say that, whereas they would have had to wait a year or two years for a semi-detached home in 1979, the waiting time for those properties is now 10 years plus. The hardship of young couples who must live with their parents or parents-in-law in desperate housing circumstances with all the family tensions that those bring is an essential problem, which the Government are incapable not just of solving but of recognising.
  It is a problem not just of housing numbers but of housing quality and repair standards, as 1.5 million homes are unfit. When a survey was done of council housing stock in the 1980s, the Government took one look at it and would not allow local authorities to repeat the exercise. Local authorities are willing to invest and maintain their homes but are prevented from doing so by Government restrictions on their ability to borrow and spend their own capital receipts.
  674
  I welcome some of the Government's schemes on estate action, in which they have targeted some of the worst housing and invested money in it. But we must remember that the estate action schemes have not merely targeted but top-sliced. In that sense, they have directed money to some of the worst estates but away from many essential maintenance repair programmes, such as the replacement of windows and wiring schemes in other properties, where tenants now suffer as a result.
  We therefore have the problems of a lack of houses and a lack of quality of housing, which can both be put down directly to the Government's attitude to housing investment. That is the crux of the problem. During the 1980s, the Government were obsessed with housing tenure and willing to ignore the problems of housing investment. How can Conservative Members criticise Opposition Members for opposing owner-occupation when their policy of the 1980s was an obsession with owner-occupation and an absolute hatred of and opposition to people who wanted to rent their home, and opposition to rented housing as such? Their obsession with one form of tenure over another explains many of the problems of housing policy during the 1980s.
  It is no surprise to find that this country spends 2.9 per cent. of its gross domestic product on housing investment, whereas Germany spends 6.1 per cent. Of all the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Britain comes 21st out of 22 in terms of the amount of GDP invested in housing. That is a direct result of Government policy.
  During the 1980s, people on the margins of being able to afford to buy their own homes were encourage into home ownership. They then suffered when house prices went up because they could not afford them. They certainly could not afford to move on into a larger home. They suffered from the rise in mortgage repayments, which they could not afford either. They also suffered when they became unemployed.
  I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) about the difference between investing in a home and investing in other forms of assets. The Government encouraged people to believe that home ownership was a way of making money. It was not simply about putting a roof over one's head; it was an investment to make money—a one-way bet. People were told that they were on to a good thing and that, if they continued to rent their homes, they would lose that opportunity.
  The Government not only encouraged that approach but tipped the level playing field so that people could not invest in rented homes but could invest in owner-occupied housing. They gave incentives to buy. They kept MIRAS for a long time while they cut grants to local authorities on rented housing. They tipped the playing field so that people naturally chose to buy, even if they would have been better off renting. All the incentives were in that direction.
  Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman's words would carry much more weight in the House if his record on housing management when he was with Sheffield city council were not so disastrous.
  On obsession with tenure, why is it that, even given householders' experiences of the past five years, 80 per cent. of the population still aspire to own their own homes? If that is what people want, why does the hon. Gentleman seek to deny them?
  Mr. Betts: I do not try to deny anyone expressing a choice. But tilting the playing field in one direction by withholding from people who rent the same Government financial benefits as are available to owner-occupiers is unfair and discriminatory against people who want to rent or have no alternative but to rent. It also encourages into owner-occupation some people who wish that the Government had not pushed them in that direction because of the problems that the Government have subsequently allowed and caused them to get into. The Government have created an atmosphere whereby people feel that they have become a social failure and have not achieved if they do not own their own home. That has been a disastrous policy for the Government to pursue and it was just articulated effectively by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter).
  The Government's only policy has been to persuade people to become owner-occupiers. The rest of what has happened has been a series of accidents which have affected people's housing circumstances. Many people in the private sector now have negative equity. The grave problems that people are now experiencing were created by the Lawson boom and the bust that followed, and the housing sector has been hit worse than most as a result. The fact that the Government now want to withdraw income support for owner-occupiers has little to do with housing and more to do with their desire to cut the social security budget, probably to create room for tax cuts before the next general election. The product of rising unemployment forced the social security budget up in the first place.
  If the Government's proposals on housing benefit restrictions are necessary, it is because the Government deliberately forced up rents in the housing association and local authority sector and caused housing benefit expenditure to increase. We shall no doubt shortly hear proposals on homelessness, which the Government regard as another cause of the problems rather than the fact that their policy caused homelessness in the first place.
  A series of major problems in the housing market have been worsened by the effects of the Government's short-term action. I caution that we should not look for short-term solutions to deal with the problems immediately facing us. First, we should try to deal with the problem of lack of investment. The policy advocated by the Labour party of allowing local authorities to spend their capital receipts on a phased basis is absolutely right. Sheffield city council has £40 million and many other councils have similar proportionate sums which they could use to deal with the lack of housing and the need to build new homes and repair existing housing in both the public and private sectors.
  Conservative Members always ask about the effect of that measure on the public sector borrowing requirement. They are ignoring the fact that the PSBR is a uniquely British concept which would not apply in terms of Government deficit definitions in other European Union countries. They are also ignoring the fact that when the right-to-buy scheme started, the then Secretary of State for the Environment gave a commitment that local authorities could use the total proceeds of council house sales towards investment. The same rules of definition applied when the Secretary of State—now the President of the Board of Trade—gave his commitment on that occasion. Those definition problems should have been addressed by
  676
  the Government at the beginning of their right-to-buy policy and before they made the commitment that money should be spent.
  I certainly do not believe that all that money should be used for council housing. We ought to use some of the money to deal with the great backlog of mandatory improvement grants. It is a scandal that people in the worst accommodation—including home owners and people in private rented accommodation—cannot get their homes improved because the resources do not exist to allow that work to be carried out.
  Mr. Streeter rose—
  Mr. Betts: I shall not give way at this stage. I have taken one intervention, and there is a shortage of time.
  Conservative Members lecture the Opposition on our attitudes towards owner-occupation. They should remember the scandal in 1983 when improvement grants were allowed to let rip and virtually anyone who got in the queue could get such a grant. That helped the Government win the 1983 general election. What has happened subsequently with regard to the improvement of properties in the private sector shows that the Government are not concerned about helping owner-occupiers, particularly those in the worst properties. The queue for mandatory grants which now exists cannot be met, and that is a deliberate product of the Government's policy.
  The successful schemes that local authorities pioneered—which began in Birmingham—included an attempt to tackle the worst of the private sector problems on an area basis through a scheme called enveloping. The Government legislated against that in the Housing Act 1988, and prevented local authorities from tackling the problem constructively and productively. Every time local authorities have come up with schemes to deal with the worst housing, the Government have sought to legislate against them and reduce their effectiveness and availability.
  I accept that the relaxation of capital receipts rule is not sufficient of itself, and we must look at the attitude towards housing investment generally in the public sector. The issues can be solved within a ring-fenced public sector housing Act. We ought to be looking at the issue of leasing. I was pleased that, in Sheffield, we put central heating in thousands of homes through leasing arrangements in council homes. That was a correct measure, but the 1988 Act again prevented local authorities from entering into those very schemes. We built 2,500 homes in Sheffield on a partnership basis, but the Government legislated to stop other local authorities from following suit. The Government have legislated to stop all the initiatives for local authority partnership schemes and other means of improving people's homes.
  I would like to address the issue of MIRAS and the proposals which have been suggested, given the state of the owner-occupied sector at present. It will probably not come as a surprise to Conservative Members that when I chaired AMA Housing in the 1980s, I supported the phasing out of MIRAS and the use of that money for a benefit scheme for owner-occupiers who became unemployed or were on low incomes. I supported that scheme along with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and following a survey carried out by the National Federation of Housing Associations. The present

  677
  President of the Board of Trade was also advocating such a scheme at the time. He was then a Government Back Bencher, and was desirous of new policy initiatives.
  I find it strange that Conservative Members who talk about their opposition to the general provision of benefits and their support for the targeting of benefits do not address the same criteria to the use of tax reliefs. They favour reliefs that benefit everyone but not reliefs that are targeted.
  The only effect of MIRAS in terms of targeting is that historically the biggest reliefs have gone to the people with the biggest mortgages, the biggest homes and the biggest incomes. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who said that MIRAS had over time increased house prices. It has not benefited anybody, but it has pushed prices up. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that.
  I accept the phasing out of MIRAS over a period—that is my personal point of view. It is typical that when the Government started to address that issue, they got the timing totally wrong. If they had started to reduce MIRAS at the end of the 1980s by taking it down to 20 per cent. or 15 per cent., they could have done something to cushion the rise in house prices. They could also have started a scheme of benefit support for those people who lost their jobs as the Lawson boom became a bust. They could have acted in those two ways to help the housing market. What they did, of course, was to wait until the housing market was in crisis. They then acted at a time of falling housing prices by taking benefit away from owner-occupiers. That was a failure of timing on their part, and they should be ashamed of what they did.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) suggested that we bring in short-term measures to help the housing market by giving additional benefits and tax relief to first-time buyers. I do not think that that is necessarily the right way to go. The hon. Member for Buckingham asked one or two clear questions which I would like answered before I would be prepared to accept any such scheme.
  There is a worry that if we give help in that form to first-time buyers, there is the effect of pushing house prices up generally. Everyone will have to pay more, including those who are not getting the benefits. If a scheme is introduced, will it be time limited? Can it ever be taken off? If help is given to someone buying for the first time, will that help cease when that person goes to buy a second home? Will restrictions on flexibility and mobility in the housing market be placed that otherwise would not exist? Some people remortgage their property and get a cheaper deal. Will the help apply to that second deal? Those are all real problems which need to be addressed.
  There are no quick fixes to the problem, which has been created by a set of economic disasters caused by Government policies. There is in this country a housing crisis, and it is a crisis of the Government's making. There has been a collapse in confidence in the owner-occupation sector which has been produced by the Lawson boom and the fear of unemployment. There is a long-term lack of investment in both public sector housing and older private sector housing. The Government's policies are of a short-term nature for reasons other than housing, such as
  678
  cutting income support and MIRAS to provide the funds for tax cuts at the next general election. That seems to me to be a hopeless and disastrous set of policies.
  There is a long-term crisis in this country, and I have not heard one single proposal from the Government Benches in this debate—the Conservatives are, after all, those in power—to address any of the real problems in owner-occupied housing, council housing or housing association houses. I hope that we will hear such a proposal when the Minister winds up, but I very much doubt it.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I begin by declaring an interest in that, over the past 23 years, I have been the director and owner of a house-building company, which has just started a new development programme. I am glad to say that I am much more optimistic about the prospects for housing than many of my hon. Friends appear to be, and certainly more optimistic than many Opposition Members are. In the time available to me, I shall elaborate on the reasons why.
  I have some sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry), who said that it is a bit rich for the Labour party to table a motion defending owner-occupiers as if it were the friend of the private house owner, when its record shows precisely the opposite. Plainly, the Labour party has voted not only against every measure to make the private rented sector more flexible but against council house sales, which have given home ownership opportunities to 1.6 million people, including 3,000 or 4,000 of my constituents.
  The most important fact is that the Labour party consists of inveterate spenders who like to put their hands in the pockets of the taxpayers, so it is no surprise that in response to a recent survey of managers who look after institutional instruments in the City, 78 per cent. said that if—God help us all—there were a Labour Government, there would indubitably be higher interest rates. High interest rates and the uncertainty that they cause kill the housing market, whether the private rented market or the owner-occupier market. Sadly, high interest rates are what we almost invariably get under a Labour Government.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), but, although his speech was interesting, it was rather over-academic in that he did not seem to realise the special place that a house has in somebody's compendium of assets. A house is not simply an asset like shares or a building society account; it happens to be where one lives and where one's children grow up. As a result, people's houses have an important emotional effect on them.
  Therefore, Governments have an obligation in that direction, especially if they have—rightly, in my view—encouraged people to own their own houses, as the present Government have done. The Government have an obligation to ensure that people can do that in an environment that is stable in macro-economic terms and not likely to fluctuate wildly and affect the value of their most precious asset.
  One could argue that, at the end of the 1980s, the housing market appeared to be a one-way bet. I never thought that that was sustainable, and in 1988 I always urged my colleagues in the building business to get out,

  679
  because the boom could not last. I am glad to say that I was proved right, although sadly many others were to be proved wrong.
  Nevertheless, the housing market is important, and I make no bones about the fact that it is worrying that some of the statistics are not yet as helpful as we would like them to be. The National House Building Council tells us that starts have dropped year on year and that, in the first five months of this year, they dropped by 15 per cent. Indeed, in the west midlands they dropped by 17 per cent.
  The House-Builders Federation says that sales of secondhand houses have dropped by 17 per cent. but that, significantly, sales of new homes have dropped by only 3 per cent. I am told that the number of completed transactions in April was 85,000—considerably less than the comparable figure over the past three years. In fact, it is the lowest total ever recorded for the month of April. So it is not an easy market out there.
  However, I must add the caution that we talk not about "the housing market" but about "housing markets". With property, location is everything, so there is a series of discrete markets that are difficult to evaluate. Nevertheless, they are important, and they have an important effect on related industries such as the construction industry, the white goods industry, the furniture industry and the carpet industry, which employs 4,500 people in my constituency. Although carpet export markets are going well, the home market is suffering as a result of our difficulties in the housing market.
  What has caused the lack of confidence in the housing market? And—the $64 million question—is it susceptible to measures that a Government, however sympathetic, can take? I am always slightly cynical when people say that we can change sentiment in a particular consumer or commercial market.
  We have been given plenty of reasons today. There have been two changes in the MIRAS arrangements, and they cannot have helped. There is also job uncertainty, although one might add that 50 per cent. of people who become unemployed get another job within three months, and that a flexible job market can have advantages as well as disadvantages.
  Although we have spent a huge amount of time talking about the income support proposals today, I do not think that they have had much effect on the market so far. They are anticipated, but it is a relatively sophisticated purchaser who allows for them. Moreover, the Halifax building society says that about 40 per cent. of purchasers are already taking out their own mortgage insurance, so that puts the changes in context.
  There may, of course, be a change in attitude towards home ownership. Although I suspect that 80 per cent. of people would say in principle, "Yes, I would like to own my own home," it is like saying, "I would like to be virtuous," and the answer, in St. Augustine's terms, is, "When are you going to be virtuous? Is that now?" I suspect that many first-time buyers are delaying making purchases as they would not have done in the 1980s, and that people will rent until they settle down or get married and then purchase, as they have in the past.
  In short, we are witnessing a fundamental readjustment of the property market to a non-inflationary era and there are bound to be casualties. It is a huge change and they are evidence of it, although one should not underestimate the problems. Most artificial stimulants can be
  680
  unpredictable, patchy and, by God, they can be bad for one in the long term. It would probably be a mistake for the Government to try artificially to stimulate the housing market, mainly because Governments do not second-guess markets very well and often provide a stimulus when the market is making an upturn anyway, so that it exacerbates rather than counters the normal cyclical effects.
  There are reasons for being reasonably optimistic about the housing market, and we have heard some of them. The ratio of house costs to wages is very good—possibly the best for 20 years. Houses are very affordable. The NHBC said that its first-time buyers index was at its best ever level in the 20 years it has been calculated. There are opportunities for potentially new buyers to buy at a relatively good level.
  Finance costs are very low. In the Estates Gazette this week, the Hinckley and Rugby building society is offering fixed rate mortgages for one year at the rate of 1.5 per cent. I am not saying that everybody is offering those mortgages, but it shows that the money is available. Since 1990, when interest rates began to fall, it has been easier to finance the average mortgage and costs have reduced by about £130 a month.
  The number of households is still increasing; therefore, there is still a demand for houses and, most important of all, real incomes are generally rising. The best predictor of the level of transactions and housing market activity over a 20-year period is the level of real incomes throughout the country. I believe that real incomes, particularly with the prospect—without being definite—of tax reductions later in the year, will rise by about 3 per cent. a year over the next three years. That also bodes well for the housing sector.
  Next year, we have a couple of unusual events. I understand that, on the basis of three-year payouts, Lloyd's will have a better year next year, because 1993 was a good one. In addition, building society flotations in the next two years should release an estimated £15 billion to savers, which indirectly is bound to have a good effect on the housing market.
  Bearing all those optimistic prognostications in mind, the debate about income support and mortgage relief will be resolved by the market. It is significant that 60 per cent. of building societies surveyed said that they would offer that particular service absolutely free in a highly competitive environment. It is costing the taxpayer a great deal more than it was 10 years ago—about £1 billion against only £50 million then.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) rightly pointed out, nowadays social security costs take not only an absolute amount but a greater proportional amount of our gross national product than ever before—about 12 per cent. When Beveridge set up the system, it was only 6 per cent. and we were a much poorer country. Some 50 per cent. of families are now getting one of the three main benefits. That was not intended in the original scheme, which is why reform is so important.
  I am certain that the private sector will take up the slack comprehensively. Obviously, the Government must maintain a look-out, possibly with the aid of a code of practice, to ensure that pay-outs for income support are as effective as people say that they will be.
  We have had, as was said earlier, a series of suggestions from various self-interested groups, including the House-Builders Federation and the Council of Mortgage

  681
  Lenders, of ways in which we should stimulate to move the market out of its current recession. I believe that most of them are grossly misguided, for the reasons that I have outlined.
  The Institute for Fiscal Studies argued that, such was the effect of MIRAS in the 1970s, the scheme gave a tax advantage for a house purchase of about 800 per cent. for top rate taxpayers and 200 per cent. for basic rate taxpayers. That was not sustainable. It was not good for the economy as a whole. That is why it is important that resources are diverted away from the housing sector in the longer term into the more productive sectors, which is part of the reason why the MIRAS sector has been withering on the vine.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) the idea of the House-Builders Federation that there should be a first-time buyers' scheme that would offer, on a tapering basis, 25 per cent. relief up to £50,000 is cloud cuckoo land, for three reasons. First, I do not believe that it is lack of finance that prevents first-time buyers from entering the market, for all the reasons that I have given. Secondly, I do not believe that it would have a knock-on effect on the market, because those first-time buyers would be stuck in their first homes, and would lose tax relief on leaving. Thirdly, the scheme would be subject to enormous abuse. I am sure that everyone's wife would be a first-time buyer; she would have the mortgage and we would miss the target with a vengeance. Such a scheme would be a great deal more expensive, and it would be poorly targeted. Too often schemes are counterproductive and short-lived. Trying to change sentiment is generally not a very effective thing for Government to do.
  There may be a case, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Chingford said, for considering the way in which mortgage interest relief is calculated on an average basis and possibly moving it back a little bit nearer 20 per cent. I would not do that temporarily; I would do it on the basis that we were going to maintain that level. Uncertainty is one of the things that has most worried people in the housing market and, if people get the feeling that mortgage interest relief will be reduced even further than the present rate, that will have a debilitating effect on confidence, and therefore on the housing market, in a way that will be no good to anyone.
  I shall mention one or two measures that might have a constructive effect on the housing market without throwing an enormous amount of taxpayers' money at it—supply-side measures, which would make the market work more effectively, and which would stimulate demand, which would then be supplied in the usual way.
  I have always considered it anomalous that, although the housing market is not subject to VAT in the main, stamp duty is imposed on every transaction. We want to encourage mobility. Stamp duty raises relatively little in revenue terms—about £1 billion a year. If the Government seek a supply-side measure, reducing or abolishing stamp duty would not be a bad place to start.
  There is a case for introducing more sophisticated savings-related home ownership schemes to encourage saving among young people and first-time buyers, provided such schemes were on a one-off basis rather than on a continuing basis, which would distort the market. The Treasury would give, on a like-for-like basis, an equal
  682
  amount to the sum saved, up to a certain amount. The schemes would encourage thrift and get young people on the first step of the housing ladder. Possibly more important, they would also ensure that young people did not have to take out a mortgage for as much as 90 per cent. of the value of their property, because they would have more of a deposit to put into their property.
  The president of the British Property Federation has suggested that authorised housing investment trusts should be established so that institutions can invest in private rented property more tax efficiently. I think that that would have a good effect on yields in the private sector and would prove helpful to the market. I would also like to see a review of part M of the Building Regulations. I think that we have gone over the top with regard to the importance that we attach to ensuring that every new house meets the needs of disabled people. That raises costs without necessarily benefiting disabled people in the manner intended.
  Those suggestions are sensible supply-side measures. However, it is most important that we step back and try not to interfere unduly in the market. The market fundamentals are good. I believe that they will lead to some improvement and that real incomes will rise in the next six to nine months to a year on a sustained basis. Everyone involved in the housing industry wants to have sustainable growth rather than the boom-bust cycles that we have seen in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford said, if we can add to that lower taxes on a permanent basis, I believe that we will have the foundation for a sustainable housing recovery.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Joe Benton: In view of time considerations, I shall curtail my speech and confine my remarks to one subject that has not received proper attention in the debate today, although several hon. Members mentioned it—the rented sector in local authority areas.
  I believe in home ownership. I also believe that rental accommodation should be provided for that percentage of the population who, for one reason or another, depend on the rented sector. The Government fail to recognise that fact. Although many issues have been discussed in the debate, the Government have not been forthcoming on that subject.
  It is the responsibility of the Government, not of the Opposition, to answer questions raised in debate. Throughout today's debate, Conservative Members have asked constantly about the Labour party's alternative policies. The debate is not about alternatives; the Conservatives are in government and they must find a way of meeting the genuine housing need that I shall describe.
  The housing waiting list in my local authority in Bootle in Sefton contains more than 7,000 names. Obviously, more than 7,000 people are affected as families are involved, and the number increases every year. My constituents in Bootle have to wait up to six years for a first offer on a three-bedroom house. In Southport, people have to wait eight years for a house and people in Crosby have to wait six or seven years for a house.
  Those people want to know what the Government intend to do for them, recognising that they are not in a position to go anywhere near the private rented market,

  683
  let alone contemplate benefiting from the Government's proposed new initiatives. Those people cannot go to the private rented market. Some of them have been waiting for a house ever since they were married. My constituents raise the problem of housing waiting lists at every surgery.
  The Government have a duty and a moral responsibility to do something for those people. Tory councillors on Sefton council recognise that there is a problem, but they have no answers. They agree with my colleagues in the Labour party in Sefton. I hope that the Minister will confirm tonight what he proposes to do for those people who lack one of life's basic necessities—put a roof over their head. An illustration of the terrible problem about which I am talking is that, of the 7,000 people on Sefton's housing waiting list, between 1,200 and 1,800 are living in single rooms. That is not just a problem for Sefton council; I suspect that such figures are to be found right across the country.
  In the brief time allowed me, I want to put it to the Government that they must give me answers tonight.
  9.19 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: The contributions of Conservative Members have consisted of two sorts of ritual. There have been ritual denunciations of Baroness Thatcher. Those hon. Members should take a more philosophical approach and remember Henry V's words about veterans in his speech on St. Crispin's day:
  "But he'll remember, with advantages,
  What feats he did that day".
  She is clearly a veteran by that standard.
  The other ritual has involved expressions of philosophical doubt about the MIRAS arrangements. I point out to hon. Members who have developed such philosophical doubts that they went into the general election with this clear promise:
  "We will maintain mortgage tax relief."
  Everyone should have a decent home, feel secure in it and be able to afford it. That is a basic requirement of civilised living. Without it, people become unhealthy in body and mind; children's education suffers; parents find it hard to hold down a job, and families fall apart. The present housing crisis shows just how far our country falls short of that basic requirement.
  Right across the board, the Government have failed, and their housing policies are making matters worse. Whether people are owner-occupiers, tenants or looking for somewhere decent to live, Government policies are hitting them hard, and the situation, far from improving, is going from bad to worse.
  For the past 16 years, the Government have starved councils of the resources to build and renovate homes. The Government claimed that housing associations would take over from councils the job of building homes for rent. However, the housing associations never made up the difference and now their budgets have been slashed. As a result, the number of homes built for rent has fallen below 20,000 for the first time in all the 50 years since VE day. Only one home is being built for rent today for every seven built under the last Labour Government.
  On top of that, the Government have been deliberately driving rents up at three or four times the rate of inflation. Not content with that, they have turned on owner-
  684
  occupiers. Far from being encouraged to buy, more and more obstacles are being put in the path of people who are thinking of buying.
  Recently, we were treated to the present Prime Minister musing on how the housing crisis has come about. He appears to suffer from memory loss when it comes to housing. First, he claimed to have stopped repossessions. Then he denied that he was involved in authorising the building of large blocks of flats in Lambeth. Now he says that the state of the housing market in the 1980s was the fault of the house buyers. He blames the victims for what he now calls "the rather crazy situation". He never said that at the time. Indeed, he encouraged it. He gloried in what he described as
  "creating a culture that encourages risk-taking."
  Nobody could deny that he did that.
  The present crisis of repossessions, mortgage arrears, negative equity and insecurity springs directly from the house price boom in the 80s. The Government encouraged that boom as part of their irresponsible strategy to win the 1987 election.
  The deregulation of financial services led to cut-throat competition between the building societies and the new lenders who moved into the housing market. As a result, lenders new and old abandoned the old, rule-of-thumb limits on lending. People were encouraged, with the support of the Government and the financial establishment, to borrow higher proportions of the value of a house, and higher multiples of their income. The result was sky-high prices.
  The last straw was the announcement in the 1988 Budget that the double MIRAS tax relief for couples would be ended, but not straight away. That provoked a frenzy of buying—it was exactly what the Prime Minister called a "crazy situation". However, that crazy situation was the direct result of the Budget produced when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, a post which hitherto had been synonymous with fiscal rectitude.
  When the boom turned to bust, millions of home buyers were left over-extended. The Government kept on posing as the owner-occupier's friend. In 1992—the year of the tax promises—the Tories went into the election promising to keep mortgage interest tax relief. They have broken that promise; they have reduced MIRAS twice, and there is a threat of more reductions to come. They have also introduced a tax on house insurance, thus punishing the prudent.
  As a result of the policies pursued by the Government, who continue to pose as the friend of the owner-occupier, the number of people with mortgages more than 12 months in arrears rose from 5,000 in 1982 to 117,000 last year. That means that there were 21 families in serious arrears last year for every one family in 1982. The number of repossessions rose from 2,900 in 1979 to 49,000 last year. In other words, 16 families had their homes repossessed last year for every one family in 1979.
  Nearly 300,000 families have had their homes repossessed in the past five years, and 1,200,000 families have been left with negative equity, a concept for which there was not even a description until the late 1980s. All that is due to a Government who call themselves the owner-occupier's friend.
  The Government's latest contribution to undermining the housing market is to deny the income support safety net to new borrowers who lose their jobs or encounter

  685
  other financial difficulties and to reduce the cover provided to existing borrowers. People are to be forced to take out private insurance cover instead. There has never been a better example of how this Government of know-alls get things wrong.
  No one supports the Government's proposal. Mortgage lenders are against it, house builders are against it, and even the Skipton building society is against it. Building materials suppliers are also against it. The Department of the Environment commissioned a report which revealed that mortgage protection policies do not offer adequate unemployment protection, and that two thirds of claims do not succeed. The Secretary of State for Social Security rubbished the Department of the Environment's report, but it is up to Ministers to sort out these things between them.
  The citizens advice bureaux said much the same thing. Even the Association of British Insurers acknowledged that universal protection against unemployment can be achieved only by pooling risk. Pooling risk is anathema to insurers. Cherry-picking the best risks is what insurers do, which is why they employ actuaries.
  At various times, Ministers have said that satisfactory insurance cover might be better obtained from insurers than from lenders, but they appear to have changed their tune since the Prime Minister pulled the Skipton building society rabbit out of his conjurer's hat last Thursday. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) dealt with that admirably in his speech, but the facts are worth repeating.
  Perhaps the Prime Minister should be better briefed. When he picked on the splendours of the Skipton building society, he omitted to mention—possibly because he did not know—that in recent years that building society has charged its borrowers more than almost any other building society, that it has literally the highest level of mortgage arrears of any building society, and that, in the famous "crazy situation" of the late 1980s, it invested substantially in commercial property and lost a fortune, which is no doubt why it is charging its borrowers so much.
  The fact is that potential borrowers do not know what is happening. Some, on the advice of the Secretary of State, are already taking out insurance cover. Others are postponing their decision to buy, and others may be looking to their potential lender to sort things out. Potential borrowers know that they will be expected to sign up for a 25-year mortgage, but will be able to get insurance only one year at a time. People who change their jobs will not know whether their cover is still valid. Everyone will be subject to cherry-picking by lenders and insurers alike, and the people most at risk of losing their jobs will find it hardest to get cover.
  The situation will be patchy, unpredictable and uncertain. Borrowers face exactly what they do not want: further uncertainty, insecurity and risk. In short, it is a mess, and a mess of the Government's making—ill thought out, ill prepared, badly executed, flying in the face of the advice and experience of people who know what they are talking about. It is a typical product of the party that gave the country the poll tax and the Child Support Agency. It is likely to prove costly to borrowers, costing as much as an average £250 a year.
  686
  It is not just cost that is the problem, however. It is the added uncertainty that this proposal has introduced into an already shaky housing market. The party that promised to look after owner-occupiers has gone back on its word. Worse, people who took the Government's advice last time are being left in the lurch. People who are the victims of the Government's policies have been blamed for the Government's failures, and the situation continues to go from bad to worse.
  The problem is that no one can believe a word the Government say. Governments who promise tax cuts during a general election and introduce tax increases immediately afterwards are capable of anything. Governments who introduce a tax on household insurance can increase the rate of that tax whenever it suits them. Governments who take away income support from new borrowers can just as easily come back and take it away from existing borrowers. Governments who take away the safety net for nine months can easily come back and take it away for 18 months or two years.
  People will rightly be wary of any action that the Government take which they claim will improve the situation in the run-up to the next general election. The people of this country will not forget the lies and broken promises of the last election. But I tell Conservative Members: as the next election looms, the Government will find that the words of Scott come back to haunt them—not just Sir Richard Scott, of the report, but Sir Walter Scott:
  "O what a tangled web we weave,
  When first we practise to deceive!"
  It is that deception at the last election that makes people unable to believe a word that the Government say.
  The insecurity in the housing market, however, springs from causes much deeper than the people's distrust of Government promises. The growing insecurity in employment is the main source of insecurity in the housing market. Buying a house is the biggest transaction in which most people ever get involved. Most people are prudent; they do not like to borrow if they are fearful that they will not be able to pay off their debt. They do not like taking risks. In the past, people were confident that the value of their house would rise. Even more importantly, they felt confident that they would have a job. That no longer applies.
  Some of this job insecurity is the fault of the Government. After all, their ranks include a Secretary of State for Employment who clearly believes that job insecurity, short-term contracts and part-time working are a good thing—he is in favour of them. But much of the increase in job insecurity is the product of technological and organisational changes which cannot be avoided in our rapidly changing world.
  Half the working population of Britain have changed their jobs in the past five years. That change in the market inevitably means a change in the housing market. If owner-occupation is to continue to flourish, the lenders will have to come up with more flexible mortgage packages which allow for repayments that vary over time in line with families incomes. Some people may decide to opt for renting before they buy; others may want to change from mortgage to rent and then back again, as their circumstances change.
  These ways of easing the situation for families who cannot afford a mortgage, however, will not work unless there are more houses for them to rent, whether in the

  687
  public sector or the private sector. I suggest that a thoughtful Government would have started dealing with these problems long ago.
  Ministers who constantly went around the country telling people that they could no longer expect a job for life should have been the first to recognise the housing consequences of what they were saying. A Government with concern and foresight would have called together all the organisations involved: builders, lenders, councils, housing associations, pressure groups, consumer groups, think tanks, employers, trade unions. A sensible Government would have thrashed out new policies designed to meet the new challenges brought about by technological and social change—
  Mr. Lilley rose—
  Mr. Dobson: I shall certainly give way to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Lilley: Would a sensible Opposition care to tell the House whether they have any policies in that field?
  Mr. Dobson: We are talking tonight about the policies of the Government, which are harming the housing market. In case the Secretary of State has not noticed, the only reason why he gets a chauffeur-driven car and an office in Whitehall is that he is in the Cabinet and he has to take responsibility for the decisions that he is taking. We are debating tonight the decisions that they are—
  Mr. Lilley rose—
  Mr. Dobson: I shall give way again.
  Mr. Lilley: And the reason why the hon. Gentleman will never find his way into the Cabinet and get a ministerial car is that he has no policies to offer the British people.
  Mr. Dobson: I say again that we are not debating the Labour party's policies tonight. It is not Labour's policies that are harming the housing market. It is not Labour's policies that have thrown people into mortgage arrears. It is not Labour's policies that have left 1,200,000 people in negative equity. They are the results of the Government's policies, and we believe that the proposition that they are pushing through will make matters worse.
  We believe that a sensible Government would have thrashed out new policies designed to meet the new challenges brought about by technological and social change—policies to give people a real choice of decent, affordable and secure homes. But the Government have done nothing of the sort. They persist in pretending that nothing has changed. As long as they keep up that pretence, they cannot come up with policies that meet the needs of our people as we approach the 21st century.
  Instead of seeking to work together in partnership, with Government playing their proper part, the Government have sought to abandon their duties and leave everything to the vagaries of the market. It was the market in the 1980s that got us into this mess in the first place. At this time of insecurity, the Government have added to that insecurity. At a time when families are in difficulty, the Government are adding to those difficulties. They have behaved like Mark Twain's definition of a banker: as
  "a fellow who lends you an umbrella when the sun is shining and wants it back the minute it begins to rain."
  688
  In response to the changes in the pattern of employment, the Government should promote more choice and flexibility in housing. During the difficult and painful processes of change and adjustment, they should do all they can to protect families from insecurity, debt, repossessions and homelessness. The Government have proved themselves quite incapable of such action. That must await a Labour Government.
  But in the meantime, the Government could start to make matters a little better, by abandoning their threat to take away the income support safety net. They could also start to release the takings from the sale of council houses. They should allow councils to invest that money in building and renovating homes for the homeless and for people living in poor conditions. Both those moves would make a start in dealing with the present housing crisis. They would help owner-occupiers, tenants and the homeless. They would provide jobs for building workers and for people in the building supplies industry.
  In the long run, what we need are new housing policies, which serve all the people. That is what the Labour party will put to the people at the next general election, and those are the policies that we shall carry through.
  9.38 pm
  The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): It would be churlish of me not to thank colleagues for all the free publicity that they have given my constituency—and, in particular, the Skipton building society—over the past few days. It may be appropriate for me to declare that I have no interest other than my interest as a constituency Member of Parliament. Indeed, John Goodfellow, the building society's chief executive, has authorised me to say that all those providing the publicity are not doing so on a commission basis. Perhaps, in the age of Lord Nolan, that point is worth making.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has been boning up on Skipton, and I shall be pleased to arrange for him to visit. A short while ago Prince Charles visited Skipton, and made some remarks about the headquarters of the building society. They were not complimentary. Following a certain correspondence in the Craven Herald and Pioneer, one of the great organs of the north of England, one correspondent wrote a letter that ran simply as follows: "Dear Sir, Thank God Prince Charles did not visit Bingley."
  As I have said, I shall happily arrange a visit for the hon. Member for Garscadden—including a trip to Skipton castle, which, despite the depredations of the parliamentary forces, is still in one piece and is inhabited by the Fattorini family, who will doubtless be pleased to show the hon. Gentleman round. I shall also be happy to show him the birthplace of Iain Macleod, one of the town's most distinguished citizens. The hon. Gentleman would enjoy himself—although I suspect that puritanical gloom is so central to his character that he would anticipate enjoying himself with real apprehension.
  It would, of course, be best for the hon. Gentleman to meet John Goodfellow, the chief executive of the Skipton building society, who is a Glaswegian. He will, no doubt, recognise instantly that a Scot running a Yorkshire company is unlikely to be overwhelmed by a sense of enthusiasm about giving money away. That is why it is important to look at what the society is planning.

  689
  The speech of the hon. Member for Garscadden—who said nothing noisily, and occasionally wittily—was interesting not for what he said, but for what he did not say. When my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) asked him whether Labour supported the idea of mortgage benefit, the hon. Gentleman did not say, "I am not going to mention that"; he said, "Hang on a minute—I shall come to that. It is a very important point." Indeed, he enjoined my hon. Friend to stay rooted to his seat.
  My hon. Friend did so. The rooting was terrific. But the moment never came: the hon. Member for Garscadden said nothing. Like all Labour policies, this one never arrived. The same can be said of the entire Labour contribution to the debate. Here is a party that keeps telling the world that it is ready for government, yet it is not prepared to put a single policy before the British people.
  There was another gem. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford)—the debate has, in a sense, been "Hamlet" without the prince, so constantly has the hon. Gentleman been mentioned—was alarmed at the accusation that he might inadvertently have revealed a Labour policy: the repeal of the changes in mortgage insurance that forms part of the Opposition motion. So alarmed was he at that suggestion that he might have unveiled a policy that he leapt to the Dispatch Box to say that he had not, in fact, pledged a repeal. He did not tell us whether the Labour party believed in our policy; what he said was, "We do not believe in it, but perhaps the time to act has not yet come."
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Curry: I should be delighted.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister now confirm that I was simply correcting his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who gave a misleading impression of what I had said at a meeting at which the Minister was also present? The Minister will be able to attest that I did not say what it was claimed that I said.
  Mr. Curry: What is interesting is that the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to say clearly at the Dispatch Box that Labour, if it came to office, would reverse the change. He did not take that opportunity and say, quite simply, "I did not say that." We are still in the dark in regard to what Labour's policies might be.
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) was not quite so reticent. She endorsed the principle of a mortgage benefit scheme—although she did not give the details. She said, "We will do nothing for the moment." That is a war cry to stir the blood. It is the old Gladstonian certainty of the Liberal party, still alive and kicking. That is Lloyd George's radicalism. On this crucial issue, the Liberal Democrats will go to the election saying, "For the moment, we will do nothing." Of course it is just as well that the hon. Lady does nothing because, if the Opposition parties were really tempted to bring into welfare benefit a whole new category of people when opinion in the House and elsewhere is disputing, contesting and concerned about the number of people dependent on means-tested benefits, that would be a deeply retrograde step. It would be a foolish and costly policy.
  690
  The hon. Member for Garscadden has returned to the Chamber. I have invited him to Skipton building society, which featured so commonly in his speech. He will read in Hansard of the generosity of my invitation and all the entertainments that I propose to arrange for him. I know that he will come. What the Skipton building society is offering, however, is what is important.
  Let us consider the categories that would not be covered by the offer—I say this having spoken at some length to Mr. Goodfellow just a few days ago. The exclusions involve fewer than 2,000 of the 55,000 borrowers. That means that the overwhelming number of people who have their mortgage with the building society would be covered by the policies.
  The exclusions would be the over-65s, those receiving state pensions, the unemployed, those receiving benefits, and those more than three months in arrears. It is natural that the society should not be able to cover those people, but it is important that the proposal opens the opportunity to sell insurance on accident, sickness and unemployment. At present, only a minority of people take such cover.
  The Skipton building society proposal will cover far more than the state scheme, under which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, only 30 per cent. of people are covered: the unemployed and those who have no working spouse and no capital, for example. Most people would be much better served by a developed insurance market. A developed insurance market comes into being by it being given the opportunity and challenged to meet that task. That is how the market works. I am confident that other building societies will follow the Skipton building society example.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) spoke at some length about home ownership. I endorse a great deal of what he said. He said that it was important to reaffirm the commitment to home ownership and to recognise that home ownership, within the context of a vigorous and varied housing sector, had a particular role to play.
  Houses are more affordable than they have been for years. The loan repayment:income ratio is probably the most favourable for about 30 years. As my right hon. Friend said, confidence is lacking, but let us not forget the facts: 230 households a day in Britain are still being helped into home ownership through the various schemes supported by the Government; 1.5 million council and housing association tenants have bought their own homes; 100,000 under-25s a year have moved into home ownership for the first time; and, last year, there were nearly 500,000 first-time buyers.
  Of course, there are problems of repossession and mortgage arrears. No one pretends that that is not a serious problem and no one wishes to sweep those people's concerns under the mat, but they are still outnumbered by those coming into home ownership week on week and at a time when the recession has bitten severely.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) said, speaking from his experience of the sector, the key to all this is sound economic management and low interest rates. However important mortgage interest relief at source might be, that benefit is small compared with the benefit of sustained low interest rates. That is what gets people into the business of sustained home ownership. We are concerned not to go back to the situation that obtained in the late 1980s. It is a matter of

  691
  consensus that we do not want that volatile situation to return. We want home ownership that can be sustained in the context of a housing policy that seeks to cater for people's different needs and different circumstances. That is what the Government are committed to: sustainable home ownership.
  In that context, I do not hesitate to say, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin), that the private rented sector plays a crucial role. It is a matter of record that the conditions that apply to home ownership are of influence in the incentives for, and willingness of, people to invest in the private rented sector.
  Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend seems to be trying to have it both ways. He cannot make what I would regard as something of a fetish of home ownership and give home owners tax privileges to buy their houses—in the form of mortgage tax relief, which still exists, albeit at a lower level, and no capital gains tax—while appearing to show equal solicitude for the rented sector. The first disadvantages the second and I am sorry to say, therefore, that what my hon. Friend is saying is completely and utterly illogical.
  Mr. Curry: If my hon. Friend looks to some of the continental countries that he cited in his remarks, he will find that they manage to combine incentives for home ownership, which are significantly greater than ours in the United Kingdom—in Holland, for example, the whole cost of a mortgage and of more than one mortgage can be written off against tax—with a much more vigorous private rented sector. I want to move towards the continental model. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Oh yes. In the present climate, I know that I must qualify that remark and I shall do so.
  The United Kingdom is characterised by a high level of home ownership and of council, state-subsidised renting. We fall short in the vigour of our commercial market—the private rented sector. Diversification of tenure and a more equal distribution between what is accommodated by the market and what is let by the social sector can only benefit the housing sector. That is why the Government will be introducing proposals to help the private rented sector, which goes with the home ownership sector. The two are not in contradiction and that is what is important about this debate.
  The private rented sector is good for labour mobility, choice, responsibility and, as several hon. Friends said, for young people starting their working lives and perhaps their married lives—if that term is still in vogue—who can move on to home ownership when they are ready to assume that responsibility and when they can sustain it. That is why the private rented sector is a complement and a support to the home ownership sector.
  I remain totally committed to home ownership, as do the Government, but equally that does not mean that I cannot have a strong and urgent desire to ensure a strong private rented sector. The Labour party did its best to destroy that sector throughout its period in office, through regulation and yet more regulation—the hon. Member for Greenwich is still saying that it would need regulation.
  692
  The Labour party cannot talk about the private rented sector without talking the most arrant hypocrisy. Labour simply has no record on that sector.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Can the Minister name one European country that does not regulate rents in the private sector?
  Mr. Curry: Whether rents are regulated in the sector depends on who lives in it, who is paying for it and who is subsidising it. Rents are regulated throughout the social market sector—in local authority homes and throughout housing association properties. It is part of our policy to continue with the social market sector at subsidised rents. It is no purpose of this Government to get rid of that sector because it is an essential part of a complete housing policy.
  The Labour party, when it yells and bellows rather than telling us what its policy would be, is hostile to the private rented sector and is not interested in it. The Opposition talk about it, but all they want to do is kill it because they associate it with landlords. Nor are they interested in the home ownership sector. Look at Labour's deeds and its record in office—it has opposed every single measure. It is now supposed to be the friend of the home owner, yet it has spent all its period in opposition trying to deny the right to buy a home under the Government's schemes.
  There are other elements in a sensible housing policy, but the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned very few of them. It is important that we get a social housing sector with below-market rents and a diversification of tenure. One of the problems in this country has been the monolithic tenure on our estates. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) touched on that issue when he talked about estate action and some of the regeneration programmes. It is important that, on the estate and as part of the regeneration, there are people of different backgrounds, different forms of tenure and different activities.
  It is equally important that in their allocation policy, local authorities look towards trying to help people who provide diversity on the estate as part of making them self-sustaining. Just as I wish that home ownership should become self-sustaining, I wish that social renting should become self-sustaining, so that communities that we create on the estates can also avoid the spirals into decline of the past and so that a virtuous cycle will be created in communities where there are jobs and a worthwhile future.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: There are five minutes left of this debate. I am waiting to hear the Minister address the problems faced by thousands of his constituents and mine who are in negative equity. How will the Government alleviate the problems created by negative equity, which is also stifling enterprise because people cannot borrow?
  Mr. Curry: I have been in the Chamber since 4.30 pm, in a debate on housing on an Opposition Supply day, hoping to hear one scintilla of information about what the Opposition might do if they were in government. There has not been a single hint about Labour party policy. Whenever Labour Members have had the opportunity, even by accident, to explain what their policy might be, they have hastened to deny it. That is what they stand for; a policy of Trappist silence on this matter. It is a con trick

  693
  perpetrated against the electorate of the United Kingdom. I do not resile one little bit from what the Government have done.
  The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras thinks that capital receipts are a crock of gold on which the councils sit, as if it were some Tolkein novel. All that their release does is to replace external borrowing. If that borrowing were not there, council taxes would have to go up. Labour Members talk of phased receipts. We never know what the phases are, how big the amounts are, or how long it will last. It is one of those easy phrases. Nobody ever gets any detail. In fact, like the rest of Labour party policy, it is rhetoric without substance.
  Labour has nothing to offer the housing market. The Conservative Government have set the agenda. [Interruption.] We have set the agenda on the right to buy.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Three minutes.
  Mr. Curry: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman can count—even backwards, as he will have to shortly. We have set the agenda on the right to buy and Labour has opposed every measure that the Government have brought forward. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is still talking about lowering discount incentives from 70 per cent. because he thinks that that is excessive.
  We have sought and brought about the revival of the private rented sector from the state in which Labour left it through its programme of over-regulation. When we ask about controls, we hear that, yes, the Labour party is back to controls. We stand for the diversification of social housing, whereas the Labour party wishes to go back to the old municipal monoliths of the state. Above all, we have delivered sensible and sane economic management, which is bringing low inflation, sustainable growth and belief in the policies. [Laughter.] It is all very well for Opposition Members to point to a period when there were mistakes. Was the Labour party telling us about those mistakes? Was the Labour party pointing anything out? Is there anything on the Labour record other than finding out what the Government's interest rates are and cutting them by 1 per cent.? That has been Labour's entire economic policy for year after year.
  Labour does not believe in choice. On every occasion, it has voted against choice. Its policies are opportunistic, irresponsible and implausible. The electorate have the right to know what Labour stands for, and what alternative or remedy it would put in place, yet for an answer we hear a deafening silence. Even when Labour Members are given an opportunity to put that right, they remain silent.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The Minister has one minute left.
  Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman can clearly read and count, which is an advance on some members of his party.
  The Labour party is hostile to choice and deregulation. Its vision is unimaginative. It is municipal and paternalistic and fails to respond to the nation's aspirations. For that reason, I urge the House to reject its motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 302.

  Division No. 163]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dixon, Don

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Dobson, Frank

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Eastham, Ken

  Ashton, Joe

  Enright, Derek

  Austin-Walker, John

  Etherington, Bill

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Fatchett, Derek

  Barron, Kevin

  Faulds, Andrew

  Battle, John

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fisher, Mark

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Flynn, Paul

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Bell, Stuart

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Foulkes, George

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fraser, John

  Benton, Joe

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Galbraith, Sam

  Berry, Roger

  Galloway, George

  Betts, Clive

  Gapes, Mike

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Garrett, John

  Blunkett, David

  George, Bruce

  Boateng, Paul

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bradley, Keith

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Godsiff, Roger

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

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Burden, Richard

  Graham, Thomas

  Byers, Stephen

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Hall, Mike

  Cann, Jamie

  Hanson, David

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Hardy, Peter

  Chidgey, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Church, Judith

  Henderson, Doug

  Clapham, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hodge, Margaret

  Coffey, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Cohen, Harry

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Doug

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cox, Tom

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ingram, Adam

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Jamieson, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Janner, Greville

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Darling, Alistair

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

  Jowell, Tessa

  Denham, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dewar, Donald

  Keen, Alan

  695

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Purchase, Ken

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Terry

  Randall, Stuart

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Litherland, Robert

  Reid, Dr John

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rendel, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Loyden, Eddie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAllion, John

  Rogers, Allan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCartney, Ian

  Rooney, Terry

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Ruddock, Joan

  McFall, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McLeish, Henry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maclennan, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McMaster, Gordon

  Short, Clare

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan

  MacShane, Denis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maddock, Diana

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

  Mahon, Alice

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Snape, Peter

  Marek, Dr John

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Marshall, Jim

  Spellar, John

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Martlew, Eric

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Maxton, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Meacher, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Meale, Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Michael, Alun

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Straw, Jack

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Milburn, Alan

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Timms, Stephen

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Tipping, Paddy

  Motley, Blot

  Touhig, Don

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Turner, Dennis

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Tyler, Paul

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Vaz, Keith

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mudie, George

  Wallace, James

  Mulin, Chris

  Walley, Joan

  Murphy, Paul

  Wareing, Robert N

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Watson, Mike

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  O'Brien, Wiliam (Normanton)

  Wigley, Dafydd

  O'Hara, Edward

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Olner, Bill

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wilson, Brian

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Winnick, David

  Parry, Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Patchett, Terry

  Worthington, Tony

  Pearson, Ian

  Wray, Jimmy

  Pendry, Tom

  Wright Dr Tony

  Pickthall, Colin

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Pike, Peter L

  Pope, Greg

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Powel, Ray (Ogmore)

  Mr. John Cummings and

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Mr. Eric Clarke.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Ancram, Michael

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alexander, Richard

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Ashby, David

  Amess, David

  Atkins, Robert

  696

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Baldry, Tony

  Forman, Nigel

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bates, Michael

  Forth, Eric

  Batiste, Spencer

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  French, Douglas

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  Booth, Hartley

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Boswell, Tim

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gill, Christopher

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bowis, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Gorst, Sir John

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Grant, Sir A(SW Cambs)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hague, William

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Burt, Alistair

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Butcher, John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butler, Peter

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Butterfill, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Harris, David

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Churchill, Mr

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Clappison, James

  Hendry, Charles

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Horam, John

  Congdon, David

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Conway, Derek

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

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

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Couchman, James

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Cran, James

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

  Hunter, Andrew

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jack, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Day, Stephen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jessel, Toby

  Dicks, Terry

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jones, Gwirym (Cardiff N)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dover, Den

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Dunn, Bob

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knapman, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Elletson, Harold

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

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Evennett, David

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Faber, David

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  697

  Legg, Barry

  Sackville, Tom

  Leigh, Edward

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lloyd, Ftt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lord, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Luff, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Shersby, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sims, Roger

  MacKay, Andrew

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Maclean, David

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McLoughin, Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Madel, Sir David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Malone, Gerald

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mans, Keith

  Spring, Richard

  Marland, Paul

  Sproat, Iain

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Steen, Anthony

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Stephen, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Stern, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Streeter, Gary

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Sykes, John

  Merchant, Piers

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mills, Iain

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Taylor, John M

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Thomason, Roy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Thomton, Sir Malcolm

  Nelson, Anthony

  Thumham, Peter

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tracey, Richard

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Trend, Michael

  Norris, Steve

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Ottaway, Richard

  Walden, George

  Page, Richard

  Walker, Bil(N Tayside)

  Paice, James

  Waller, Gary

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Ward, John

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Bowen

  Pickles, Eric

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Whitney, Ray

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Whittingdale, John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Arm

  Powel, William (Corby)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Willetts, David

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Richards, Rod

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Riddick, Graham

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robathan, Andrew

  Wood, Timothy

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Yeo, Tim

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Mr. Sydney Chapman.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House reaffirms its commitment to enabling people to buy their own homes, which four out of five people aspire to do; welcomes the fact that the cost of home ownership relative to incomes is at an historically low level; recognises that the existing system of Income Support Mortgage Interest leaves seven out of ten households without cover for their housing costs when unable to work; welcomes the Government's proposed reforms which will help ensure that new home buyers protect their homes against the risk of unemployment; welcomes the innovation taking place in the lending and insurance markets to provide good quality and affordable cover; rejects proposals to spend even more taxpayers' money by introducing a mortgage benefit scheme that will effectively underwrite private borrowing; and is confident that proper management of this major household expense by comprehensive insurance schemes, backed by lenders and insurers, will contribute significantly to a return of market stability.

  STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Quentin Davies, Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, Mr. John Evans, Sir Archibald Hamilton, Sir Terence Higgins, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. John Morris, Mr. Tony Newton, Mr. Stanley Orme and Mrs. Ann Taylor be members of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life.—[Mr. Conway.]

  ENVIRONMENT
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Robert Ainsworth be discharged from the Environment Committee and Jane Kennedy be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Don Dixon, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Motor Cycling (EU Directives)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Conway.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from our discussions from time to time, perhaps on one occasion in an Indian restaurant in Lichfield, that before I became a Member of Parliament I used to spend time motor cycling around Europe braving the uncertain roads of Greece and Turkey. Sadly, my colleagues in the Whips Office take the view that another by-election in Mid-Staffordshire would probably not be a good idea so my Yamaha FJ1200 no longer throbs between my legs in foreign climes.
  Nevertheless, I maintain a keen interest in motor cycling, so when the European Commission produced the
  "Directive on Certain Characteristics of Two and Three Wheeled Vehicles"
  shivers went down my spine.
  Since we last discussed the matter in the House, motor cyclists in Britain and in Europe, under the banner of the Federation of European Motorcyclists, have persuaded the European Parliament to disagree with most of the Commission's proposals—a rare achievement indeed.
  The European Parliament took a contrasting view from the Commission because it was persuaded by good solid evidence and well-presented argument that many of the proposals were ill-judged.
  Tonight I shall outline three areas where the motor cyclists' case has been most persuasive. First, motor cycle sound levels have been debated a number of times. We must always bear it in mind that public perception of excessive noise is invariably due to machines that are already illegal. Had I been allowed to do so, I would have ridden my Yamaha into the Chamber and demonstrated that its gentle purr is far quieter than any ill-maintained high-revving 120 cc bike with only one tenth of my bike's cubic capacity. I took advice to find out whether I would be allowed into the Chamber in my leathers and crash helmet, but I was told that it would not be de rigueur.
  The occasional lack of enforcement in this country and virtual non-enforcement in other European Union member states is no justification for bringing levels down even further.
  I recognise that enforcement of existing sound level legislation is extremely difficult technically. It simply is not possible to measure the sound of a motor cycle at the side of the road when the background noise is even louder. However, new laws coming into force in Britain next year will simplify that task by controlling the marking of silencers. That will make it a simple matter for a police officer to check whether the silencer is appropriate for the machine or the circumstances.
  The push, therefore, to lower the maximum sound level from 82 to 80 dB when 82 is perfectly acceptable to the public, if only it were enforced, is simply not justifiable.
  If the Minister and hon. Members are still not convinced of that, I would urge them to accept an invitation from the Motorcycle Action Group to attend one of its motor cycle noise demonstrations. For that is precisely the way in which the European Parliament was convinced: the Federation of European Motorcyclists badgered it into listening. The
  700
  motor cyclists' most vigorous opponents had their opinions reversed, to the extent that 95 per cent. of Members of the European Parliament voted against the lower levels.
  It is not known whether the Commission was aware of that before drafting its directive. However, it is interesting that the motor cyclists nearly met defeat when representatives of the European motor cycle industry, ACEM, stated that the 80 dB limit would be acceptable at a pinch, on the grounds that the noise reduction was technically achievable, albeit at greater cost.
  The greatest critics of the EU will be grateful for the ammunition provided by the apparent philosophy that, if something is achievable, it should be compulsory, regardless of whether it is necessary, desirable or detrimental.
  ACEM's acceptance of the European Commission's decision was not a unanimous decision of its members. Triumph Motorcycles certainly opposes implementation of the lower sound level, as it will reduce its range considerably or increase its prices even more considerably—hardly the helping hand for industry that I know my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would want, let alone what my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads always wants, to provide.
  Secondly, I wish to discuss the control of emissions of new motor cycles. Although it would be ideal to reduce emissions as much as possible, a motor cycle has much better green credentials than a car. Even if the exhaust may not be as clean as some cars, it produces a great deal less of it. A bike consumes considerably less petrol and is therefore less of a pollutant. In addition, a motor cycle does not contribute to traffic congestion in the ways that cars do, as anyone who has been in a traffic jam and seen a motor bike roaring past can attest. Having regard to that, the European Parliament proposed a compromise on emissions to minimise price increases to more economical bikes; what good sense that was.
  If we divert motor cyclists into cars because of increasing costs in meeting emission levels, the environmental effect will be far worse. If people in poorer parts of the European Union can no longer afford to go to work as their transport becomes illegal—a real prospect for the cheap two-stroke of eastern Europe—we shall have done a great disservice to them and to the British taxpayer, who will have to pick up the tab, as usual, in the shape of still larger contributions to the European cohesion funds.
  Finally, I wish to mention the complicated and contentious issue of anti-tampering. However, it is useful to consider the history behind that proposal to appreciate its absurdity fully. Type approval is a well-meaning idea to facilitate standard requirements for vehicles in all member states so that a motor cycle manufacturer can produce for one European market. There are, for example, 15 different types of moped in the Community with different specifications.
  Unfortunately, that legislation appears to have been a means to include unregulated, bolt-on regulations, which grow out of all proportion once they fall under the avaricious gaze of the Commission.
  In some countries, notably France, 14-year-olds are permitted to ride mopeds without a licence or insurance. Once the joy of riding on two wheels has been experienced, there is a wait of up to four years before motor cyclists can progress to what they would call a real motor cycle. Faced with that frustration, many young Europeans modify their

  701
  machines to obtain greater performance. It should be fairly obvious that extracting more power by essentially amateur means from a frame that is designed for a restricted life is not a safe thing to do; nor is it in the spirit of the restriction.
  With that in mind, the principle of anti-tampering was born. The idea was to oblige manufacturers to produce their machines in such a way as to make it impossible for owners to attempt to increase power. That is achieved in two ways. First, anti-tampering provides that no parts should be interchangeable between models that might produce an increase in power; and, secondly, an engine must be designed to cease functioning—to auto-destruct—should anyone other than an authorised dealer attempt to tamper with it.
  At the same time there is a proposed licence directive which establishes three different categories of motor cycle licence in addition to mopeds, which are called category A. It now gets a little more complicated. Learners must ride bikes of category B, which will be restricted to 125 cc or 11 kW; while those who have passed their tests will be forced to wait two years, during which time they will be subject to a restriction of 25 kW or a power to weight ratio of 160 kW per tonne. That is known as category C. Only after that long wait will riders be permitted to move up to category D, which is the unlimited category, but which some hon. Members may remember started life as the wholly discredited 100 horsepower limit that would have severely damaged Triumph's marketing.
  Although the Motor Vehicles Working Group decided in 1992 that anti-tampering restrictions should apply only to mopeds, the Commission has now taken it upon itself to extend those restrictions to all categories, without taking the expert advice that it sought at the beginning. That makes no sense at all. As a result, those who have passed their tests and are experienced riders would not be allowed to service or maintain their own machines. The majority would be constrained because of the irresponsibility of a small minority. That is simply not equitable.
  Triumph Motorcycles—one of our booming exporters—has achieved success by using a commonality of parts in manufacturing its machines. Such production methods would simply not be possible under anti-tampering legislation. Applying anti-tampering measures to Triumph could mean the end of a successful company and the end of many jobs.
  It is not only manufacturers of motor cycles who will be damaged by the legislation; the thousands of people in this country who make pattern parts—spare parts—will be affected by the measure, too, as there will be no such thing as a part which fits several motor cycle models or even models from different years. Not only will the economy of scale be defeated, but it will become necessary to gain manufacturers' co-operation in order to produce parts in competition with them. Clearly, the end result will be that parts will be made only by the original manufacturers and servicing will be carried out by registered dealers only.
  Such monopolies are not conducive to the free market and they go against the original intent of type approval: to provide a single market giving greater choice, not less, at a lower cost to the consumer. The FEM has reached a compromise with the European Parliament to allow category A and B motor cycles to be subject to
  702
  anti-tampering controls, with the declared intention of protecting home maintenance in later changes to the European directive.
  For the economic prosperity and environmental protection of all member states, it makes no sense to attack the motor cycle in that way. It also does not make sense for us to forfeit jobs in the parts industry in this country or at Triumph, which would be devastated by either anti-tampering legislation or the 80 decibel sound limit. The motor cyclists of Europe have fought long and hard to bring about changes in the European Parliament's thinking about the directive. The Motor Cycle Action Group, which is based in Birmingham, has played a key role in that process. In that context, I should like to express my appreciation to Steve Parlour, its parliamentary liaison officer, for his help in preparing me for this debate.
  I sincerely hope that the Government will support the sensible changes rather than bow to the pressure of the Commission which, as the unelected gauleiter of Europe, has neither the interests of motor cyclists nor those of the British motor cycle industry at heart.
  10.29 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on securing this timely and important debate and I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to it.
  This morning, I was delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, who was supporting national bicycle week, through the gates into New Palace Yard. It is significant that we are finishing the day on two wheels, as it were. It is significant because, although they are perhaps not quite as environmentally friendly as bicycles, motor cycles are relatively environmentally friendly. A motor cycle does very little damage to the environment, takes up little room and contributes only a tiny proportion of the noxious emissions in the atmosphere.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred to noise. The key issue is that, while many countries are not enforcing the existing laws, it would be nonsensical to introduce pointless tough new regulations which would make little difference and would be ignored. We have to enforce existing regulations and not seek to achieve the unobtainable.
  There is no evidence that the proposed power limits would lead to an improvement in road safety. I am delighted that the Government's stance seems to be winning the day, and I hope that we shall win the argument.
  The British motor cycle industry contributes a great deal to employment in this country. The motor cycle provides young people with the mobility of labour which they would not otherwise have. We owe it not only to the industry but to the many people who benefit from the use of a motor cycle to support the industry tonight.
  10.31 pm
  The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Diffident as I am to respond to the debate in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and his distinguished amanuensis, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend), I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on securing this important debate and thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the hon. Member

  703
  for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) who, with me, braved London's traffic in support of national cycle week. I fear that the world is not yet ready for me in lycra, but, that apart, it was an extraordinarily enjoyable occasion which I commend to the House.
  It may be useful if I place the directives that we are discussing in their proper context. They are there, or will be in due course, to provide for European whole vehicle type-approval for motor cycles, a procedure that is aimed at achieving a single Community-wide market for motor cycle and component manufacturers. Quite a few non-controversial directives have already been adopted. All were the subject of explanatory memorandums by Ministers to the Select Committee on European Legislation and all cleared scrutiny without debate.
  The United Kingdom is committed to a policy of harmonising standards for the construction of new vehicles in the Community and, consequently, has not disagreed with the aims of the directives. Type-approval for motor cycles will do no more than bring them into line with long-standing type-approval for other classes of vehicle and the increased cost in obtaining type-approval will be able to be offset by access to a Community-wide market, which is significantly fragmented at present. All in all, type-approval has everything to do with free trade in Europe. We must recognise that, if there is to be a level playing field and unfettered access to EC markets, there will inevitably be some degree of harmonisation. That is what the directives aim to achieve.
  Of the directives so far adopted, only one has been controversial. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire implied, it involved placing a limit of 74 kW on maximum net engine power. The United Kingdom understood and shared the concern of other member states about irresponsible behaviour and excessive speed by some motor cyclists, but did not believe that the 74 kW power limit was the right answer as the contention that it was high-powered motor cycles that were necessarily the cause of the problem was not substantiated by the evidence.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) for introducing the debate. Will the Minister concentrate on the role of the European Parliament in looking at these proposals? As the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire fairly said, this may be a story of failure on the part of the Commission, but it would only be fair—the Minister is a very fair man—to congratulate Members of all parties in the Parliament for doing what our Parliament is good at and what, on the whole, the European Parliament has not been so good at, in respect of this directive.
  Mr. Norris: Yes, I am happy to acknowledge the contribution of the European Parliament. As I was saying, the UK attempted to delete the power limit from the proposal, and the European Parliament supported us during that debate. When the measure was finally adopted in directive 95/1, all references to the power limit had been deleted. There will, however, be a study, to be undertaken by the Commission in collaboration with member states, into the possibility of a link between power and accidents. We have taken the view that no such link has been substantiated.
  After our determined and successful opposition to the power limit, the Government are now content with the measure as adopted.
  704
  On the draft multi-purpose type-approval directive, which has not yet completed its legislative passage, there is broad agreement on the need for the directive, in view of the benefits that it can bring to the industry and to users. The proposal contains 12 chapters in all, and covers the remaining items necessary to complete type approval for motor cycles. Nine of these are uncontroversial, but of the three remaining ones, there are chapters on noise, emissions and anti-tampering. Rather than treating them separately, as we expected at the time of the scrutiny debate last November, when I spoke on this matter in the House, it is now proposed to retain them as part of the directive.
  I listened to what my hon. Friends said, and I understand and sympathise with their fears about the potential effects of the legislation on the motor cycle industry. Discussions are continuing under the current presidency, and it is hoped that a Council common position will be reached soon, so that we may reach a satisfactory compromise between all sides on these issues, including the European Parliament.
  As I explained in the House on 24 November, in our previous debate, the policy of the UK and its partners is to limit noise and emissions from all vehicles as far as practicable in line with technological developments. Many motor cyclists might not agree with that view, but the fact is that motor cycles are not being singled out. Almost all vehicles have been subject to stricter noise and emission limits in recent years, and rightly so.
  There has been a progressive tightening of noise limits which has resulted in halving perceived noise from heavy goods vehicles. That means that 10 of today's trucks make the same noise as a single 1978 truck. The noise from an average family saloon has been reduced by between 5 and 6 dB(A), which means that three modern saloons make less noise than one similar 1978 model. Consequently, in supporting the Commission's proposals, we and other member states are not targeting motor cyclists; we are applying an evenhanded policy that reflects the increasing concern on the part of the public about improvements in the environment.
  The noise limit proposals contained in the multi-purpose directive originally emerged in a draft directive as far back as 1984, and the Select Committee on the European Communities in another place noted in its report in May 1985 that the main industry association supported the draft directive as
  "a balanced and technically satisfactory means of controlling and reducing the general noise levels produced by motor cycles into the 1990s".
  With the exception of lowering the limit by one decibel for medium category machines, the limits remained as originally proposed when they were in incorporated in the 87/56 directive. Even then, the Department of Transport was advised by the industry that although it acknowledged that the targets were difficult, it would be possible to meet the proposed limits, given the necessary time to adapt existing machines or to develop new models.
  Triumph and Harley Davidson have lately expressed concern about the 80 dB(A) limit for motor cycles over 175 cc, with the current introduction date set for 1 January 1997. But, by then, the industry will have had at least 10 years' notice of the standards. Indeed, larger motor cycles type-approved to the 80 dB(A) limit are already in production in the Community and on sale in the UK. In the Government's view, to remain competitive, the UK

  705
  industry must keep up with its European and Japanese counterparts, none of which has expressed similar concerns.
  With regard to the particular position of Triumph, my European colleagues, rightly or wrongly, would almost inevitably hold to the view that any manufacturer entering the market in 1990 for the first time should comply with the standards already provided for in the legislation and which were adopted in 1987, particularly when a lead time of that magnitude has already been allowed.
  As to the proposition that a reduction of 2dB(A), as proposed for larger machines, is not worth while, as we all appreciate, with the introduction of that measure, the total reduction in mandatory limits since 1983 for the largest machines will have been 6dB(A) overall. That is certainly worth while.
  We support the Commission's proposals. We think that they are the best compromise between pressing for even tighter limits and the added burdens on industry. The proposals are achievable in the time scale and at economic cost. We also welcome the Commission's decision to undertake a prior review of the technical feasibility of any further noise reduction before making any specific proposals. We do not accept that the case has been made for further reductions beyond those now proposed, and we are pressing the Commission to ensure that its review takes full account of all the relevant technological and environmental factors.
  On enforcement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) indicated, measures are in the pipeline to control the acknowledged problems caused by illegal after-market exhausts. Those measures will control the supply of exhausts at point of sale. The regulations were, in fact, put out to consultation earlier this year and have been generally welcomed. I am grateful to all who responded in such a constructive way to our consultation on those regulations.
  On emissions, the proposals, if adopted, will be the first mandatory limits on motor cycles and mopeds to be introduced in the United Kingdom. Again, we should be clear about the relative importance of motor cycles in terms of emissions. Hydrocarbon emissions from individual machines can be quite substantial, and the overall level of local pollution from that sector of the vehicle fleet is a growing concern. I shall give just two examples. Cars now leaving the showroom emit less carbon monoxide than any motor cycle over 50 cc, while hydrocarbon emissions from new two-stroke motor cycles over 50 cc are some 17 times greater than those from a new car. Even a new motor cycle of less than 50 cc emits seven times as much hydrocarbons as a new car. Emissions from cars are, of course, estimated to go down by up to 90 per cent. by 1997, and very significant reductions from lorries and buses will also have taken place. So it simply is not right to exclude one category of vehicle from what is, generally, an accepted policy and one which other sectors of industry have had to take on board.
  Although the new proposed limits are by no means as stringent as those that have been applied to other vehicles, they are, in the Government's view, fully justified on environmental grounds. We think that they are achievable
  706
  within the time scale at an economic cost and without detriment to motor cycle performance. The industry has said that it can, either through existing technology or by engine modifications, and, if necessary, simple catalyst technology, meet the targets. It does not envisage the use of far more expensive three-way catalyst technology of the sort that we now see on passenger cars.
  As to proposals for future years, we are not entirely convinced that even more stringent exhaust measures can be justified in view of the low number of motor cycles in the UK in relation to other vehicles, so we are opposed to any proposals to tighten the limits in a further stage. None the less, we have had to recognise the concerns of other member states, but have called on the Commission to undertake a full technical feasibility and cost benefit study on the wider European issues before coming forward with yet further proposals that will be mandatory in all member states.
  On anti-tampering, our position is quite clear. We entirely accept the proposition that, as far as machines of up to 125 cc are concerned, including mopeds, the provisions on anti-tampering make sense. When the limit is imposed, to ensure that inexperienced drivers are not driving more powerful machines, it is clearly sensible that those machines should not be capable of being uprated to a point where the power is inappropriate to the experience of the rider. However, using entirely those grounds, there is not the same justification for applying anti-tampering limits to larger machines. Indeed, the whole principle does, of course, work against any manufacturer, which, having come into the market, as Triumph did, rather later in the day than some others, has built its machines on a modular basis, where anti-tampering provisions, as currently envisaged, would be counter-productive. We appreciate that point—I am delighted to note that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire is reassured—and we are keen to ensure that the distinction is retained.
  As for the impact on users, the measure will apply solely to machines put into service on or after 1 January 1997. It will not affect machines first used before that date; nor—I stress this, in view of some of the correspondence that I have received—do we anticipate that routine servicing and repairs will be affected. As for in-service checks, as the measure is a construction requirement compliance will be ensured by the type approval authorities before issue of the necessary documentation under the whole vehicle type approval system.
  We continue to favour European whole vehicle type approval and a single motor cycle market. We have been successful so far in introducing measures that, by and large, are uncontroversial and acceptable. When, in the case of power, a controversial proposal emerged, we were successful in achieving its deletion from the measure.
  I have laid out the arguments that, in our view, support our position on each of the three chapters of the multi-purpose directive that are potentially contentious, and I believe that all of them indicate our support not only for our own motor cycle industry but for the essential regard to be had for environmental and other considerations in this important arena.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HEALTH

  GP Fundholding, Warwickshire
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of fundholding practices have exceeded their allocated budget in each of the last three years in the county of Warwickshire and have had to seek new resources from the health authority. [27302]

  Mr. Malone
  The numbers of fundholders in Warwickshire who have exceeded their allocated budgets over the last three years are shown in the table.

  Total number of fundholding practices

  Number of fundholding practices exceeding their budgets

  Number of fundholding practices exceeding their budgets by over 5 per cent.

  1992–93

  9

  1

  0

  1993–94

  21

  4

  2

  1994–951

  26

  213

  5

  Notes:

  1 Provisional information.

  2 Eight have an overspend of less than 1 per cent, and the highest overspend is around 7.4 per cent. A number of practices have made savings of over 10 per cent.

  Source:

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans she has to ensure that people aged over 60 years with epilepsy receive treatment from specialists in neurology rather than from geriatricians; [27766]

  (2) if she will provide details of her Department's planned expenditure on the provision of epilepsy services in the current financial year, in cash terms and as (a) a percentage of its total budget and (b) equivalent figures for each of the last five years, adjusted for inflation; [27762]

  (3) what plans she has to include epilepsy as a condition for special attention in "The Health of the Nation"; [27572]

  (4) how many specialist centres and clinics for epilepsy are currently operating in the United Kingdom; and what plans she has to increase the number; [27691]

  (5) if she will instruct NHS providers to introduce a maximum waiting time for consultants to see people diagnosed as having epilepsy by a general practitioner. [27763]

  Mr. Bowis
  The treatment of epilepsy is a matter for clinicians, who decide on specific treatment for each individual patient based on that patient's medical history.

  Information on expenditure on the provision of epilepsy services is not available centrally.
  424
  Currently, there are no plans to include epilepsy as a condition for special attention in "The Health of the Nation". The Chief Medical Officer's working group on "The Health of the Nation", however, regularly reviews and considers various conditions for such attention.

  Information on the numbers of specialist centres and clinics for specific conditions is not available centrally. There are no central plans to increase the number of these for epilepsy, as this a matter for local determination.

  The revised patients charter has introduced standard waiting times to first-patient out-patient consultation. This standard applies to all specialties and requires that all patients should be seen within 26 weeks of being referred to a consultant by their general practitioner, and that nine out of 10 patients should be seen within 13 weeks.

  These are maximum waiting times and we would expect that patients whose clinical need was urgent should be seen much more quickly.

  Disabled Living Centres
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list all disabled living centres in England and Wales; and how much her Department contributes to each of their budgets. [27768]

  Mr. Bowis
  A list of all the disabled living centres is not available centrally. The Government support the work of the disabled living centres by providing funding to their representative national organisation, the Disabled Living Centres Council—£108,000 in the current financial year.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will publish the findings of the National Blood Authority consequent to its consultations on proposals it has made for changes in the organisation of its service. [27876]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority will make its final recommendations shortly. A copy of the authority's proposals will be placed in the Library when published.

  Emergency Admissions
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been(a) the total number of admissions, (b) the number of emergency and urgent admissions and (c) (b) as a percentage of (a) for each year since 1988–89. [27537]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information is shown in the table:

  Emergency admissions as a total of waiting list, booked, planned and emergency admissions

  Finished consultant episodes

  Thousands

  (a) Total episodes

  (b) Episodes, emergency admission

  (b) as percentage of (a)

  1988–89

  6,830

  3,302

  48

  1989–90

  7,085

  3,423

  47

  1990–91

  7,082

  3,452

  49

  1991–92

  7,504

  3,457

  46

  1992–93

  7,873

  3,641

  46

  1993–94

  8,287

  3,833

  46

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Phenobarbitone
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reports of adverse reactions have been referred to the Committee on Safety of Medicines in respect of products containing phenobarbitone in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [27573]

  Mr. Sackville
  The tables shows the number of reports of adverse reactions received by the Committee on Safety of Medicines in respect of products containing phenobarbitone for each of the last five years. A report of a suspected adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the drug. Other factors, including the underlying disease of the patient or other drugs taken by the patient, may be contributing.

  Year

  Number of reports

  1990

  4

  1991

  0

  1992

  2

  1993

  1

  1994

  2

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many prescriptions for products containing phenobarbitone have been written for people with epilepsy in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [27574]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about the use of phenobarbitone products is contained in the table. It is not possible, however, from central data to identify the clinical conditions for which the drug has been prescribed.

  Prescription items dispensed containing phenobarbitone, England, 1990 to 1994

  Thousands

  Chemical entity

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Phenobarbitone

  547.8

  543.9

  513.0

  480.5

  453.0

  Phenobarbitone and Phenytoin

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Phenobarbitone Sodium

  0.6

  2.6

  2.1

  0.5

  1.2

  Total

  548.6

  546.5

  515.1

  481.0

  454.2

  Notes:

  1. The data are from the prescription costs analysis system.

  2. The data for 1990 are not consistent with data from 1991 onwards. Figures for 1990 are based on fees and on a sample of one in 200 prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Figures from 1991 are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  3. Prescriptions dispensed in hospitals and private prescriptions are not included.

  DNA Analysis
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the results of the DNA analysis undertaken by the Forensic Science Service of tissue samples allegedly taken from a patient who died in Manchester allegedly of AIDS in 1959, which were provided to it by Central Manchester Healthcare Trust and Professor David Ho of New York. [27816]

  Mr. Sackville
  Tests are under way on the tissue samples at the Home Office laboratory at Wetherby. It is hoped that the results will be available shortly. The hon.
  426
  Member may wish to contact Professor S. A. Moore, chairman of the trust, for more information.

  Intensive Care Units, Yorkshire
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds there are in intensive care units in Leeds infirmary, St. James' hospital, Leeds, Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield. [27819]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. John Greetham, chairman of Northern and Yorkshire regional health authority, for details.

  Infant Feeding
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated expenditure for 1995 for producing information on infant and young child feeding(a) for families and (b) those involved in the field of infant and young nutrition. [27928]

  Mr. Sackville
  As a wide range of organisations may produce such materials, I am unable to estimate expenditure.

  The Department of Health spent £53,000 in producing materials in support of this year's National Breastfeeding Awareness Week held last month. We contributed £50,000 towards the costs of the "Invest in Breast" training programme produced jointly by the Royal College of Midwives and Health Visitors Association which was launched on 25 May. We provided some £55,000 in 1994–95, under the section 64 grant aid programme, to the three voluntary groups concerned with informing and supporting mothers about breastfeeding.

  The Health Education Authority expended £475,000 in 1994–95 on materials—leaflets and such popular books as "Birth to Five" and "The Pregnancy Book"—which provide information on breastfeeding and other aspects of infant and young child feeding.

  Bounty Packs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations are in place covering the distribution of bounty packs to nursing mothers in hospital. [27929]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 5 April at columns 1211–12. National health service units decide locally whether they wish to permit the distribution of bounty packs and similar packs to new mothers in their care. The packs and their contents must comply with the relevant provisions on advertising and promotion of baby milks in the Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula Regulations 1995.

  Homeless Mentally Ill Initiative
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she expects to publish the evaluation of the homeless mentally ill initiative's clinical teams. [28848]

  Mr. Bowis
  The report, "The Homeless Mentally Ill Initiative—An Evaluation of Four Clinical Teams", is being published today and copies are available in the Library. I am grateful to Professor Craig and his colleagues for their work.
  427
  The homeless mentally ill initiative, organised by the Department of Health in collaboration with the Mental Health Foundation, was launched in 1990. It provides multidisciplinary community mental health teams to identify homeless mentally ill people in London who are not already in touch with statutory services. The teams assess clients' needs, provide medical and social support, and refer them to appropriate statutory services. The initiative also provides specialist hostels with a high level of care which meets immediate housing needs and offers rehabilitation before clients move on to more permanent accommodation. There is also provision of supported move-on accommodation with capital funding from the Housing Corporation.

  The Government have invested over £20 million in this initiative. The five outreach teams, the eight hostels with two more to come and the move-on supported accommodation that is beginning to come on stream have begun to transform lives. It is estimated that between October 1994 and March 1995 about 115 people were rehoused, either into the specialist high care hostels or into permanent accommodation.

  The report acknowledges the need for multidisciplinary outreach teams and comments favourably on the high level of direct client interaction that they have been able to attain. It also comments on the positive view taken of the teams by the majority of agencies with which they work.

  Professor Craig's report contains a number of recommendations. We shall be studying these in detail and considering what action can be taken to build on the successes that he has identified.

  Hyperactive Disorder
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the amount of grant aid given by her Department to(a) the hyperactive children's support group and (b) other voluntary organisations concerned with the treatment of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [26581]

  Mr. Bowis
  The hyperactive children's support group received grant aid from the Department of £7,000 each

  Finished consultant episodes (ordinary admissions and day cases combined) 1988–89 to 1993–94 Mental Disorders

  RHAs

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  England

  294,327

  306,077

  302,042

  302,378

  313,186

  315,378

  Northern

  22,841

  22,228

  22,852

  22,017

  22,814

  22,877

  Yorkshire

  21,628

  22,152

  24,095

  20,391

  24,342

  24,985

  Trent

  28,415

  28,369

  31,183

  32,032

  32,268

  31,602

  East Anglian

  11,454

  11,936

  11,890

  10,452

  12,471

  11,525

  North West Thames

  19,484

  24,206

  17,461

  17,568

  18,482

  19,373

  North East Thames

  21,294

  20,451

  20,581

  20,807

  21,792

  22,436

  South East Thames

  21,033

  19,447

  19,540

  18,501

  19,394

  19,463

  South West Thames

  20,063

  19,858

  20,218

  20,929

  20,680

  21,313

  Wessex

  18,445

  18,788

  19,607

  21,829

  18,348

  19,324

  Oxford

  10,860

  11,122

  11,718

  11,156

  12,711

  12,383

  South Western

  24,871

  25,627

  24,182

  23,306

  25,548

  26,340

  West Midlands

  30,800

  34,801

  31,562

  36,539

  35,824

  35,447

  Mersey

  15,768

  17,795

  17,935

  17,770

  18,369

  17,541

  North Western

  25,474

  27,204

  26,391

  26,136

  26,608

  27,171

  SHAs

  1,897

  2,093

  2,827

  2,945

  3,535

  3,598

  428
  year from 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1995. The grant has been renewed at an amount totalling £19,000 over three years beginning on 1 April 1995. We make no other grants to organisations dealing exclusively with the treatment of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder.

  GP Fundholding, Cumbria
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many fundholders there are in the county of Cumbria. [27797]

  Mr. Malone
  From April 1995, there have been 16 fundholding practices in Cumbria.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the cost in cash to health authorities in Cumbria with particular reference to the budget of the West Cumbria Health Trust arising out of individual general practices acquiring fundholding status. [27798]

  Mr. Malone
  Fundholding general practitioners, like health authority purchasers, are allocated their patients' fair share of national health service resources based on need. It is for NHS trusts to respond to the requirements of purchasers so that services for patients are improved.

  Hospital League Tables
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is being spent promoting the current year's hospital league tables to the editors of regional newspapers. [28000]

  Mr. Sackville
  Money is not being spent on promoting the league tables. Regional editors are being given the option of receiving the material in hard copy or disk format. They have also been invited to a briefing on the arrangements for publishing the tables.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were discharged from mental hospitals in each region in each of the last 10 years. [27966]

  Mr. Bowis
  The number of finished consultant episodes—ordinary admissions and day cases combined—from national health service hospitals in England by main diagnosis of mental disorder and by region of treatment is shown in the table. Data prior to April 1988 are not on a comparable basis.

  Special Transitional Grants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which district auditors have yet to submit audited returns of expenditure by local authorities of the 1993–94 special transitional grant. [27967]

  Mr. Bowis
  None. All the audited returns detailing community care spending in 1993–94 have now been received.

  Home Care Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on home care services by each authority in each of the last 10 years, expressed in 1995 prices. [28026]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information, expressed in 1994–95 prices, will be placed in the Library. These figures should be treated with caution as local authorities differ from year to year in their treatment of administrative and other overhead costs. Year-on-year variations may also reflect changes in types of home care service and changes of contract. New guidelines for future social services accounting have been drawn up by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy and the local authorities, which should result in greater consistency of reporting. Estimates have had to be made for some years for Greenwich, Hackney, Lambeth, Newham, Berkshire, Ealing, Harringey, Sheffield, Manchester and Wakefield.

  Kirklees Metropolitan Council
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been made available to Kirklees metropolitan council for alteration and adaptations for 1995–96 to residents' homes to allow them to stay longer in their own homes rather than in residential care; and what were the figures in each of the last 10 years. [27856]

  Mr. Bowis
  Expenditure by Kirklees metropolitan council up to 1993–94, the latest year available, is shown in the table.

  Personal social services gross expenditure on adaptations to homes—Kirklees metropolitan council

  Year

  £000s

  1986–87

  100

  1987–88

  107

  1988–89

  100

  1989–90

  150

  1990–91

  393

  1991–92

  210

  1992–93

  82

  1993–94

  502

  Information from annual revenue outturn forms (R03) completed by the local authority.

  Contract Sanctions
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what sanctions can be applied against a contractor for failing to comply fully with the specifications of a contract awarded to it by an NHS trust hospital following the market testing process. [28383]

  Mr. Sackville
  This depends on the terms of the contract, and on the nature of the failure to meet specified requirements. Minor or occasional failures would normally be resolved in discussion. In more serious and continuing cases sanctions might include premature 430
  termination of contract, withholding of payments pending satisfactory meeting of work requirements, or legal action for breach of contract.

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 applied to the contracting out and sub-contracting out of the estates department by the Royal Liverpool University hospital; and what stipulation the contract awarded made in respect of the provision of a pension scheme for those employees transferred. [28385]

  Mr. Sackville
  I understand that the award of the contract was on the basis that staff would transfer to the new contractor under the provisions of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Pension scheme benefits for old age, invalidity and widowhood are explicitly excluded from the transfer arrangements, but the two parties to the contract have ensured accrued pension rights are fully protected and that the new employer's pension arrangements are based on the same employers contribution as the previous national health service scheme. The Royal Liverpool University hospital took legal advice that the transfer accorded fully with all statutory responsibilities under United Kingdom and European law.

  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations she has received concerning the guidelines and procedures followed by the Royal Liverpool University hospital NHS trust in contracting out its estates department to Mowlem and the subsequent sub-contracting out of the department of Lorne Stewart. [28382]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have received representations from two hon. Members on behalf of individual constituents whose employment transferred as a result of the award of contract in this case. I am satisfied that the parties concerned have made every effort to meet all liabilities arising under United Kingdom and European law.

  NHS Staff, Southwark
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women have been employed within the national health service in the London borough of Southwark as part of the South East London health authority in each of the last five years. [28352]

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

  NHS Trust, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will state the defined interest or repayment terms on the interest bearing debt and public dividend capital of(a) Newham Healthcare NHS Trust and (b) the Royal Hospitals of St. Bartholomew's, Royal London, and London Chest Hospital Trust together with their respective payments for the years 1975–76 in respect of (i) 6 per cent. of their origination capital debt, (ii) interest and repayment of their interest-bearing debt and (iii) public dividend capital, stating the purpose of each type of payment. [28380]

  Mr. Sackville
  The two national health service trusts in question were established as at 1 April 1994. Information is therefore only available for 1994–95.
  431
  An NHS trust's originating capital debt is divided between a loan—on which interest shall be paid—and public dividend capital. The debt is divided on a 50:50 basis and the interest-bearing element is repayable in equal instalments over 25 years at a fixed rate of interest. The interest rate applicable to NHS trusts established on 1 April 1994 is 8.125 per cent. The actual value of the originating debt of the trusts in question is given in Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 407, dated 20 February 1995.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may determine the dividend which is to be payable at any time on the public dividend capital element of the trust's originating debt.

  The NHS executive's records show that the following payments were made in 1994–95.

  Newham £

  Royal London hospitals £

  Principal

  377,773

  1,649,000

  Interest

  1,469,530

  6,409,556

  Dividend

  720,472

  2,842,485

  These figures are provisional and subject to audit.

  Contract income received by a trust will include a 6 per cent. return on its relevant net assets from which the trust remunerates its debt. The actual return achieved by trusts in 1994–95 will be reported in their annual accounts which will be available following audit no later than 30 September.

  Veterinary Medicines
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the use of Baytril in farm animals and the incidence of bacterial resistance in humans; and if she will make a statement on the subject. [26783]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  No specific research has been commissioned into the use of Baytril in farm animals. The Veterinary Products Committee keeps the development of antibiotic resistance in humans and animals under close review. It has recently confirmed, in the light of the latest information, that no change in current licensing policy is required: new antibiotics should not necessarily be precluded from therapeutic use in animals, but their prophylactic use should be discouraged. The committee will continue to consider each case on its merits.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to train sufficient scientists in methods relating to the identification of species to enable the United Kingdom to fulfil obligations under the biodiversity convention; and what assessment has been made of the shortage of taxonomists. [26328]

  Mr. Horam
  In line with the convention, the Darwin initiative is funding about 30 projects relating to 432
  taxonomy costing over £3 million. Those projects involve the training of over 400 developing country scientists.

  Responsibility for assessing and meeting the UK's needs more generally rests primarily with the scientific community in universities, institutions such as the natural history museum, and the research councils. The Natural Environment Research Council launched an initiative in 1992 to revitalise taxonomic research and training relevant to the environmental sciences, and currently supports students, fellows, and projects in the field. I understand that Edinburgh university and the Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh have introduced an MSc "Biodiversity and Taxonomy in Plants" which has proved successful in attracting students from home and abroad as well as research council support. The UK Systematics Forum, funded by the Office of Science and Technology, now brings together members from across the country to investigate, among other things, ways of increasing the opportunities for training systematists.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what measures Her Majesty's Government have taken to implement the recommendations of Lord Dainton's report on biological taxonomy. [26331]

  Mr. Horam
  The Government's response Cm 2243 to the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee report on systematic biology research was published in June 1993. Since then, the Office of Science and Technology has set up the UK Systematics Forum and commissioned an independent review of the UK's microbial culture collections.

  The Natural Environment Research Council, through its initiative in taxonomy research and training, is currently funding six research fellowships over a five-year period at a total cost of just over £1 million. These fellowships are eligible for associated research grants, for which a further £665,000 has been committed over the same period.

  Oral Scientific Histories
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his letter DH/94/M/1078 to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 7 December 1994, what is the outcome of his investigation into the desirability of oral scientific histories. [26327]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I agree that the history of science can be enriched by oral scientific histories.

  Investigations have established that a number of bodies are engaged in making such histories, including the Royal College of Physicians, the British Library, the Physiological Society and the Biochemical Society. BBC television has some recorded interviews with Nobel Laureates and other scientists who have made a significant contribution across many fields. I have asked the Office of Science and Technology to pursue the issue of oral scientific histories further with the national sound archive of the British Library.

TREASURY

  Summer Economic Forecast
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected publication date for the Treasury's summer economic forecast. [24495]
  433
  Mr. Aitken
  [pursuant to his answer, 18 May 1995, c. 307]: The Treasury's summer economic forecast will be published on 28 June 1995. Copies will be available from the Vote Office at 11 am on that day.

  Public Sector Investment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made as to how much public sector investment will change over the next three years, as measured by public sector asset creation; and if he will estimate by how much public sector investment has changed in real terms since 1989–90. [27882]

  Mr. Aitken
  The latest available public sector investment figures are published in table 1.7 of the statistical supplement to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96". These cover outturn and plans from 1989–90 to 1997–98 in real and cash terms. In addition, the private finance initiative will harness private sector resources leading to more and better infrastructure projects and improved services.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new income tax payers recorded in the past two years were previously non-income tax payers of pension age. [27589]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: There are about 200,000 fewer taxpayers aged over 65 in 1995–96 than there would have been if the 1993–94 tax regime had been indexed.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the categories of goods and services which currently bear value added tax at the rate of 17.5 per cent. together with the annual revenue yield from each of the listed categories. [28142]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: VAT legislation does not identify separate categories of goods and services on which VAT is chargeable at 17.5 per cent. but specifies that it should be charged on any supply of goods or services in the United Kingdom made by a taxable person in the course or furtherance of a business, except for supplies of fuel and power for domestic or charity use which are chargeable at 8 per cent., and the zero rates and exemptions listed in schedules 8 and 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

  It is not possible to provide figures for the revenue yield from each individual category of expenditure.

  Incapacitated Spouses
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the operation of the additional personal allowance for married men with an incapacitated wife. [28344]

  Sir George Young
  All personal allowances will be kept under review in the run-up to the Budget. In general, the Government believe that it is better to help both men and women with incapacitated spouses through the social security systems rather than through tax reliefs.

  Wild Flowers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Customs and Excise, in examining dried flowers entering Britain, differentiate those specimens collected from the wild and those originating from proven sustainable sources. [26337]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There are no restrictions on the importation of the dried flowers currently traded, whether wild taken or not, and customs does not, therefore, seek to make such a differentiation.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of take-home pay in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EC countries; and if he will list the evidence on which such figures are based. [26487]

  Sir George Young
  Taking into account the cost of living, estimated average take-home pay for an unmarried UK production worker, under Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development definitions, is higher than in all other EU countries, except Luxembourg. Average take-home pay plus child benefit—or the equivalent in other countries—for a married couple with two children is also higher in the UK than in other EU countries except Luxembourg, Belgium and the former West Germany. These comparisons are based on figures published in "The Tax/Benefit Position of Production Workers Annual Report 1990–1993", OECD 1994, adjusted using purchasing power parity exchange rates, also published by OECD.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will undertake an investigation into the leaking of sections of the Scott inquiry report; and if he will publish the terms of reference of the investigation; how it will be conducted; and by whom. [28379]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) on 12 June,Official Report, column 374.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June. [26744]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 13 June 1995. [26745]

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

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Test Veterans
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records exist of the mortality levels and cancer incidence in British nuclear test participants present at Grapple Y. [26663]
  435
  Mr. Soames
  Personnel present during the test codenamed Grapple Y were among more than 20,000 British nuclear test veterans for whom mortality statistics were collated by the National Radiological Protection Board. The NRPB studies found no overall excess of mortality or incidence of cancer among test participants.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the National Radiological Protection Board has undertaken a study into the incidence of cancer in the children of nuclear test participants in the 1950s and 1960s. [26667]

  Mr. Soames
  No such study has been undertaken. Studies by the National Radiological Protection Board have shown no overall excess of death or cancer among British test participants. There is therefore no reason to expect an excess of death or cancer among their children.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if personnel involved in the decontamination of HMS Tracker were included in the National Radiological Protection Board studies into British nuclear test participants. [26749]

  Mr. Soames
  Our records indicate that some decontamination work was carried out by the crew of HMS Tracker before the ship had returned to the UK. The ship's crew were included in the National Radiological Protection Board studies. We have been unable to trace any records of decontamination work that may have been carried out following the ship's return to the UK.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the National Radiological Protection Board study into the effects of nuclear tests upon service personnel took into account potential variations arising from(a) whether tests were of fission or fusion, (b) detonation yields, (c) location of tests, (d) duration of service in test areas and (e) the number of tests witnessed by each individual. [26665]

  Mr. Soames
  The studies undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board looked at cancer among test participants for each of the operations that comprised the atmospheric test programme. This examined tests of different types, yields and locations. For no operation was there a statistically significant excess of cancer deaths. Analyses were performed of those groups with the potential for radiation exposure and of those with recorded external doses, as well as the duties undertaken by participants who subsequently developed leukaemia or multiple myeloma.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what mortality statistics are held by the National Radiological Protection Board for personnel serving on HMS Tracker during British nuclear tests. [26661]

  Mr. Soames
  Personnel serving on HMS Tracker during the nuclear tests for which that ship was deployed in a support role were among more than 20,000 British nuclear test veterans for whom mortality statistics were collated by the National Radiological Protection Board. The NRPB studies found no overall excess of mortality among test veterans.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why Mr. Andrew Dickson of Wakefield, West Yorkshire, a British nuclear test participant, received two body scans from the National Radiological Protection Board. [26668]

  Mr. Soames
  That is a matter between Mr. Dickson and the National Radiological Protection Board.
  436
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how British nuclear test participants, not issued with film badges, have been monitored for potential radioactivity. [26690]

  Mr. Soames
  Film badges were issued only to those personnel who were considered likely to receive a measurable dose of radiation during the tests. It was considered unnecessary to monitor those who were not issued with film badges, as they would not have been exposed to significant levels of radiation.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations have been conducted into the incidence of cataracts in service personnel attending British nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. [26666]

  Mr. Soames
  As more radiation exposure would be required to produce an excess of cataracts in the population than to produce an excess of cancer, and as the National Radiological Protection Board studies have shown no excess of cancer among British nuclear test veterans, no specific study of cataract incidence has been undertaken for my Department. I understand, however, that the NRPB is itself conducting a small study in this area.

  Anthrax
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent information he has received on the discovery of anthrax-contaminated seed stocks in the Irish sea. [26700]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department is unaware of any anthrax-contaminated seed stocks being discovered in the Irish sea.

  HMS Royal Arthur
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the cost to date in(a) rent loss, (b) security patrols, (c) boarding up, (d) depreciation and (e) vandalism in respect of empty accommodation for families and single persons at HMS Royal Arthur. [26848]

  Mr. Soames
  HMS Royal Arthur was previously used as a training establishment for naval petty officers and the only permanent accommodation was in the wardroom. There was no family accommodation on the site. The site is at present being sold subject to contract. To date, there has been no loss of rent, and no additional costs arising from security patrols; the site has not been boarded up; no assessment has been made of depreciation; and only minimal costs have been incurred as a result of damage by vandals.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 20 April,Official Report, column 856, when the investigation into the low flying incident over Barnoldswick and Earby in January are likely to be completed. [26958]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF police have now completed their investigation. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Member on 7 June 1995 setting out their conclusions. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Washington Flights
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost by year for the last three years for the RAF's twice-weekly VCIO service between Brize Norton and Washington, USA. [27395]

  Mr. Soames
  The approximate costs of operating the VCIO service between Brize Norton and Washington, Dulles airport, for the last three financial years are as follows:

  Financial year

  Cost £

  1994–95

  6,200,000

  1993–94

  5,900,000

  1992–93

  5,500,000

  Note:

  These figures reflect the cost of an average flight extrapolated over the year.

  Naval Exercises
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all naval exercises in United Kingdom waters in each of the last five years; which of these were in the Clyde or off the coast of south-west Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [27384]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of naval exercises in United Kingdom waters are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, during the last 12 months there have been 23 exercises in the Clyde and off the coast of south-west Scotland involving a combination of ships, submarines and aircraft taking part in continuation sea training.

  Minefield Practice, Scotland
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent proposals have been considered for the use of areas in the firth of Clyde and upper Loch Fyne for minefield practice; what discussions are planned with fishing organisations on these proposals; and if he will make a statement. [27383]

  Mr. Soames
  Mine countermeasures actively in the Clyde area is planned to increase later this year following the move from Rosyth to Faslane of the third mine countermeasures squadron and the small ships operational training staff. A series of constructive discussions with fishing organisations on the location of this activity has been held, and further talks are due to take place later this month.

  Tri-service Exercises
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all tri-service exercises in the United Kingdom mainland in each of the last five years; and which of these were located in part in south-west Scotland. [27835]

  Mr. Soames
  The MOD plans to conduct one major tri-service exercise each year under a series title of "Purple". The exercise may or may not be conducted wholly in the United Kingdom. Exercises follow a four-year cycle of three command post exercises or CPXs followed by a full live exercise in the fourth year. The live exercise in the period, exercise Purple Monarch,438
  1992, was reduced to a command post exercise following the Gulf war and was conducted in southern England and Gibraltar.

  On a small scale, but also planned and conducted on a tri-service basis for specialist units, is a series of exercises termed Minibus. This series again follows a four-year cycle. The live exercise in the period was held in 1994 and the geographic area used included parts of south-west Scotland. Also planned and executed in 1994 was a bi-service amphibious exercise Royal Dawn—which included a landing phase by Royal Marines on the Isle of Lewis.

  The annual tri-service Purple exercises for the five-year period were:

  Year

  Exercise

  Description

  1991

  Purple Victory

  CPX

  1992

  Purple Monarch

  Live exercise planned but CPX conducted

  1993

  Purpose Horizon

  CPX

  1994

  Purple Nova

  CPX

  1995

  Purple Zodiac

  CPX

  Vehicle Movements
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the journeys that vehicle registration number 16 AY 51 has made in the last 12 months, with dates; from what location the journey started; what was the location of its destination; and what cargo it was carrying. [28246]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our policy to disclose details of particular military movements.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many units of accommodation have been sold by his Department since April 1993. [27559]

  Mr. Soames
  Between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1995 my Department sold 2,925 dwellings.

  Territorial Army Barracks, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of reconstructing the Park street territorial army barracks, Cardiff and the date on which construction(a) commenced and (b) was completed. [28310]

  Mr. Soames
  The Park street territorial army barracks in Cardiff was reconstructed between March 1993 and July 1994 at a total cost of £2,041,000.

  Dartmouth Royal Regatta
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 193, if he will consider substituting a Royal Naval Reserve vessel as the guard ship at the Dartmouth royal regatta in place of a ship from the Royal Navy. [28458]

  Mr. Soames
  Following a major review of the RNR nearly two years ago, we concluded that the River class minesweepers then operated by them were no longer required, given the changed operational circumstances following the end of the cold war, and advances in mine warfare and technology. Accordingly, these vessels were withdrawn and RNR personnel now go to sea in all types
  439
  of RN ships where they are employed alongside regular personnel in appropriate duties. The RNR no longer has any vessels of its own; therefore, it will not be possible for one to be sent to the Dartmouth royal regatta.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the legal services ombudsman intends to publish his fourth annual report. [28621]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The legal services ombudsman will tomorrow publish his fourth annual report, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  State Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions since 1970 the Crown has claimed ownership of state papers held privately. [26969]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Crown made a claim of ownership of such papers in legal proceedings in relation to the Churchill papers. Information is not collated or available centrally where more informal action has been taken.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make it his policy to allow Queen's counsel a choice between uttering an oath or making a declaration to match the procedure followed by hon. Members. [27204]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Only in Northern Ireland are newly-appointed Queen's counsel required to take an oath of allegiance. The matter is therefore one for the Supreme court authorities, in consultation with the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland, on whose advice my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland acts in these matters.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department who has discretion to modify the requirements of the oath and declaration required of Queen's counsel. [27206]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  When in November 1972 the form of the declaration made by Queen's counsel in England and Wales was last modified, Her Majesty approved the Lord Chancellor's recommendation made with the agreement of the treasures of the four inns of court and the chairman of the General Council of the Bar.

  The form of the declaration made upon admission to the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland is governed by the faculty regulations. Any amendment would require the approval of the Lord President of the Court of Session.

  Any modification to the oath and declaration for Queen's counsel of Northern Ireland would be made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the exercise of the royal prerogative. He would be advised on the matter by the Supreme Court authorities after consultation with the General Council of the Bar of Northern Ireland.
  440
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the oath and declaration required of Queen's counsel are identical throughout the United Kingdom and Commonwealth. [27205]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In England and Wales a declaration is made by newly appointed Queen's counsel in the following terms:"I [A.B.] do sincerely promise and declare that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second and all whom I may lawfully be called upon to serve in the office of one of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the Law according to the best of my skill and understanding".

  In Scotland, advocates make a declaration of allegiance when they are admitted to the faculty of advocates. The declaration, commonly known as the oath of allegiance, is made in the following terms:
  "I [A.B.] do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I shall bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law".

  When an advocate is granted the status of Queen's counsel in Scotland, he or she is not required to make any further declaration. The arrangements for appointment as a Queen's counsel are made through correspondence and there is no ceremony associated with appointment to this rank.

  In Northern Ireland, Queen's counsel take both an oath of allegiance and make a declaration., The oath of allegiance is in the following terms:
  "I, [A.B.] do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law".

  The declaration made is as follows:
  "I, [A.B.] do declare that well and truly I will serve the Queen as one of Her Counsel learned in the Law and truly counsel the Queen in Her matters, when I shall be called upon so to do, and duly and truly minister the Queen's matters and sue the Queen's process after the course of the Law, and after my cunning. I will duly in convenient time speed such matters as I may lawfully do which any person shall have to do in the Law against the Queen. And in all other respects I will be attendant to the Queen's matters when I be called thereto".

  Different procedures for the recommendation and appointment of Queen's counsel subsist throughout the Commonwealth.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what is the amount of legal aid awarded to Kasim Mohamed Bacchus; and if he will make a statement about this award of legal aid; [26982]

  (2) what plans he has to investigate the award of legal aid to Kasim Mohamed Bacchus. [26931]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  A legal aid certificate was issued in favour of Mr. Bacchus on 13 April 1995 to cover contested matrimonial proceedings. The granting of legal aid in this case is now under investigation by the Legal Aid Board. No payments have been made from the legal aid fund to date.

  If it is found that an assisted person has failed to disclose his true financial position, the legal aid certificate may be revoked. In those circumstances, the Legal Aid Board would be entitled to recover its costs in full. With regard to this particular case, I have received a full report from the chief executive of the Legal Aid Board. Because of the confidentiality provisions of the Legal Aid Act

  441
  1988, I cannot disclose further details of the information. I am, however, satisfied that the matters which were of concern to the trial judge have been fully investigated and that appropriate action will be taken.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what were the costs of legal aid paid to each defendant in the case of the Crown v. Abraham, Allen and Henderson; and how much was contributed by or recovered from each defendant. [27173]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Details of the legal aid payments made to lawyers acting on behalf of the three defendants, and the amounts recovered from each defendant, are as follows:

  Defendant

  Legal aid costs excluding VAT £

  Amount recovered £

  Abraham

  124,541

  546

  Allen

  122,112

  52

  Henderson

  232,375

  5,000

  Search Warrants
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what powers he has to monitor the issuing of search warrants by magistrates; and how many representations he has received from the public in the last year concerning the issuing of search warrants; [27168]

  (2) what percentage of police applications for search warrants is refused by magistrates; and what instructions and guidance are given to magistrates on how they should exercise their powers and responsibilities when requested for search warrants. [27167]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Statistics on the number of search warrants issued or refused are not recorded centrally. Individual cases are for magistrates to decide, and it is not for the Government to seek to advise them on the exercise of their judicial discretion. Home Office circular 88/1985 contained guidance on the statutory provisions for search warrants under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and was copied to the magistrates courts. I am not aware of any representations from the public about the issue of such warrants.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will list the statutory instrument which passed into law during 1994 which both implement EC measures and impose fines or other penalties together with the reference number of the EC measures concerned.

  Mr. Newton
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Churchill Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 647, on the value of the Churchill archive (1) if he will disclose the identity of the dealer in the field of antiquarian books who provided an independent valuation. [26977]

  (2) if he will place in the Library the valuation report on the Churchill archive; [26960]

  (3) what consideration the national heritage memorial fund gave to taking second and third opinions of the monetary value of the papers. [26959]

  Mr. Dorrell
  These are matters for the national heritage memorial fund, which is an independent body. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member and to place copies of his letter in the Library of the House.

  Ealing Film Studios
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what local and other employment opportunities he expects to be consequent upon the £2 million expenditure to save the Ealing film studios; and if he will make a statement. [27992]

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is too early to say precisely what employment opportunities will become available because the new owner of Ealing film studios, the National Film and Television School, is still in the process of considering how best to use the complex in future.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of the work force in the east midlands is engaged in temporary work; and how that compares with the record of other EU countries. [26517]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The latest results from the labour force survey indicate that 6 per cent. of workers in the east midlands are engaged in temporary work. The share of temporary employment in Britain is among the lowest in the EC.

  Job Opportunities (Former Mining Areas)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assistance his Department is giving to encourage job opportunities in areas run down by mine closures; and if he will make a statement. [26718]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government's sound economic policies are the best way to create jobs. But, in addition, the Government have provided a £200 million special measures package for areas affected by pit closures.

  Strikes
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the current strike record in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Germany; and what were the figures in 1979. [26719]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In 1979, the UK lost 29.5 million days, over 50 times Germany's total 0.5 million. In 1993, the United Kingdom and Germany each lost 600,000 days to labour disputes.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received from the hotel industry about the social chapter. [26720]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government's rejection of the social chapter is strongly supported by all sections of British industry, because of the damage it would have done to the UK economy and to jobs.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the relationship between(a) educational and training qualifications and (b) unemployment. [26722]

  Mr. Paice
  Unemployment rates are lower among people who have qualifications.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what, at the latest possible date, are the total figures for the unemployed in the United Kingdom; and what the figures were in June 1979. [26485]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  On the consistent, seasonally adjusted basis there were 2,327,900 people claiming unemployment-related benefits in April 1995 compared with 1,067,400 in June 1979.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the effects of the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance in Nottinghamshire. [26723]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Jobseeker's allowance will help focus the efforts of unemployed people to find jobs and will provide incentives for them to get back to work.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring he is doing of age discrimination in employment. [26724]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Age discrimination in the work place is well documented, as are the benefits of recruiting and retaining older workers—I refer the hon. Member, for example, to the Employment Gazette, April 1995, a copy of which is available in the Library. The campaign for older workers continues through voluntary means to persuade employers not to restrict jobs to a particular age group. I propose, through the advisory group on older workers, to evaluate the success of the campaign in due course.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has assessed the success of the "Too Old, Who Says?" campaign; and if he will make a statement. [26479]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The success of the campaign for older workers is continually being assessed. There are encouraging signs that an increasing number of employers are reviewing age restrictions, and consequently providing greater numbers of job opportunities open to older workers.

  Works Councils
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on works councils. [26478]
  444
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Works councils are one of the many forms of voluntary employee involvement practices used by employers in the UK.

  The Government are firmly committed to the principle of employers informing and, where appropriate, consulting their employees about matters which affect them. But we believe that, to be successful, employee involvement must always be voluntary.

  Inactivity Rates
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on inactivity rates. [26480]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Inactivity rates in the UK are low, and activity rates are high, compared to other EU countries. Our activity rate is higher than any of the other main EU countries, and higher than most of the rest, the exceptions being Denmark, Finland and Sweden.

  Labour Costs
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of high non-wage labour costs on employment prospects. [26481]

  Mr. Paice
  Non-wage labour costs are lower in the United Kingdom than in most countries of the European Union. They contribute substantially to unit costs and therefore to the ability of a business to remain competitive and employ people.

  Earnings Surveys, Isle of Wight
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has received from his officials in respect of the earnings surveys on the Isle of Wight. [26482]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The published information from the regular earnings surveys is limited by the small size of the Isle of Wight population. The results of the new earnings surveys show that average weekly earnings in April 1994 were: £291 for full-time men; £237 for full-time women and £86 for part-time women.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been placed into work by the Employment Service in the past 12 years; and if he will make a statement. [26483]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Over the 12 years to December 1994 there were 20.9 million job placements in Great Britain by the Employment Service, and its predecessor the Manpower Services Commission. In 1995–96, I am asking the ES to place a record 1.9 million people into work.

  South Thames Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the receivers of South Thames TEC. [26484]

  Mr. Paice
  Employment Department officials meet regularly with the receiver.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives are being pursued to combat the problem of youth unemployment; and if he will make a statement. [26486]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government guarantee a training place to all 16 and 17-year-olds not in education or employment. Modern apprenticeships, which aim to increase the number of young people training to higher levels, will add to the comprehensive range of education and training initiatives already available.

  Employment Rights
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to discuss statutory employment rights with trade unions. [24952]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I met the general secretary of the MSF last November. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have each met the general secretary of the TUC on separate occasions this year. I will shortly be meeting the hon. Member and a group of Rolls-Royce convenors.

  Further Education
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers leaving the work-related further education programme as an actual number and as a percentage of total leavers for each year of its operation, including those who left before completion of the scheme; if he will indicate those who went into work, those who went into further employment schemes and those who became unemployed; and, of these, if he will list the type and level of qualification each leaver obtained, including those who failed to obtain any qualification at all. [27528]

  Mr. Paice
  None. The work-related further education programme funded developments in further education institutions to improve responsiveness to the needs of employers and individuals. There was no element of direct support for individuals.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people attended and left the work-related further education scheme in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme. [27454]

  Mr. Paice
  None. The work-related further education programme funded developments in further education institutions to improve responsiveness to the needs of employers and individuals. There was no element of direct support for individuals.

  TVEI
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people attended and left the technical and vocational education initiative in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme. [27453]

  Mr. Paice
  The technical and vocational education initiative is a national programme through which local education authorities introduce a range of measures in schools and colleges to help prepare young people aged 14 to 19 for working life. It is institutions, rather than individuals, which take part in the initiative; students do not "attend" or "leave" the programme. However, it is 446
  possible to estimate the number of students directly affected by TVEI funding.

  Figures are shown in the following table:

  Academic year

  Number of students (thousands)

  1983–84

  4

  1984–85

  19

  1985–86

  38

  1986–87

  62

  1987–88

  117

  1988–89

  335

  1989–90

  592

  1990–91

  895

  1991–92

  1,053

  1992–93

  1,278

  1993–94

  1,281

  1994–95

  1,007

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the numbers leaving the technical and vocational education initiative as an actual number and as a percentage of total leavers for each year of its operation, including those who left before completion of the scheme; if he will indicate those who went into work, those who went into further employment schemes and those who became unemployed; and, of these, if he will list the type and level of qualification each leaver obtained, including those who failed to obtain any qualification at all. [27527]

  Mr. Paice
  The technical and vocational education initiative is a national programme through which local education authorities introduce a range of measures in schools and colleges to help prepare young people aged 14 to 19 for working life. It is institutions, rather than individuals, which take part in the initiative, therefore information is not available in the form requested.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish a table using data from the 1994 new earnings survey relating to former wages council industries in the format of tables 30 to 53 of the 1933 new earnings survey, part B. [27243]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: As information on whether employees would have been covered by a wages board or council was not recorded by the 1994 new earnings survey, it is not possible to provide the requested tables.

  Unemployed Persons (Warnings) Decisions
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many(a) decisions, (b) disallowances and (c) warning letters, were issued in each region and Great Britain as a whole in each quarter since April 1990 in respect of those actively seeking employment. [28118]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 13 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of decisions and disallowances in respect of actively seeking employment and the number of warning letters issued since April 1990.

  447
  The statistics you asked for on adjudication officers' decisions on actively seeking employment for each region, and for Great Britain as a whole, are contained in the quarterly summary entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions". Copies are held in the Library of the House. The latest available information relates to the quarter ended March 1995.

  Actively Seeking Employment—warning letters issued by region and nationally for each quarter from April 1990 to September 1992

  April to June 1990

  July to December 1990

  October to December 1990

  January to March 1991

  April to June 1991

  July to September 1991

  October to December 1991

  January to March 1992

  April to June 1992

  July to September 1992

  Northern

  789

  731

  695

  394

  365

  697

  438

  403

  300

  290

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  714

  746

  637

  398

  403

  394

  359

  312

  282

  292

  East Midlands and Eastern

  463

  447

  453

  338

  337

  272

  225

  242

  203

  202

  London and South Eastern

  3,024

  2,941

  2,339

  1,895

  1,484

  1,830

  1,653

  1,839

  2,126

  2,250

  South Western

  530

  716

  533

  400

  371

  276

  273

  354

  406

  388

  Wales

  688

  464

  386

  311

  309

  185

  232

  206

  233

  183

  West Midlands

  1,354

  1,015

  853

  634

  561

  707

  606

  567

  619

  486

  North Western

  1,435

  1,521

  1,247

  1,032

  1,123

  1,061

  1,382

  1,671

  1,678

  2,006

  Scotland

  2,234

  2,149

  1,623

  1,001

  1,022

  1,134

  794

  1,010

  887

  612

  Total Great Britain

  11,231

  10,730

  8,766

  6,403

  5,975

  6,556

  5,962

  6,604

  6,734

  6,709

  Actively Seeking Employment—warning letters issued by region and nationally for each quarter from October 1992 to March 1995

  October to December 1992

  January to March 1993

  April to June 1993

  July to September 1993

  October to December 1993

  January to March 1994

  April to June 1994

  July to September 1994

  October to December 1994

  January to March 1995

  Northern

  163

  185

  124

  142

  164

  251

  89

  149

  225

  49

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  166

  163

  140

  107

  82

  83

  19

  100

  15

  17

  East Midlands and Eastern

  78

  98

  160

  139

  121

  35

  4

  10

  8

  9

  London and South Eastern

  1,758

  1,515

  1,007

  935

  682

  692

  499

  389

  1,041

  321

  South Western

  271

  349

  228

  369

  390

  555

  232

  172

  346

  537

  Wales

  71

  72

  41

  31

  38

  69

  26

  57

  52

  20

  West Midlands

  235

  190

  153

  144

  170

  261

  92

  161

  193

  127

  North Western

  1,510

  1,057

  601

  344

  206

  208

  129

  291

  276

  248

  Scotland

  337

  363

  217

  98

  44

  76

  67

  76

  27

  74

  Total Great Britain

  4,589

  3,992

  2,671

  2,309

  1,897

  2,230

  1,157

  1,405

  2,183

  1,402

  Temporary Contracts
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has for setting a time limit on open-ended temporary contracts for employees. [28296]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None. Contractual agreements are a matter for the parties concerned.

  Personal Protection Equipment
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received concerning the Personal Protection Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 and their effect on the Sikh community; and if he will make a statement. [26617]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  We have received a number of representations on this issue, to which we have responded individually. The Personal Protective Equipment at Work 448
  I enclose a table showing by region, and for Great Britain, the number of warning letters issued to clients whose jobsearch activity was not considered to be adequate. This information is available for the period up to March 1995.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Regulations 1992 implement the use of personal protective equipment directive.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much is currently being spent on training schemes for 16 to 18-year-olds; how many are covered by the schemes; what changes to the schemes he is planning; and if he will make a statement. [26746]

  Mr. Paice
  The planned expenditure on youth training and modern apprenticeships for 1995–96 is £680 million, which will cover 150,000 first-time entrants; 243,000 will be in training during that year.

  A wide range of initiatives is already available for young people aged 16 to 18 to improve their employment prospects and achievement of vocational qualifications. We are currently working with employers to develop modern apprenticeships and accelerated modern

  449
  apprenticeships, to increase the number of young people training and to increase the number achieving qualifications at supervisory and technician levels.

  Since September 1994, 1,440 young people have commenced training in modern apprenticeship prototypes. It is expected that about 50 frameworks will be available for introduction across England from September 1995.

  Employees in the construction industry by standard region: December 1988—December 1994

  thousands

  Region

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Greater London

  138

  131

  128

  115

  103

  92

  101

  Rest of South East

  184

  187

  185

  157

  148

  139

  144

  East Anglia

  34

  37

  36

  33

  34

  29

  26

  South West

  74

  76

  74

  64

  61

  56

  54

  West Midlands

  93

  91

  89

  87

  85

  86

  88

  East Midlands

  65

  68

  67

  63

  56

  55

  62

  Yorks and Humbs

  92

  100

  97

  92

  88

  95

  81

  North West

  110

  114

  112

  100

  90

  88

  93

  North

  67

  70

  68

  67

  66

  63

  62

  Wales

  43

  47

  46

  44

  41

  46

  40

  England and Wales

  900

  921

  902

  822

  770

  749

  751

  Note:

  December of each year (not seasonally adjusted).

  Source:

  Workforce in Employment series.

  Graduate Unemployment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 98, if he will provide comparable information on graduate unemployment for each of the last five years. [28088]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: Regional information on graduate unemployment, on the International Labour Organisation definition, is given in the following table:

  ILO unemployed graduates of working age by region in Great Britain (spring each year, thousands, not seasonally adjusted)

  Region

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Great Britain

  63

  98

  135

  170

  149

  North

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  11

  11

  East Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  11

  East Anglia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  South East

  30

  43

  61

  79

  63

  Greater London

  19

  25

  31

  45

  36

  Rest of South East

  11

  19

  30

  33

  27

  South West

  n/a

  10

  11

  12

  10

  West Midlands

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  13

  n/a

  North West

  n/a

  10

  12

  17

  16

  Wales

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Scotland

  n/a

  n/a

  12

  10

  14

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  n/a = not available; estiamte below 10,000.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the estimated number of people employed in the construction industry within each region for England and Wales for each year since 1988. [28121]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Sewage Disposal
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 104, if he will list by area the visits undertaken by the health and safety executive inspectors to sewage disposal sites last year. [28381]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Area

  Provisional number of visits to sewage disposal sites

  South West

  1

  South

  5

  South East

  1

  London North

  0

  London South

  2

  East Anglia

  0

  Northern Home Counties

  5

  East Midlands

  2

  West Midlands

  0

  Wales

  1

  Marches

  5

  North Midlands

  7

  South Yorks and Humberside

  9

  West North Yorkshire

  3

  Greater Manchester

  2

  Merseyside

  1

  North West

  4

  North East

  0

  Scotland East

  20

  Scotland West

  36

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 105, how many of the Health and Safety

  451
  Executive inspectors' visits to sewage disposal activities in 1994–95 were related to the maintenance of the existing sewer network. [28172]

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

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 104, when he expects to have finalised the guidance package on occupational health risks from sewage. [28171]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The guidance package on occupational health risks from sewage is expected to be finalised towards the end of July 1995.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 105, how many of the 104 visits to sewage disposal activities in 1994–95 resulted in (a) satisfactory or (b) critical reports. [28173]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Police Discipline Records (Disclosure)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library a copy of the(a) advice issued in August 1992 to chief officers of police by the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning the disclosure of police discipline records, pursuant to the case of R v. Edwards, and (b) practical instructions introduced in January 1993 concerning the same matter; and which advice and practical instructions were referred to in the Crown Prosecution Service's annual report for 1992–93 at paragraph 5.1. [27439]

  The Attorney-General
  The guidance concerning the disclosure of police discipline records and the case of Rv. Edwards was issued on 5 October 1992 and is referred to in paragraph 5.3 of the Crown Prosecution Service's annual report for 1992–93 rather than paragraph 5.1 of the report which refers to the director's advice on disclosure matters generally. Its purpose was to ensure a consistent approach to the disclosure of potentially sensitive information about police officer's disciplinary records.

  Advice given by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the police is usually treated as confidential. However, because of the interest and importance of this subject, the advice on these issues was circulated to professional bodies and others in the criminal justice system and I have placed a copy in the Library.

  The practical instructions to CPS staff referred to at paragraph 5.1 of the report supplement the separate advice on disclosure matters generally. They are confidential.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Director General of Gas Supply
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in discussions with the Director General of Gas Supply about her remuneration. [27562]
  452
  Mr. Heseltine
  In September 1993, Ms Spottiswoode was appointed Director General of Gas Supply with effect from 1 November 1993 at the advertised salary of £70,000. This has risen to £73,725 through annual increases of 2.75 per cent. in April 1994 and 2.5 per cent. in April 1995. She was allowed to hold up to two non-executive directorships, subject to my approval and so long as any appointment did not involve a greater call on her official time than I judged appropriate. Her pension arrangements were to be broadly equivalent to the civil service pension scheme arrangements.

  Subsequently, in December 1993, in response to the MMC report on gas supply, I announced my decision, subject to passage of the necessary legislation, to require the separation of British Gas trading and gas transport activities, and to accelerate to 1996–98 the introduction of competition into the domestic market. In November 1994, the Government announced that they would bring forward the necessary gas legislation in the current parliamentary Session.

  The Gas Bill would substantively increase the director general's responsibilities and work load. Apart from the licensing of new domestic gas suppliers, shippers and gas transporters, she is being given new powers under the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992 in respect of the industrial and commercial gas market. She is also taking over the DTI's responsibility for regulation of gas meters and gas quality.

  Against this background, and following discussions with the director general, her salary is to be increased to £90,000 backdated to November 1994 when the decision on legislation was taken. It has also been agreed that she will be able to hold only one non-executive directorship, which will involve an annual commitment of not more than 12 to 20 days; and I shall need to be satisfied that the appointment will not prejudice the performance of her functions as director general.

  There have been separate discussions on pension arrangements. The director general has opted to make her own independent pension arrangements to which Ofgas will contribute a sum equivalent to 19.5 per cent. of salary. This is broadly the cost of the comparable pension provision under civil service arrangements.

  The remuneration of each utility regulator is a matter for individual negotiation. Information on the current salaries of the regulators of the main utilities is being placed in the Library of the House by the respective sponsoring Departments. I believe that overall the proposed changes in Ms Spottiswoode's remuneration are reasonable and fair in terms of both the changes to her own job and the remuneration of other regulators.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those compliance cost assessments published during the latest six-month period available. [28845]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Since April 1993 the Government have required Departments to prepare and publish compliance cost assessments with all proposed legislation presented to Parliament to assess their impact on business costs. This includes a special test of the impact on small businesses. CCAs are central to the Government's deregulation initiative and are a vital part
  453
  of the decision-making process. They are used to help parliamentary consideration of regulatory proposals and to give business the opportunity to respond to such proposals.

  A command paper listing 104 CCAs published between 1 July 1994 to 31 December 1994 has been presented to Parliament today by the President of the Board of Trade. Copies of the CCAs listed are available in the Libraries of the House. This is the second such Command Paper; the first listing CCA published between November 1993 and June 1994 was published on 15 December 1994 Cm 2719. Further command papers listing CCAs published in the preceding six-month period will be published at six-monthly intervals.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each country the United Kingdom's crude trade balance in the latest year for which figures are available. [27770]

  Mr. Needham
  Information is published by the Central Statistical Office in Business Monitors MM20 and MM20A, "Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom", which are available in the Library of the House.

  Import Penetration
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the import penetration ratios in(a) computer equipment (b) refrigerators, (c) fridge freezers, (d) washing machines, (e) microwave ovens, (f) colour television sets, (g) video recorders and video disc players, (h) electric kettles, (i) dry irons, (j) steam irons and (k) facsimile transmission equipment, in the latest year for which figures are available [27769]

  Mr. Needham
  Available figures showing import penetration ratios in these products are published in UK markets annual reports Nos. 60, 61 and 68 for 1993, which are available in the Library of the House.

  Disused Mine Shafts
  Dr. Berry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the Coal Authority's records of disused mine shafts in the Kingwood-Bristol area. [27703]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: This is a matter for the Coal Authority.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what help the United Kingdom gives to developing countries in legal expertise in drawing up legal instruments for intellectual property rights. [26340]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Most of the assistance in drawing up intellectual property legislation given to developing countries is provided through the World Intellectual Property Organisation and the United Kingdom makes substantial contributions to the work of this organisation. Officials from developing countries responsible for the introduction of new legislation often make study visits to the UK Patent Office to discuss issues with my officials. My officials have also taken part in missions to developing countries and have frequently corresponded with their opposite numbers for the same purpose.

  Crown Post Offices
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Crown post offices there were in(a) Inverclyde, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland as a whole in 1992; and how many there are currently. [27312]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I understand from the Post Office that the information requested is as follows:

  Number of Crown post offices

  March 1992

  March 1995

  Inverclyde

  2

  2

  Strathclyde

  44

  32

  Scotland

  92

  60

  Consultation about the conversion of the two Crown post offices in Inverclyde to agency status is currently in progress. The number of post offices in Scotland offering the full range of services increased from 194 in March 1992 to 202 in March 1995.

  Executives' Pay
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on executive pay. [26470]

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to control the remuneration of senior executives. [26721]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Executive salary levels and remuneration packages are matters for individual companies and their shareholders. It is not for Government to determine salaries in the private sector or to limit companies' ability to pay competitive salaries. The Government look forward to seeing the recommendations of the Greenbury committee on best practice in determining and disclosing executive remuneration.

  Manufacturing Exports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom share of exports of manufactures by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in 1994; what was the corresponding percentage in 1979; and in which years since then the percentage has been lower than in 1994. [27432]

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the UK share of exports of manufactures by the OECD countries for 1994 is not yet available. In 1979, the UK share of exports of manufactures by the OECD countries was 8.9 per cent.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will give the United Kingdom percentage share of exports of manufactures by the main manufacturing countries in the latest year and latest quarter and in the third quarter of 1977. [27433]

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is published in table D1 of the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" and is available from the Central Statistical Office's central shared database, which can be accessed from the Library of the House.

  Overseas Commercial Posts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 644,concerning the effectiveness of commercial posts overseas in increasing exports,

  455
  from what date United Kingdom exports to India have increased by 50 per cent.; what were the equivalent increases or decreases in exports to India by Germany, Japan, the USA, France and Italy; and if he will publish the percentage change in Indian imports since that date from the six countries to the latest annual quarter, and the corresponding change in exports from the six to India. [27495]

  Mr. Needham
  The following table sets out figures for UK-India bilateral trade in the period 1992–94 and the comparable figures for our main competitors.

  G6 exports to India 1992, 1994 and percentage change

  1992 £ million

  1994 £ million

  Percentage change

  Germany

  1,034

  1,351

  30.6

  Japan

  847

  1,338

  57.8

  USA

  1.091

  1,500

  37.5

  France

  384

  533

  38.9

  Italy

  276

  462

  67.5

  UK

  944

  1,311

  38.9

  G6 imports from India 1992, 1994 and percentage change

  1992 £ million

  1994 £ million

  Percentage Change

  Germany

  982

  1,367

  39.3

  Japan

  1,161

  1,731

  49.0

  USA

  2,155

  3,462

  60.6

  France

  410

  586

  43.1

  Italy

  437

  659

  50.7

  UK

  860

  1,288

  49.7

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 24 May,Official Report, column 644, concerning the effectiveness of commercial posts overseas in increasing exports, if the increase in exports made possible by Action Japan or the Indo-British Partnership is likely to exceed (a) their foreign exchange cost, (b) the total cost to Government and (c) the benefit of a 1 per cent. fall in the real value of sterling relative to those of the United Kingdom's competitors in the relevant markets. [27504]

  Mr. Needham
  The information is not available.

  Manufacturing Trade
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the terms of trade for manufacturers in the three months to(a) February 1995, (b) February 1990 and (c) February 1976; and if he will include for each date the figure for (i) import penetration
  456
  and (ii) the UK share of exports of manufactures by the main manufacturing countries. [27496]

  Mr. Needham
  The terms of trade for manufactures in the periods requested were(a) 100.3, (b) 99.3 and (c) 85.5 compared with a value of 100 for the base year, 1990. The remaining information is not available for the months specified. However, information on the UK share of exports by the main manufacturing companies and, up to mid-1989, on import penetration for manufactures, is available on a quarterly basis: both series can be obtained from the central shared database, access to which is available in the Library of the House.

  World Trade Share
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the trend in volume terms of Britain's share of world trade over the last 30 years for(a) invisibles, (b) visibles and (c) invisibles and visibles combined. [27501]

  Mr. Needham
  The information requested is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. For information on value share, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 22 May 1995,Official Report, column 424.

  Franchised Post Office Outlets
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many supermarkets currently designated for closure by their owners contain franchised Post Office Counters outlets. [27259]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: The Post Office is not aware of any such cases.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those Post Office Counters outlets which have been relocated from Crown post offices to franchised outlets and which have subsequently been transferred to other premises, with a statement of the reason in each case. [27258]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: I understand from the Post Office that there have been two such cases involving franchised post offices in Sutton in Ashfield and in Cinderford. At Sutton in Ashfield, the host store closed down but, in accordance with the terms of the franchise contract with Post Office Counters Ltd., the post office remained open until a suitable alternative partner and site were found. At Cinderford, the original franchisee took on the outlet on the same site as the previous Crown office with a view to changing premises later. In the event, the franchisee was unable to do this and, after a brief period of being run by Post Office Counters staff, the office was franchised to another agent at a different site.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health Boards
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total cost, including staff time, incurred in carrying out the competitive tendering process for support services for each contract tendered by the four health boards since 1990. [25999]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested, as not all elements of the costs can be attributed to individual contracts. However, the total cost, including staff time dedicated to market testing, incurred in carrying out the process in the four health and social services board areas is as follows:

  Annual cost of carrying out the market testing process by board area

  Board area

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Northern

  9,720

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southern1

  31,085

  0

  450

  10,495

  60,577

  Eastern2

  407,158

  286,441

  96,169

  34,246

  40,432

  Western

  32,000

  17,000

  0

  0

  36,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the annual value of contracts let to private contractors for each support service by each health board since 1990. [26001]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is as follows:

  Annual value of contracts let to private contractors by service Domestic services:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  0

  781,711

  1,007,937

  0

  1991–92

  0

  1,797,822

  1,089,403

  596,000

  1992–93

  0

  1,941,071

  1,236,736

  943,000

  1993–94

  0

  1,969,762

  1,316,141

  974,000

  1994–95

  0

  1,974,404

  1,262,924

  807,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  Catering services:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  0

  370,267

  0

  3,136,000

  1991–92

  0

  1,252,818

  863,570

  3,230,000

  1992–93

  0

  1,449,072

  983,570

  3,327,000

  1993–94

  0

  1,528,169

  947,570

  3,427,000

  1994–95

  0

  1,415,045

  831,570

  2,788,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  458

  Annual value of contracts let to private contractors by service Laundry and Linen services:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  0

  0

  22,996

  0

  1994–95

  0

  0

  162,978

  0

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  Other support services:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  774,000

  469,000

  515,000

  482,000

  1993–94

  980,000

  469,000

  537,000

  482,000

  1994–95

  980,000

  469,000

  578,000

  482,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  n/a = This information was not collected before 1992–93.

  Annual value of contracts let to private contractors by service Multi-service contracts:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1994–95

  0

  0

  3414,000

  4637,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  3 This contract includes Domestic, Catering, Portering, Security and Telephonist Services.

  4 this contract includes Domestic and Catering Services.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the full costs of redundancy and early retirement payments related to the tendering process made for each support service contract by each health board in the period since 1990. [26005]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is given in the table and has been extracted from the tender evaluation reports on which the award of contracts was based.
  459

  Cost of redundancy and early retirement payments since 1990 related to market testing by service and health board area

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  Domestic

  0

  556,663

  269,293

  608,400

  Catering

  0

  133,000

  132,293

  0

  Laundry

  0

  0

  4,520

  0

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  Source:

  Tender evaluation reports on which the Award of Contracts were based.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the annual sum of net savings from competitive tendering contract awards of NHS support services for each year since 1990 for each of the four health and social services boards. [26009]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested, which is net of market-testing process costs, HPSS staff and consultants; monitoring and contract management costs; redundancy and early retirement costs; avoidable overhead costs; and national insurance costs, is given in the table. The information relates to all market-testing contract awards both in-house and commercial.

  Annual sum of net savings from market testing contract awards HPSS support services by board area and financial year

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  178,500

  642,529

  810,355

  993,000

  1991–92

  474,000

  1,414,839

  2,614,283

  1,681,000

  1992–93

  624,000

  1,307,736

  3,734,249

  2,085,000

  1993–94

  703,000

  1,459,265

  4,028,479

  2,135,000

  1994–95

  705,000

  1,743,771

  4,587,776

  2,412,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the client side costs, including monitoring of the contract and contract management costs for each support service contract awarded since 1990 for each health board.

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not available in the form requested as not all the elements of these costs can be allocated to individual contracts. However, the information in terms of the total costs of the monitoring and contract management of all contracts, both in-house and commercial, for the support services by board area and financial year is given in the following tables.
  460

  Annual cost of contract monitoring and management by service and board area Domestic services:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  16,000

  19,251

  70,460

  0

  1991–92

  29,250

  41,742

  156,280

  74,000

  1992–93

  60,300

  42,028

  192,551

  70,000

  1993–94

  63,000

  55,104

  186,998

  77,000

  1994–95

  66,600

  23,735

  185,389

  56,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  Catering services:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  16,000

  31,367

  37,540

  111,000

  1991–92

  29,000

  55,574

  105,566

  64,000

  1992–93

  60,300

  55,202

  172,717

  64,000

  1993–94

  63,000

  74,000

  199,309

  74,000

  1994–95

  66,600

  38,368

  203,684

  45,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  Annual cost of contract monitoring and management by service and board area Laundry and linen service

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  0

  5,542

  0

  17,000

  1991–92

  6,500

  10,698

  18,548

  14,000

  1992–93

  13,400

  11,198

  30,742

  15,000

  1993–94

  14,000

  16,000

  43,544

  16,000

  1994–95

  14,800

  6,041

  50,217

  16,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  Other support services

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1994–95

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  n/a = This information was not collected before 1992–93.
  461

  Annual value of contracts let to private contractors by service Multi-service contracts:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1993–94

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1994–95

  0

  0

  9.5103

  34.0004

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  3 This contract includes Domestic, Catering, Portering, Security and Telephonist Services.

  4 This contract includes Domestic and Catering Services.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total annual expenditure on management or technical consultants engaged in the competitive tendering process by each of the health boards for each year since 1990. [26008]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is as follows:

  Annual expenditure on management/technical consultants by board area

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  9,270

  0

  11,500

  0

  1991–92

  0

  0

  67,978

  0

  1992–93

  0

  17,987

  36,586

  0

  1993–94

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1994–95

  0

  14,100

  3,000

  0

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the net savings achieved for each support service put out to tender each year since 1990 for each health board. [26010]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is as follows:

  Annual net savings for HPSS market testing by service and board area Domestic services:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  3(2,000)

  193,160

  615,182

  —

  1991–92

  193,160

  764,153

  1,467,605

  525,000

  1992–93

  196,000

  724,894

  1,798,276

  846,000

  1993–94

  232,000

  803,751

  1,857,050

  863,000

  1994–95

  296,000

  865,692

  1,874,103

  910,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  3 The figures in brackets represent in-house costs in excess of the agreed contract costs.

  462

  Catering services:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  12,000

  429,859

  173,991

  955,000

  1991–92

  73,000

  632,240

  959,795

  1,097,000

  1992–93

  191,000

  553,681

  1,713,157

  1,179,000

  1993–94

  192,000

  569,700

  1,893,564

  1,210,000

  1994–95

  124,000

  805,980

  1,869,396

  1,368,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  Annual net savings for HPSS market testing by service and board area Domestic services:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  168,500

  19,510

  20,882

  38,000

  1991–92

  208,000

  18,446

  186,583

  59,000

  1992–93

  211,000

  3(31,839)

  197,516

  60,000

  1993–94

  253,000

  85,819

  252,565

  62,000

  1994–95

  259,000

  72,162

  557,977

  64,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  3 The figures in brackets represent in-house costs in excess of the agreed contract costs.

  Other support services:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  26,000

  61,000

  25,300

  —

  1993–94

  26,000

  61,000

  25,300

  —

  1994–95

  26,000

  61,000

  25,300

  —

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  n/a = This information was not collected before 1992–93.

  Annual net savings for HPSS market testing by service and board area Multi-service contracts:

  Board area

  Northern £

  Southern1£

  Eastern2£

  Western £

  1990–91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991–92

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  —

  —

  3261,000

  470,000

  1 The figures for the Southern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area.

  2 The figures for the Eastern Board area include those for the HSS Trusts which are based within the area and the Central Services Agency.

  3 This contract includes Domestic, Catering, Portering, Security and Telephonist Services.

  4 This contract includes Domestic and Catering Services.

  Farm Improvement Grants
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when applications in respect of SPARD—farm improvement grants—will be approved and payments issued to farmers. [25940]

  Mr. Ancram
  Applications received up to and including 22 March 1995 will be processed and related claims paid according to the targets in "Our Service Standards". Applications received after 22 March 1995 will be acknowledged as soon as practicable, but related claims will be paid only according to the financial resources available and after the Department has discharged its obligations to those who submitted their applications up to that date.

  Rural Cottage Holidays Ltd.
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the directors of Rural Cottage Holidays Ltd.; how much grant has been made available to this organisation from the Government or European Union sources over the past two years; how many developments have been assisted by Rural Cottage Holidays Ltd.; what measures have been undertaken by the Northern Ireland tourist board to market or promote directly or indirectly the activities of Rural Cottage Holidays Ltd.; who are the owners of the establishments leased to Rural Cottage Holidays Ltd.; and what monitoring he has undertaken to ensure that this body, and those establishments supported by it, have not received any more preferential support in the marketing and promotion of their activities than is given to other self-catering developments in Northern Ireland. [26630]

  Mr. Ancram
  The names of the directors of Rural Cottage Holidays Ltd. are:

  Mr. J. Armstrong

  Mr. I. Henderson

  Dr. D. MacNeice

  Mr. G. McWhinney

  Mr. D. Myles

  Lord Rathcavan

  Ms M. Ritchie

  Mr. T. Sturgess

  Over the past two years, £375,000 has been made available to the organisation from Government and European Union sources.

  To date, four cottages have received assistance.

  Rural Cottage Holidays Ltd. undertakes its own marketing. NITB will offer advice and support to the company on its marketing and promotional activities as it does with any tourism organisation or individual accommodation provider.

  Leases have been signed with the following:

  Mr. M. Jameson: Ballycastle

  Mr. H. McDonnell: Glenarm

  Mr. G. McKeown: Broughshane (2 cottages)

  The activities of Rural Cottage Holidays Ltd. will be monitored by the Northern Ireland tourist board. The tourist board is represented on the board of the company and will ensure that the company and its properties do not receive preferential support towards marketing and promotion activities.

  Grafton Recruitment
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he became aware that the chief executive of a health and social services board was the majority shareholder in a nursing recruitment agency; and what inquiries he has made into health service contracts placed with that recruitment agency. [26967]

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 9 June,Official Report, column 346.

  Northern Ireland Electricity
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the 16th report of the Committee of Public Accounts on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity HC24 of Session 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [27135]

  Mr. Ancram
  A response will be represented to Parliament in due course in the Department of Finance and Personnel memorandum of reply to the Public Accounts Committee report.

  Early Years Services
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he will adopt to increase the level of grant aid to the four health and social services boards in respect of early years services. [27140]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department of Health and Social Services allocates resources to the health and social services boards on a capitation basis. It is for the boards to determine priorities for the use of these resources within broad guidelines laid down by the Department. They do not receive grant aid, and funds are not earmarked for particular services.

  In September 1994, the Government published a policy statement for the development of day care nursery education for young children in Northern Ireland. The statement announced the creation of an early years development fund, which will channel over £1 million extra over the three years ended April 1997 to early years projects in the voluntary and community sector.

  This is in addition to the board's regular spending on early years services, and to recurrent grant aid of over £279,000 annually from the Department towards the regional activities of voluntary organisations in this field.

  Tooth Decay
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the percentage of people aged five to 18 years with permanent teeth which are actively decayed, filled or missing due to decay. [27202]

  Mr. Moss
  The information for people aged five to 15 years is given in the table. Figures for ages 16, 17 and 18 are not available.

  Percentage of Northern Ireland children with tooth decay

  Age

  Tooth condition

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Actively decayed

  1

  6

  16

  19

  23

  29

  36

  40

  37

  38

  44

  Filled (otherwise sound)

  1—

  1

  10

  13

  23

  36

  53

  60

  68

  78

  73

  Missing due to decay

  1—

  1

  1

  2—

  5

  7

  11

  14

  11

  29

  21

  465

  Percentage of Northern Ireland children with tooth decay

  Age

  Tooth condition

  5

  6

  7

  8

  9

  10

  11

  12

  13

  14

  15

  Any decay experience

  1

  7

  24

  27

  40

  53

  69

  76

  75

  87

  85

  1 Nil count.

  2 Less than 1 per cent.

  Environmental Protection Agency
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the establishment of an environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland. [27169]

  Mr. Moss
  A prior options study completed earlier this year concluded that a next steps agency should be set up, within the Department, from 1 April 1996, responsible for the implementation of environmental policies in Northern Ireland. It rejected the concept of an independent environmental protection agency. Work is now on schedule to set up the new agency.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) cases of heart disease and (b) deaths due to heart disease were recorded for each year since 1990. [27211]

  Mr. Moss
  Information on the number of cases of heart disease in Northern Ireland is not collected centrally. The number of finished consultant episodes for hospital inpatients suffering from heart disease is as follows:

  Number

  1990–91

  17,584

  1991–92

  18,398

  1992–93

  n/a

  1993–94

  22,422

  n/a - Not available.

  The number of deaths due to heart disease is as follows:

  Number

  1990

  5,047

  1991

  4,924

  1992

  5,039

  1993

  4,997

  1994

  14,853

  1 Provisional.

  Further Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what has been the capital expenditure on further education in Northern Ireland in each of the past 10 years in real and constant price terms; [27424]

  (2) what has been the capital expenditure on the buildings of the Belfast Institute of Further Education in each of the past 10 years in real and constant price terms. [27425]

  Mr. Ancram
  Capital expenditure on further education in Norther Ireland and on the further education colleges in the Belfast education and library board area for each financial year from 1984–85 to 1992–93 is in the statements and summary of the education and library boards' accounts—Cmnds 9820, 255, 388, 690, 1105,466
  1531, 1977, 2249 and 2603—copies of which are available in the Library. The figures for 1993–94 will be published in July 1995. Accounts for 1994–95 have not yet been finalised by the boards.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the planned capital building programme for the further education sector for the next five years. [27427]

  Mr. Ancram
  There is no specific allocation of resources to a capital building programme for the further education sector for the next five years. Further education projects compete annually for allocations from the capital new starts programme.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports he has received from inspectors of education about physical conditions in Northern Ireland's institute of further and higher education; and if he will make those reports available. [27428]

  Mr. Ancram
  Since January 1989, there have been 17 published inspection reports within the further education sector in Northern Ireland. Each of these reports includes comments on the physical conditions of the institution(s) concerned and copies may be obtained from inspectorate support branch, Department of Education (NI), Rathgael house, Balloo road, Bangor, BT19 7RP.

  Ormeau Buildings
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the official assessment of the conditions of the Ormeau buildings of the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education; if they meet basic health and safety requirements; and what he proposes to do about them. [27426]

  Mr. Ancram
  The general fabric and structure of the original building at Ormeau has deteriorated extensively and part of it has been closed for reasons of safety; the general fabric and construction of the Orlit building and the later extension is in reasonable condition, with the exception of the flat roofing. Measures have been taken by the Belfast education and library board to address the essential health and safety problems.

  An economic appraisal to examine the institute's most pressing accommodation needs will be commenced shortly by the board. The target date for the completion of the appraisal is October 1995.

  Police (Body Armour)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 25 May,Official Report, column 756, if the body armour provided by the RUC is (a) bullet-proof and (b) knife-proof. [27826]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The body armour provided is classified as bullet-proof, but, although providing some protection, is not classified as knife-proof.

  Education Administration
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what action he proposes to take to ensure that incorporated colleges and schools act co-operatively to provide an integrated service for their communities; [28470]

  (2) what plans he has for a Northern Ireland further education funding council or similar body when colleges are incorporated; [28474]
  467
  (3) what action he will take to ensure that incorporated colleges make sufficient provision for those with problems of literacy and numeracy; [28469]

  (4) what proposals he has for students to be on the managing bodies of incorporated colleges; [28473]

  (5) what proposals he has for non-industrialists from the community to be on the managing bodies of incorporated colleges; [28471]

  (6) if he will require incorporated colleges to reach set standards in provision for those with special needs; [28468]

  (7) what proposals he has for college staff to be on the managing bodies of incorporated bodies. [28472]

  Mr. Ancram
  The consultation period on the Government's proposals for the restructuring of educational administration in Northern Ireland ended on 9 June. Before making any final decision, I will consider very carefully all the responses which we have received.

  Belfast City Council
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the public service offices other than local government offices and the number of persons employed in such offices in Belfast city council in(a) January 1992, (b) January 1993, (c) January 1994 and (d) January 1995. [26966]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

  Hunting
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether all hunts which hunt on Forestry Commission land are required to hold a licence to do so; what monitoring procedures are in place to ensure that the terms and conditions of a licence are adhered to; and for what reasons licences are issued to hunts to hunt on Forestry Commission land. [27124]

  Sir Hector Monro
  All hunts require permission to enter Forestry Commission land. This permission may be in the form of a licence, or there may be a general permission where there is a long and established tradition of hunting over the land. Forestry Commission staff carry out random checks on hunt days to ensure that licence conditions are being observed. The commission allows hunting over land where it has traditionally been practised or where the right to hunt has been reserved in the commission's title.

  Theatres (Funding)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the theatres in Scotland which receive public funding, showing the amount of revenue funding provided by(a) the Scottish Arts Council and (b) local authorities to each theatre in each of the last five years. [27316]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The theatres in Scotland which have received public funding from both the Scottish 468
  Arts Council and local authorities between 1989 and 1994 are shown in the table. Final figures for 1994–95 are not yet available. Information on theatres supported by local authorities but not by SAC is not held centrally.

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  Borderline theatre

  SAC

  126,500

  139,276

  149,025

  156,476

  156,500

  Local authority

  35,580

  54,799

  36,840

  68,647

  48,050

  Brunton theatre

  SAC

  35,200

  38,755

  41,468

  53,541

  53,541

  Local authority

  86,580

  101,520

  117,270

  119,440

  119,210

  Byre theatre

  SAC

  71,400

  78,611

  84,114

  103,320

  115,430

  Local authority

  37,950

  42,000

  46,120

  64,574

  63,000

  Citizens' theatre

  SAC

  398,000

  438,198

  490,272

  514,786

  535,377

  Local authority

  457,310

  486,365

  508,666

  550,730

  564,575

  Communicado theater

  SAC

  —

  118,000

  126,260

  152,573

  155,624

  Local authority

  —

  22,500

  59,700

  27,560

  28,111

  Dundee Repertory theatre

  SAC

  174,000

  191,574

  215,684

  236,486

  277,216

  Local Authority

  178,870

  185,000

  215,662

  274,313

  300,348

  Perth theatre

  SAC

  182,500

  200,933

  214,988

  255,737

  260,852

  Local authority

  222,762

  221,500

  251,000

  246,300

  299,771

  Pitlochry festival theatre

  SAC

  167,500

  184,418

  197,327

  227,193

  231,737

  Local authority

  59,175

  63,909

  70,300

  205,800

  76,768

  Royal lyceum

  SAC

  399,850

  440,235

  471,051

  509,604

  534,296

  Local authority

  328,732

  359,000

  467,000

  456,480

  461,509

  TAG theatre

  SAC

  76,500

  84,226

  97,778

  132,667

  136,647

  Local authority

  201,530

  93,467

  82,940

  97,408

  73,700

  Traverse theatre

  SAC

  227,000

  249,927

  267,422

  280,793

  292,024

  Local authority

  43,000

  46,500

  55,500

  65,374

  51,979

  Tron theatre

  SAC

  125,500

  138,175

  147,847

  190,239

  201,653

  Local authority

  104,000

  250,425

  123,570

  177,325

  143,256

  Wildcat stage productions

  SAC

  142,300

  156,672

  167,639

  184,021

  193,222

  Local authority

  40,000

  105,000

  44,000

  46,000

  48,500

  469

  1989–90 £

  1990–91 £

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  7:84 Theatre Company

  SAC

  138,000

  151,938

  162,573

  170,702

  174,116

  Local authority

  30,400

  28,000

  41,400

  29,450

  38,670

  The Scottish Arts Council funding figures relate only to revenue but local authority figures relate both to revenue and project funding as a breakdown is not available.

  Community Hospital, Ayrshire
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision he has made in his NHS capital programme for the community hospital in south-east Ayrshire. [27381]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A provisional sum of £4.0 million has been identified within the overall capital programme for Scotland in 1995–96 for the south-east Ayrshire community hospital, with a further £9 million provision in subsequent years. The availability of these monies is dependent on the outcome of Ayrshire and Arran health board's consultation on the siting of the service, submission and approval of a business case for the scheme and full exploration of private finance, which, if successful, will release identified public funds for other uses.

  Qualified nurses1 directly employed by the NHS in Scotland; hospital and community; by type of contract; at 30 September

  Whole-time

  Part-time

  Total numbers

  Whole-time equivalent

  1993

  1994

  1993

  1994

  1993

  1994

  1993

  1994

  Total2 3 4

  25,075

  24,849

  16,048

  16,358

  41,123

  41,207

  34,853.9

  34,949.3

  Trusts5

  8,729

  21,935

  5,622

  14,098

  14,351

  36,033

  12,051.1

  30,639.8

  1 Comprises senior nurse managers and qualified nurses working in hospital and community. Some senior nurse managers have been transferred on to new A and C senior manager scales and are not included in these figures.

  2 Excludes the following groups of nurses; working for the state hospital, Carstairs, the Common Services Agency or health boards; nurses in training, nurse teachers, agency and bank nurses.

  3 Includes DMUs.

  4 Health boards may purchase health care from the private sector. Nurses employed in the private sector to fulfil such contracts are not included in the data.

  5 There were 17 NHS trusts at 30 September 1993 and 39 at 30 September 1994.

  Police Complaints Procedure
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of officially investigated complaints against the police in each Scottish region for each of the last five years; what percentage were found to be justified in each case; and how many resulted in(a) disciplinary action and (b) dismissal in each case. [27378]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The information requested is published at table 10 of each annual report by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. The relevant reports—Cm 1993, Cm 2198, Cm 2587 and Cm 2856—are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received over the past year regarding the need for an independent police complaints procedure in Scotland; what consideration he has given to the introduction of such procedure; and if he will make a statement. [27379]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following a review of the existing complaints procedures by Her Majesty's
  470
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has approved the decision by Ayrshire and Arran health board in respect of which bodies will be allowed to put forward tenders, bids or offers to operate the community hospital in south-east Ayrshire. [27382]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The decision to restrict tenders to operate the new community hospital to NHS providers is entirely a matter for Ayrshire and Arran health board.

  Nurses
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total full-time equivalent number of nurses in Scottish hospitals or community posts at the most recent date of which information is available; how many of these are(a) employed full time on permanent contracts by NHS trusts, (b) employed part time on permanent contracts by NHS trusts, (c) employed on short-term contracts by NHS trusts and (d) provided to trusts through contracts with private or other non-NHS employers; and what were all these figures one year previously. [27380]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information available centrally is shown in the following table. Permanent and short-term contracts cannot be distinguished. Information is not collected about nurses who may be employed through contracts between trusts and private or other non-NHS employers.

  inspectorate of constabulary, published on 11 February 1993, my right hon. Friend concluded that a police complaints authority should not be established in Scotland. He has decided, however, that Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary should make a greater input to the complaints procedure. New arrangements to this end will be introduced as soon as possible under the provisions of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.

  Very few representations on this matter have been received following the publication of the report of the review.

  New Farmers
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make provision for compensation to newly established farmers in respect of interest incurred on bank loans as a result of delays in allocating and payment sheep annual premium and suckler cow premium quotas to newly established farmers. [27780]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: There is no provision in the EC legislation governing the respective

  471
  schemes which would allow compensation to be paid in such cases.

  Accidents at Work
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fatal accident inquiries have been held into fatalities in the workplace in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [27310]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Crown Office does not hold records centrally of the number of fatalities in the workplace which were subsequently the subject of a fatal accident inquiry. An inquiry must be held in the case of a death which appears to have resulted from an accident while the person who has died, being an employee, was in the course of his employment or, being an employer or self-employed person, was engaged in his occupation as such, unless criminal proceedings have been concluded against any person in respect of the death or any accident from which the death resulted and the Lord Advocate is satisfied that the circumstances of the death have been sufficiently established in the course of such proceedings. In the past 10 years the Health and Safety Executive has received notification of 298 deaths in the workplace in Scotland.

  Prison Accommodation
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) male prisoners and (b) female prisoners are currently held (i) three to a one-person cell and (ii) two to a one-person cell; and what the figures were for each of the past seven years. [27309]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman Godman, dated 13 June 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question about the extent of double and triple occupancy of cells designed for one person.
  Occupancy of single cells by more than one prisoner can arise due to factors other than high prisoner numbers, for example to allow refurbishment to improve prisoner accommodation (including the installation of in-cell toilets and electrical power). In some cases single cells are in double occupancy at the request of prisoners themselves, who for their own reasons prefer to share.
  Historical records of instances of double or triple occupancy are not maintained, but the current position - as at lock-up on the night of Wednesday 7 June - is set out in the attached table.

  Establishment

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Aberdeen

  56

  0

  0

  0

  Barlinnie

  806

  0

  0

  0

  Castle Huntly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Cornton Vale

  0

  18

  0

  6

  Dumfries

  12

  0

  0

  0

  Dungavel

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Edinburgh

  260

  0

  87

  0

  Friarton

  50

  0

  0

  0

  Glenochil

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Greenock

  176

  0

  9

  0

  Inverness

  66

  0

  0

  0

  Longriggend

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Low Moss

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Noranside

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Penninghame

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Perth

  118

  0

  0

  0

  Peterhead

  0

  0

  0

  0

  472

  Establishment

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Peterhead Unit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Polmont

  96

  0

  0

  0

  Shotts

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shotts Special Unit

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Shotts National Induction Centre

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Totals

  1,640

  18

  96

  6

  Police Protective Clothing
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to make funds available to chief constables to ensure that all police officers have ready access to bullet-proof vests and/or knife-proof vests; and if he will make a statement. [27308]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is for police authorities to fund provision of equipment for their forces. The Scottish Office would pay police grant in the usual way at 51 per cent. of expenditure on such provision.

  Woodlands
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by(a) parliamentary constituency and (b) county or Scottish region all woodlands currently owned by the Forestry Commission, giving their name, location, hectarage and indicating whether they are leasehold or freehold and their market value. [27332]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Lists of all Forestry Commission woodlands, both by parliamentary constituency and by county or Scottish region, were placed in the Library of the House in 1994. A list of woodlands sold by the commission in 1994 is also held in the Library. These lists give the name, location and size of each woodland.

  It is not possible to include the legal status of individual woodlands on the lists because the woodlands often consist of land acquired under several titles, which may be both freehold and leasehold. The commission does not estimate market values for individual woodlands unless they are to be sold.

  Radioactivity, Dounreay
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee about radioactive particles on the beaches near Dounreay nuclear establishment. [26782]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A joint statement by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, "Potential Health Effects and Possible Sources of Radioactive Particles Found in the Vicinity of Dounreay Nuclear Establishment", has been published today. A copy of that statement, which is published by HMSO, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Government are grateful to both committees for their work and look to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to respond positively to the recommendations made in the statement.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Styling Bars
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the benefits in terms of the reduction of serious injuries of polyurethane deformable front styling bars for cars; and if he will make a statement. [26580]

  Mr. Norris
  The digest of the Transport Research Laboratory project report 19 of 1993 indicates that approximately 60 per cent. of pedestrian casualties are struck by the fronts of cars. Softer car fronts could lead to a 7 per cent. reduction in the number of fatally injured pedestrians and could reduce injury severity for 21 per cent. of the seriously injured pedestrians.

  Polyurethane deformable bumpers were found to be one method of achieving savings. The Department has not carried out any tests on polyurethane styling bars.

  Forth Rail Bridge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking on the latest reports to him from the Health and Safety Commission on the state of the Forth rail bridge. [26618]

  Mr. Watts
  The Health and Safety Executive has made no reports recently on the condition of the Forth rail bridge. However, the Health and Safety Executive is currently undertaking an assessment of the structural condition of the bridge and hopes to publish its findings later this year.

  Taxis
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation he has held with police authority representatives over plans to change the nature of number plates exhibited by taxis and private hire car vehicles. [27952]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he will ensure that radio circuit operators monitor insurance records for taxis and private hire vehicles. [27953]

  Mr. Norris
  This is one of the matters that will be considered before legislation is introduced in Parliament.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will promote a system of regular driver assessment for taxis and private hire vehicles. [27955]

  Mr. Norris
  No.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if licensing authorities will have access to all relevant documentation required for the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles. [27956]

  Mr. Norris
  Yes, if it can be legally shown to them.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to publish the operation by local authorities of a licensing life scheme, requiring the replacement of taxis after a specified number of years, following his response to the Transport Select Committee's recommendations on taxis and private hire vehicles in the fourth report of Session 1993–94. [27957]

  Mr. Norris
  None. The criterion should not be the age of the vehicle, but whether it is fit for its intended use.

  Rail Fare Reductions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the annual revenue loss which would result from a 1 per cent. general reduction in United Kingdom rail fares assuming constant ticket demand; and what estimate he has made of the price elasticity of demand for United Kingdom rail travel. [28315]

  Mr. Watts
  In 1993–94, passenger receipts were £2,165.8 million. In that year, a 1 per cent. reduction in rail fares at a constant level of demand would therefore cost £21.7 million. The Department does not prepare estimates of price elasticity of demand for rail travel.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the final report on the A34 Newbury bypass from the Highways Agency. [28459]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency has been asked to report to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.

  Cycle Helmets
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to introduce legislation to make the wearing of helmets compulsory for pedal cyclists. [28242]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government actively promote the benefits of cycle helmet wearing, but we have no plans to make them compulsory.

  Road Rage
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State if he will initiate a study into the condition known as road rage. [28337]

  Mr. Norris
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  A14
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will examine the dangers of the A14, formerly the A604, road in Cambridgeshire and make plans to improve its safety; and if he will make a statement. [28294]

  Mr. Watts
  In response to local concerns about the A14 the Highways Agency is appointing consultants to recommend appropriate interim remedial measures that will improve safety until the completion of the major scheme on the A14 between the M11 and the A1.

  Drivers' Hours
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to extend powers to the Vehicle Inspectorate and the police to prohibit domestic registered vehicles from proceeding where it is clear that excess hours are found; and if he will make a statement. [27668]

  Mr. Norris
  None. The driver of a domestic registered vehicle who is found to have driven excess hours, or taken inadequate rest, is liable to prosecution. In such circumstances, the driver would be advised to take the required rest or face the prospect that refusal to do so would be reported to the court in any subsequent prosecution and further charges might be brought. There is no evidence to suggest that this procedure is an
  475
  inadequate means for preventing drivers from continuing their journey.

  Helicopter Sites, Central London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what study he has commissioned or supported concerning the location of additional helicopter sites to serve central London; what conclusions it has reached; and what consultations relating to them he has initiated with the relevant local authorities. [27875]

  Mr. Norris
  The London heliport study working group was set up in February 1992. Its report was published on 21 March 1995 and copies were placed in the Library of the House.

  Any firm planning application for a new heliport, whether in respect of one of the study sites or elsewhere, would first have to be submitted to the appropriate local authority in accordance with the statutory planning procedures.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the consultations he has held with industry on the changes in vehicle excise duty. [26496]

  Mr. Norris
  Vehicle excise duty is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not normal practice to consult on taxation rates.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Labour Organisation
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries have withdrawn from the International Labour Organisation in the last 30 years; and when. [27809]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the last 30 years the following countries have withdrawn from the International Labour Organisation:

  South Africa (1966): rejoined 1994

  Lesotho (1971): rejoined 1980

  Vietnam (1976 and again in 1985): rejoined 1980 and 1992

  United States of America (1977): rejoined 1980

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what notice is necessary before a country withdraws from the International Labour Organisation. [27808]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the terms of the constitution of the International Labour Organisation, two years' notice is necessary before a country can formally withdraw from the International Labour Organisation.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the International Labour Organisation programme to eradicate child labour. [27806]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We support the ILO's international programme on the elimination of child labour. The programme helps countries assess and tackle the practical problems they face through advice and direct technical assistance.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth affairs what is his assessment of the work of the International Labour Organisation together with the International Maritime Organisation and 476
  the United Kingdom Government in the prevention of maritime accidents leading to loss of life and environmental pollution. [27814]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Maritime safety is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Although the International Maritime Organisation is the United Nations agency in the lead on maritime safety matters, the International Labour Organisation has developed a substantial body of conventions and resolutions addressing various aspects of the employment of seafarers. It has encouraged the international adoption of standards relating, for example, to the accommodation, fitness, catering and other health and safety aspects of working at sea.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he or his colleagues have held with Senator Jesse Helms, chair of the United States Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, about membership of the International Labour Organisation or the other United Nations agencies. [27804]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about United Kingdom participation in the International Labour Organisation. [27812]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  None.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the International Labour Organisation's work in building social safety nets in eastern Europe since 1989. [27807]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The International Labour Organisation is one of a number of multilateral and bilateral donors which have been operating in central and eastern Europe since 1989 to help support the transition to democracy and a market economy. It has helped member states to develop new labour market institutions such as employment and training services; to revise and modernise their labour legislation and social security systems and to help the development of independent employers' organisations and trade unions.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the annual costs of sending employer representatives to participate in International Labour Organisation meetings. [27811]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The cost is estimated to be about £18,000.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what follow-up there has been to the paragraphs in the declaration signed by Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations world summit for social development urging ratification and implementation of International Labour Organisation conventions relating to employment rights of minors, women, youth, the disabled and indigenous persons. [27813]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The declaration is a political statement and not a set of minimum standards to be applied universally.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has
  477
  made as to how many United Kingdom nationals would lose their jobs as a result of Britain withdrawing from the International Labour Organisation. [27817]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have made no such estimate.

  Bosnia-Herzegovina
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the recognition of the Yugoslav province of Bosnia-Herzegovina as a national state by Her Majesty's Government followed in all respects international law and custom; on whose initiative it was so recognised; what was the date of recognition by each of the principle powers; and what regard was had to the views of its religious and racial minorities. [27434]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We and our EC partners recognised Bosnia-Herzegovina on 7 April 1992 following acceptance of the report of the arbitration commission attached to the EC conference on former Yugoslavia. The US Government recognised Bosnia-Herzegovina on the same day and the Russian Government did the same on 28 April 1992. A key factor in the EC's decision was the Bosnian Government's guarantee to respect the rights of minorities.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the population of Sarajevo was Serb before Bosnia-Herzegoina was recognised as a separate state; and how many of them still remain there. [27497]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  According to an official census conducted in April 1991, 27.8 per cent. of the population of Sarajevo was Serb. There are no reliable figures for the current Serb population.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the proportion of humanitarian supplies to Bosnia-Herzegovina which have(a) been stolen by the Bosnian Muslim Government to supply its forces and (b) reached criminals operating in the black market. [27578]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  There are no reliable figures relating to this issue. We condemn all such acts perpetrated by any side against the UN and other humanitarian relief agencies operating in Bosnia.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the population of the former Yugoslav province of Bosnia-Herzegovina is effectively represented by the Foreign Minister appointed by the Bosnian Muslim Government. [27498]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We consider Mr. Sacirbey, the new Bosnian Foreign Minister, to represent the legitimate and internationally recognised Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

  Western Slavonia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when western Slavonia was detached from the rest of Slavonia; and for what reasons it was recognised as part of Croatia. [27579]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The term "Western Slavonia" was given to that part of the region of Slavonia situated within the internationally recognised borders of Croatia which 478
  remained in Serb hands at the time of the creation of the United Nations protected areas in November 1991.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mandate the European Union and NATO have to intervene in the military situation in the former Yugoslavia except in so far as they are requested to do so by the United Nations. [27575]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  NATO's mandate is to act in support of the UN in former Yugoslavia. The EU has no military role in the conflict in former Yugoslavia.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the United Kingdom's contribution to(a) the tribunal and (b) the office of special prosecutor established by the United Nations in relation to war crimes, etcetera in the former Yugoslavia with particular reference to (i) finance, including voluntary funds, (ii) staff, including secondments from the United Kingdom, (iii) equipment, (iv) forensic assistance, and (v) witness protection. [26919]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In 1994 we contributed £20,000 worth of computer and camera equipment and seconded a military lawyer to the prosecutor's office. In May 1995, we seconded four police officers to work for the prosecutor's office as investigators and analysts and will be contributing £200,000 toward these costs. In addition, we have helped the tribunal identify other British citizens to work for the prosecutor's office.

  We are currently discussing the question of witness protection with the tribunal.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to assist the tribunal established by the United Nations in relation to the former Yugoslavia in the event that prison sentences are passed by the tribunal. [27921]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are currently considering the tribunal's request to offer prison space to those convicted by the tribunal.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes in United Kingdom law he expects as a consequence of the establishment of the United Nations special tribunal in relation to the former Yugoslavia; and when he expects such changes to be made. [27920]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Provision is needed to enable the UK to give effect to orders of the tribunal for the transfer of persons and other assistance. The necessary provisions are being drafted and it is hoped that they will be ready in the near future. In the meantime, we are co-operating informally with the prosecutor's office.

  Croatia
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) legal and (b) other grounds on which Her Majesty's Government recognises a territory as a national state; and to what extent these criteria had been met when Her Majesty's Government recognised Croatia as a national state. [27503]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In recognising a national state, we take into account that a country should have a clearly defined territory with a population, a Government with a
  479
  prospect of retaining control and independence in its foreign relations. These criteria are always subject to interpretation in the light of circumstances on the ground. In January 1992 we and our EC partners recognised Croatia on the basis of advice from the arbitration commission that Croatia largely fulfilled the guidelines on recognition adopted in December 1991. These were that the state to be recognised should respect the United Nations charter, guarantee the rights of minorities, respect the inviolability of frontiers except by peaceful agreement, accept commitments on disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, security and regional stability and promise to settle by agreement questions of state succession and regional disputes.

  Overseas Domestic Workers
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of applications made by foreign visitors to bring their overseas domestic workers with them on visits to the United Kingdom since 9 December 1994 have been turned down at British consulates abroad on the ground that they fail to comply with the new arrangements for the admission of overseas domestic workers announced on that date. [28019]

  Mr. Baldry
  Comprehensive figures for the number of overseas domestic workers granted entry clearance are not kept. Such figures as are kept cover six-month periods. I will let the hon. Member have the figures for the period 1 January to 30 June 1995 as soon as these are available.

  Japan (Former Prisoners of War)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have recently been made, formally or informally, to the Government of Japan on compensation payments for British ex-prisoners of war; what representations he expects to make in the foreseeable future; and if he will make a statement. [28076]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We are precluded on legal grounds from raising the question of compensation formally with the Japanese Government, but Ministers have drawn their attention to the strong feelings which the situation of the former prisoners arouses in the UK. Most recently, I discussed the matter with the Japanese Government during my visit to Japan from 26 to 29 May. We intend to continue these discussions.

  Protection of Minorities
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) of 25 May,Official Report, columns 667–68, if he will detail the technical points that are holding up ratification by the United Kingdom of the Council of Europe's framework convention for the protection of national minorities. [28363]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The timing of the ratification of an international legal instrument is a matter of political judgment. The framework convention was opened for signature very recently, on 1 February 1995. So far, the convention has been signed by 27 member states of the Council of Europe and ratified by one.

  The technical points to which I referred in my answer of 25 May remain under consideration.

  Ukrainian Prisoners, Bosnia
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ukrainian soldiers serving with UNPROFOR in Gorazde were taken captive by Bosnian Government forces on 28 May; and what action her Majesty's Government and their North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies are taking to secure their release. [28371]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) on 12 June 1995,Official Report, columns 372–73.

  Tibet
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his current policy towards Tibet. [28312]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We regard Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there. We are deeply concerned about abuses of human rights and the threat to the cultural and ethnic identity of the Tibetans. We regularly raise these matters with the Chinese authorities.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  First Offenders
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted offenders in west Yorkshire were sent to prison for a first offence in each year since 1985. [27707]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not held centrally.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many juveniles aged 10 to 16 years were cautioned on more than one occasion during each year since 1985; [27708]

  (2) how many juveniles aged 10 to 16 years were (a) convicted and (b) cautioned in west Yorkshire for each year since 1985. [27709]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected routinely. The table shows results from special studies of those cautioned for indictable offences in one week in each of the years 1985, 1988, 1991 and 1994 in England and Wales.

  Juveniles aged 10–16 cautioned in study week, 1985, 1988, 1991, and 1994

  England and Wales

  Percentages

  Number of previous cautions1

  1985

  1988

  1991

  1994

  None

  85

  81

  70

  83

  One

  12

  14

  18

  12

  Two or more

  3

  5

  12

  5

  1 Not necessarily in the study year.

  "Tomorrow's Job"
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 136, if he will place a copy of the publication "Tomorrow's Job" in the Library. [27905]
  481
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: I understand that the Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether distribution of this publication may constitute an offence under section 19 of the Public Order Act 1986. I am not prepared at this stage to increase its general circulation by placing a copy in the Library.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to implement the proposed Fire Precautions (Places of Work) Regulations 1994, in order to comply with the requirements of EC directives 89/391 and 89/654. [27958]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on 25 May,Official Report, column 707.

  Private Security Industry
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to take urgent steps to introduce a statutory scheme of regulation for the private security industry. [27945]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: I am currently looking again at the policies in this area. The Home Affairs Select Committee report on the industry is a timely contribution to the debate on regulation and has some very helpful recommendations. We will respond as soon as possible.

  DNA Testing
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the DNA analysis undertaken by the Forensic Science Service of tissue samples allegedly taken from a patient who died in Manchester allegedly of AIDS in 1959 indicates that all sets of tissues come from more than one patient; [27818]

  (2) what were the results of the DNA analysis undertaken by the Forensic Science Service of tissue samples allegedly taken from a patient who died in Manchester allegedly of AIDS in 1959, which were provided to it by Central Manchester Healthcare NHS trust and Professor David Ho of New York. [27815]

  Mr. Maclean
  Responsibility for these matters have been delegated to the Director General of the Forensic Science Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dr. Janet Thompson to Mr. Denis MacShane, dated 13 June 1995:
  You recently tabled two Parliamentary Questions about a commission by the Central Manchester Healthcare Trust to conduct DNA tests on tissue samples. As you know, the arrangement now is that the Chief Executive of an Executive Agency, with the agreement of the Minister, replies to Members of Parliament on operational matters. I am therefore replying on behalf of the Forensic Science Service.
  I can confirm that the FSS has been commissioned by the Central Manchester Healthcare Trust to undertake DNA tests on tissue samples allegedly taken from a patient who died in Manchester allegedly of AIDS in 1959. This is however a private commission and I am unable therefore to provide any information about the results. You may wish to contact Central Manchester Healthcare Trust direct about this matter.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what schemes are available for local authorities to apply for funds to contribute to the establishment of closed circuit television for a town or city centre. [27848]

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

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which towns and cities have received grants for the establishment of closed circuit television systems in town or city centres in the last five years; and what was the total amount given for each year and to each project. [27847]

  Mr. Maclean
  The only direct grants made by this department for this purpose were the recent awards to the winners of the CCTV challenge competition, which included many town and city centre schemes. The results of the competition were announced on 27 March. I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) on 31 March,Official Report, columns 854–56. Other funding has been made available for such schemes in the past via safer cities projects, through the single regeneration budget, or by police forces or local authorities. Information on the funding of CCTV schemes from these sources is not collected centrally.

  Video Shop Retailers (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been under the terms of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 of video shop retailers who have hired out or sold material to under-age children; and if he will make a statement. [27772]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 21 March,Official Report, column 137.

  Mr. David Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources are made available to trading standards offices to prevent the dissemination of unclassified videos and to ensure the prosecution of shopkeepers who hire out or sell such videos to under-age children. [27773]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  Resources are made available to local authority trading standards offices, as well as various other local authority services, through the other services block standard spending assessment. As the Government do not allocate these resources to specific services, the amount spent by local authorities on trading standards is a matter for individual authorities.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total amount given by each Government Department to voluntary organisations in the latest year for which figures are available. [27844]
  483
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  For 1992–93 I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to a question from the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on 13 April 1994,Official Report, columns 178–79. The data for 1993–94 are currently being collated; details will be published as soon as this has been completed.

EDUCATION

  Student Finance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what basis student grants and loans are treated as income. [27940]

  Mr. Boswell
  Student grants and loans are not treated as income for the purposes of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to consider the economic contribution that a student would provide after leaving education when fixing the level of student grants. [27944]

  Mr. Boswell
  The total resources in grant and loan available to students are a contribution to their living expenses while studying. It is for individual students to consider the likely benefits to them of investing in their own higher education, particularly by utilising the student loan facility.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has for alternative methods for former students to repay their student loans; and what alternatives have been considered by her Department. [27937]

  Mr. Boswell
  A number of methods of repayment were considered when the loans scheme was being established. The Government continue to keep all aspects of the scheme under review but have no current plans to alter the method of repayment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what account she takes in the determination of the level of student grants of the level of income support and attached benefits; and what further plans she has in this regard. [27941]

  Mr. Boswell
  The benefit system, which exists to help those in involuntary difficulty, is not an appropriate means of support for most students. The total resources available to students through grants and loans has been uprated annually since 1990 in line with forecast inflation. The Government monitor student income and expenditure through regular surveys. The next survey will take place in 1995–96.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proposals she has to increase financial support for students with families. [27938]

  Mr. Boswell
  Students with dependants are eligible for additional allowances as part of the means-tested mandatory award. The value of these allowances has again been uprated for 1995–96, in line with forecast price increases. Students who are lone parents remain eligible for social security benefits. The access funds can offer additional assistance to students in particular need.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the present system of student grants in encouraging people into education. [27942]
  484
  Mr. Boswell
  The present system of student grants and loans introduced in 1990 has been accompanied by increased participation. The number of home full-time undergraduates in Britain increased by over 50 per cent. in the five years between 1987–88 and 1992–93. Some 30 per cent. of young people now enter higher education, compared with only 15 per cent. in 1987. The number of mature home entrants to full-time undergraduates courses also rose by some 125 per cent. between 1987–88 and 1992–93.

  Education Vouchers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to pilot a voucher scheme for pre-school provision. [28018]

  Mr. Forth
  A voucher system is one option under consideration for funding the Prime Minister's commitment to provide, over time, a pre-school place for every four-year-old whose parents wish to take it up. An announcement on the new policy will be made when it has been finalised.

  University Staff
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to encourage university staff to spend time in British industry on secondment. [28007]

  Mr. Boswell
  We support all opportunities that enable academic staff to gain industrial experience. Similarly, we look to industrial personnel to reciprocate wherever possible. Responsibility for developing links with business, of all kinds, rests with individual institutions. Many are conscious of the need to do so, and participate in the range of programmes promoted by the Departments for Employment and of Trade and Industry and the Office for Science and Technology.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what is the average cost of sending a special needs child to(a) a mainstream primary school and (b) secondary school in Lancashire including the cost of escort; [27439]

  (2) what is the average cost of sending a special needs child to a special school in Lancashire. [27538]

  Mr. Forth
  Lancashire local education authority estimates that for the financial year 1994–95 the average cost of a school place is as follows:

  £7,541 at a special school;

  £4,830 at a mainstream primary school for a child with a statement of special educational needs;

  £4,990 at a mainstream secondary school for a child with a statement of special educational needs.

  The cost of transport, including escorts, could not be readily disaggregated since transport and escorts may be shared between pupils attending primary, secondary and special schools and pupils with and without statements of special educational needs.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education in what circumstances a child with epilepsy, but with no other circumstance giving rise to concern, may receive a statement of special educational needs under the provisions of the Education Act 1993. [27690]

  Mr. Forth
  The responsibility for making provision for school children with special educational needs rests with
  485
  schools and LEAs. The code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs gives guidance on the exercise of this responsibility.

  The majority of children with epilepsy will continue to be educated in ordinary schools and will not need special provision requiring a formal assessment and statement of special educational needs. However, a few children with epilepsy will be subject to a formal assessment and statement because of the severity of their condition.

ENVIRONMENT

  Shire County Council Employees
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of people excluding teachers employed by each shire county council per thousand population. [27303]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available information is as follows. The levels of employment in individual authorities are not directly comparable because of variations in, for example, population structure and social characteristics, the extent of the use of private firms and contractors and the level of work undertaken for other authorities and public bodies on an agency basis.

  Number of people employed per thousand population in shire counties (excluding teachers) at June 1994 General services (excluding Law and Order)

  Authority

  Staff per thousand population

  Avon

  9.4

  Bedfordshire

  n/a

  Berkshire

  n/a

  Buckinghamshire

  13.1

  Cambridgeshire

  n/a

  Cheshire

  9.0

  Cleveland

  11.4

  Cornwall and Scilly

  9.1

  Cumbria

  8.5

  Derbyshire

  10.1

  Devon

  9.6

  Dorset

  8.9

  Durham

  10.3

  East Sussex

  7.9

  Essex

  6.4

  Gloucestershire

  7.7

  Hampshire

  8.8

  Hereford and Worcester

  n/a

  Hertfordshire

  9.4

  Humberside

  n/a

  Isle of Wight

  8.9

  Kent

  8.0

  Lancashire

  n/a

  Leicestershire

  10.2

  Lincolnshire

  7.4

  Norfolk

  9.5

  North Yorkshire

  n/a

  Northamptonshire

  n/a

  Northumberland

  10.7

  Nottinghamshire

  n/a

  Oxfordshire

  8.7

  Shropshire

  9.3

  Somerset

  11.7

  Staffordshire

  10.9

  Suffolk

  11.0

  Surrey

  7.3

  Warwickshire

  11.0

  486

  Number of people employed per thousand population in shire counties (excluding teachers) at June 1994 General services (excluding Law and Order)

  Authority

  Staff per thousand population

  West Sussex

  9.6

  Wiltshire

  7.6

  n/a = Data not available.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment following the decision of the High Court on 23 May to grant leave to the royal county of Berkshire to review his decision announced on 21 March to abolish the county council, if the time allowed for responses to the draft order issued by his Department on 22 May will be delayed until the ultimate outcome of the judicial review is known. [27850]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: I see no need at present.

  Public Events
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the correspondence he has received complaining about the 14-day rule which allows public events to be held on agricultural land for a maximum of 14 days in a year; and what proposals he has to reform the rule. [28170]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  During the period 1 January 1995 to 31 May 1995, we received eight letters from hon. Members; two from local authorities, one from a police consultative committee, one from a parish council federation and one from a residents' association. The General Permitted Development Order grants a general planning permission for a temporary change of use on land for up to 28 days a year for most activities, but for only 14 days in respect of car boot sales and motor sports. More frequent use requires a planning application. These controls strike a balance between the freedom to use land for any lawful, occasional purpose while protecting amenity. We have no plans to amend them.

  Darwin Initiative
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans Her Majesty's Government have to increase the funding of grants for the Darwin initiative and related funds for training ecologists in developing countries. [26330]

  Mr. Atkins
  Since the inception of the Darwin initiative, funds have been increased from £1 million in 1993–94 to £3 million in the current financial year. So far, £9 million has been allocated for 86 projects in over 50 developing countries, involving around 60 UK institutions and almost a 1,000 developing country participants. Present public expenditure plans allow a continuing rolling programme of £3 million per year.

  Biodiversity Convention
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who is to represent the United Kingdom at the Scientific Advisory Body of Biodiversity convention in Paris in September. [26338]

  Mr. Atkins
  The UK delegation for the first meeting of the Subsidiary Body on scientific, technical and
  487
  technological advice of the biodiversity convention will be led by my Department with appropriate scientific support. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when the composition of the delegation has been decided.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his projection of housing new build for rent, in rental units, over the next 10 years. [27960]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There are no Government projections for housing new build for rent over the next 10 years.

  Unifit Housing
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest assessment of homes which require demolition because of disrepair. [27961]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The 1991 English house condition survey found 584,000 dwellings that were unfit due to disrepair. The extent of this disrepair varies considerably and decision as to whether demolition is the most satisfactory course of action is for the local authority concerned in each case.

  Household Statistics
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the number of households currently living in accommodation shared with another household, who require rehousing. [27962]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The 1993–94 an estimated 400,000 households lived in accommodation that was not self-contained. Of these, 200,000 had a strong preference for separate accommodation, 140 would prefer it but not strongly, and 60,000 preferred to share.

  The estimates are from the survey of English housing 1993–94 and, like all estimates from household surveys, they are subject to sampling error.

  Home Ownership
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the proportion of dwellings in owner occupation for each year since 1990. [27964]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available figures are shown in table 2.23 of the December 1994 quarterly edition of part 2 of the publication "Housing and Construction Statistics". A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many persons aged 25 years or under became home owners in each year since 1970. [27965]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The available information is set out in the table. It is based on a sample survey of mortgage completions and covers those first-time purchasers aged 25 or under who bought with a building society or Abbey National plc mortgage in the UK in the years 1975 to 1994.

  Number of first-time buyers where main borrower is aged 25 or under 1975–1994, UK

  Number

  1975

  130,900

  1976

  142,300

  1977

  139,800

  1978

  145,200

  1979

  138,100

  488

  Number of first-time buyers where main borrower is aged or under 1975–1994, UK

  Number

  1980

  136,400

  1981

  149,900

  1982

  176,200

  1983

  181,600

  1984

  217,700

  1985

  234,400

  1986

  242,000

  1987

  195,700

  1988

  224,900

  1989

  173,700

  1990

  177,700

  1991

  143,500

  1992

  104,500

  1993

  102,800

  1994

  103,700

  Source:

  Building Societies Mortgage Survey, a 5 per cent. sample survey of mortgage completions.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department has conducted to support the statement in paragraph 1.6 of planning policy guidance note 7 on protecting and improving the countryside through maintaining a healthy rural economy. [28231]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department expects to publish research on the implementation of planning policies for diversifying the rural economy later this year.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the statement in paragraph 1.6 of planning policy guidance note 7 on protecting and improving the countryside through maintaining a healthy rural economy is intended to refer to protecting and improving(a) the built environment in rural areas and (b) agricultural land and natural habitats. [28232]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Paragraph 1.6 refers to the aims of the Government's countryside policies generally. Many factors contribute to a healthy rural economy, including an attractive built environment, an adequate supply of agricultural land and natural habitats. Under the planning system, the guiding principle in the wider countryside is that development should benefit the rural economy and maintain or enhance the environment.

  Southwark Council
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) men and (b) women were employed by Southwark council in each of the last five years. [28350]

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

  Species 2000
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans the United Kingdom Government have to participate in Species 2000 and the formulation of a new species list. [26339]

  Mr. Atkins
  The UK expects to consider initiatives such as species 2000 at the first scientific advisory meeting of the parties to the biodiversity convention in Paris in September, in the context of the provision of scientific technical assessments of the status of biodiversity under article 25 of the convention.

  Local Government Residuary Body
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decision he has reached about the appointment of a chairman for the Local Government Residuary Body (England). [28846]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am happy to announce that Mr. Roy Swanston, currently president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, has accepted the offer of appointment as first chairman of the Local Government Residuary Body (England). The appointment will be made as soon as possible, once the other founder members of the residuary body have been selected.

  Thames Gateway
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the final version of the Thames gateway planning framework. [28847]

  Mr. Curry
  The planning framework for Thames gateway, RPG9a, which sets out planning guidance for the major regional growth area extending from Newham and Greenwich in London to Thurrock in Essex and Swale in Kent, is being published this week. Copies will be placed in the library at 10.30 am tomorrow.

WALES

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much local government reorganisation has cost so far; and to what extent that cost has been borne by(a) local and (b) central government. [27541]

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: There are no figures available centrally for expenditure by local authorities on local government reorganisation. It is up to local government to take advantage of the scope for savings available by bringing and planning, finance and other central administrative services under one control.

  I have issued the following funding, which is additional to the local government revenue and capital settlements:

  £

  1994–95

  Supplementary credit approvals: IT

  790,786

  1995–96

  Supplementary credit approvals: IT

  19,209,189

  Special grant

  14,563,252

  1 To 9 June 1995. A total of up to £19.5 million is to be issued under the Special Grant Report (Wales) 1995; of this £17.55 million will be issued in 1995–96.

  The expenditure on IT should produce savings in administration and management, if local authorities spend wisely. There will also be capital receipts from sale of assets that are surplus to requirements.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 254, if he will set out the year or years in which the houses were assessed for the Welsh house condition survey, published in 1993. [28138]
  490
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The physical surveys on which the Welsh house condition survey was based were conducted in 1993. The related opinion surveys were carried out in 1992.

  Car Ownership
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of Welsh households own two or more automobiles. [28446]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  According to the 1993 family expenditure survey, 23 per cent. of Welsh households own two or more cars or vans.

  Hyperactive Children
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount of grant aid given by his Department to(a) the Hyperactive Children's Support Group and (b) other voluntary organisations concerned with the treatment of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [26579]

  Mr. Richards
  The Welsh Office has not received any applications for grant from the Hyperactive Children's Support Group, nor from any voluntary organisations specifically concerned with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to locate a local landfill site for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste from nuclear sites in the Ynys Môn constituency. [27371]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to publish a strategic guidance for Wales indicating to the newly elected unitary councils strategic guidance on(a) nature conservation, (b) transport, (c) planning and the historic environment, (d) planning and pollution control, (e) planning and noise and (f) aggregate provision and strategic planning; and if he will make a statement. [28195]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend will be issuing draft planning policy guidance shortly and minerals policy guidance in due course.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the non-executive directors of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority; and on what date they were appointed. [28303]

  Mr. Redwood
  The non-executive members are as follows:

  Mr. K. C. White, appointed 1 August 1985; recently reappointed until 31 July 1997.

  Mrs. E. Elias, appointed 22 May 1995 until 31 March 1997.

  Mr. M. Wallace, appointed 1 June 1995 until 31 March 1997.

  EstateCare Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the Touche Ross report into the EstateCare Group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. [28311]
  491
  Mr. Redwood
  No. The report is one of a number of working documents which will contribute to my consideration of the future of WHCSA.

  Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements for compulsory competitive tendering will apply to county and county borough councils; and if he will make a statement. [28620]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have been giving very careful consideration to the timetable for reintroducing and extending compulsory competitive tendering after local government reorganisation. The Under-Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones)—and I have received a number of representations from local authorities and others, in particular about the timetable for reintroducing CCT which was announced in December 1993.

  I have concluded that the new councils should be given some more time. Generally, the revised timetable will be as follows:
  Reintroduction of CCT under the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980: 1 April 1997
  Reintroduction of CCT under the Local Government Act 1988: 1 October 1997

  CCT will apply to new joint committees which are established by the new councils from 1 October 1997. Where work covered by the 1988 Act will not be greatly affected by the reorganisation, I propose that it should be subject to CCT from 1 April 1997. This will apply to:
  Joint committees continued in existence by section 59 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
  The defined activity of catering for purposes of schools and welfare in the case of Powys county council.

  The defined activity of collection of refuse in the case of the following councils:

  Anglesey county council

  Blaenau Gwent county borough council

  Bridgend county borough council

  Cardiff county council

  Cardiganshire county council

  Merthyr Tydfil county borough council

  Monmouthshire county council

  Newport county borough council

  Torfaen county borough council

  The Vale of Glamorgan county borough council

  Wrexham county borough council

  I have also been considering the responses to recent consultation exercises on the extension of CCT to personnel, finance and information technology services. I have concluded that I should make no further change to the implementation date for finance of 1 October 1998 and for IT of 1 October 1999. I have decided however that it would be appropriate to take account of the pressures which personnel departments will face as a result of local government reorganisation and the introduction and extension of CCT, and that CCT should apply to personnel services from 1 October 1999.

  Finally, I have decided not to make any major changes to the specified minimum and maximum lengths of contract periods which apply in Wales under the 1988 Act. For county and county borough councils the contract periods will be:
  492

  Years

  Other cleaning

  3–7

  Refuse collection

  5–7

  Sports and leisure management

  4–6

  All other defined activities

  3–5

  In the case of building cleaning and ground maintenance, the contract period will be three to four years where the contract includes a significant element of work at a school.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 22 May,Official Report, column 432, to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), how the figure for benefit savings achieved by the Child Support Agency was arrived at; and if he will give a detailed breakdown. [27998]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 13 June 1995:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the benefit savings achieved by the Child Support Agency during the year 1994/1995.
  The Agency achieved benefit savings totalling £479.05 million during 1994/95. The table at Annex A shows how the benefit savings for 1994/95 were comprised.

  Annex A

  Category of benefit savings

  Amount £ million

  Resulting from pre-CSA assessments:

  Paid direct by Absent Parent to Parent With Care

  119.52

  Paid through Agency collection service to Secretary of State

  7.00

  Resulting from CSA assessments:

  Paid direct by Absent Parent to Parent With Care

  13.76

  Paid through Agency collection service to Secretary of State

  47.94

  Deductions from income support payments made to Absent parents.

  2.38

  Income Support claim cessation:

  Income support exceeded rate of benefit

  23.83

  Income support claim withdrawn within 4 weeks of CSA action

  199.53

  Reductions in Family Credit or Disability Working Allowance resulting from CSA assessments

  12.84

  Housing benefit/Council Tax reductions resulting from CSA assessments

  52.25

  Total

  479.05

  Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to pay industrial injuries benefit direct into the bank of the recipients; and for what reasons this arrangement is not currently available. [27950]
  493
  Mr. Hague
  The administration of industrial injury disablement benefit 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. Anthony Steen, dated 12 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the payment of Industrial Injury Disablement Benefit (IIDB) by Automated Credit Transfer (ACT).
  Payment into a bank account by ACT is made on computer produced magnetic tapes. For practical reasons, payment by ACT has been restricted to those benefits which are paid by computer. As IIDB is a clerically administered benefit, an exercise is currently underway to transfer all IIDB payments onto a computer system enabling payments to be made by ACT. This facility is expected to be available by the end of this year.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Poverty
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he proposes to involve people living in poverty in the design, implementation, monitoring and assessment of national strategies and programmes for poverty eradication, as required in article 28a of the action programme agreed at the world summit for social development in Copenhagen in March. [26758]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department already consults widely with representative non-governmental organisations and other groups on proposed initiatives and policy changes. In addition, Ministers regularly meet with organisations representing vulnerable groups.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to issue a national poverty eradication plan in compliance with article 26b of the action programme agreed at the world summit for social development in Copenhagen in March. [26757]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 10 May,Official Report, column 496.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to issue a report on collaboration with European and other Governments on the evaluation of policies to combat poverty in accordance with article 29 of the action programme agreed at the world summit for social development. [26756]

  Mr. Burt
  There is no requirement in paragraph 29 of the programme of action to issue such a formal report and we have no plans to do so.

  There is regular discussion and evaluation of social policies in a variety of international forums in which the UK participates.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the basis for his estimate of a £4 billion reduction in the forecast for social security expenditure by 2001 which will occur in addition to the £4 billion reduction due to policy changes he has initiated. [27223]

  Mr. Hague
  All projections for 2000–01 were made on the same basis as the projection published in "The Growth of Social Security" 1993.

  The total reduction in forecast expenditure projected for 2000–01 is £7.8 billion. Of this, £4 billion is due to policy changes. Approximately £2.1 billion of the difference is
  494
  due to the use of a lower unemployment assumption than that used in "The Growth of Social Security" reflecting the reduction in unemployment which has already occurred.

  The remaining £1.7 billion is the net effect of a wide range of forecasting changes due partly to the use of more up-to-date information on trends in benefit case loads and expenditure and the use of improved forecasting techniques.

  Note:
  All figures are in 1994–95 prices.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estiamte what it will cost each working person per day to finance social security expenditure by 2000–01. [27219]

  Mr. Hague
  Total social security benefit expenditure in 2000–01 is estimated at £98.1 billion in 1994–95 prices, including administrative costs at 1994–95 levels. This is approximately equivalent to £16 per working day on the basis of the current working population.

  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. [27571]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We intend to introduce a back to work bonus scheme in October 1996 in jobseeker's allowance and income support as part of our plans to improve work incentives for unemployed people. Claimants who undertake small amounts of work while on benefit will be able to build up a lump sum bonus of up to £1,000 which they can claim when they leave benefit to take up work.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the additional annual revenue which would have been raised in 1995–96 if the upper earnings limit for employee national insurance contributions have been indexed to wages rather than prices. [28194]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The upper earnings limit for national insurance contributions is statutorily linked to the rate of the basic retirement pension and has been set at £440 for 1995–96. If the increase in the upper earnings limit for 1995–96 over 1994–95 has been based on the general increase in earnings instead of prices in the year ending September 1994, the limit is likely to have been rounded to £445. The additional revenue which would have been raised by such an increase is estimated as £48 million in the first year.Source: Government Actuary's Department.
  Note: The reply assumes that the lower earnings limit continue to be based on the increase in prices, thus broadening the contributions base.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the(a) likely cost and (b) maximum cost of exempting employers for a period of one year from paying national insurance contributions for employees directly employed after having been unemployed for one year or more. [28316]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimated cost could be as much as £200 million per annum. Allowing for less than full take-up of the exemption, the cost is likely to be in the region of £150 million.
  495
  These estimates do not allow for any possible changes in behaviour.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the employment effect of reducing employers' national insurance contributions by(a) 1 per cent., (b) 2 per cent. and (c) 3 per cent. [28314]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Any reduction in employers' national insurance contributions would cut employers' non-wage costs and could be expected to provide an increase in employment opportunities. However, it is not possible to assess the differential effect of a range of contribution reductions.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the value by category of channel of British humanitarian and emergency relief through both bilateral and multilateral channels to each of the member states of the Southern

  Table A: Net official development assistance from the EC to SADC countries in cash prices (£ million), 1979–93

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Angola

  0.3

  0.4

  1.6

  0.9

  1.6

  6.5

  5.6

  6.7

  5.1

  12.0

  12.0

  30.3

  32.2

  34.6

  30.4

  Botswana

  2.3

  2.5

  3.4

  1.0

  1.4

  5.1

  2.2

  4.9

  3.1

  4.9

  5.6

  4.7

  4.1

  2.7

  12.7

  Lesotho

  1.2

  2.0

  3.4

  3.8

  3.6

  5.6

  5.8

  4.2

  4.5

  7.8

  7.4

  8.0

  5.7

  11.3

  11.7

  Malawi

  6.0

  8.9

  6.9

  6.2

  3.8

  10.9

  8.4

  11.7

  16.7

  21.6

  26.4

  25.4

  24.6

  31.9

  30.0

  Mozambique

  2.5

  3.0

  5.2

  2.3

  9.8

  16.0

  19.6

  22.7

  15.7

  37.5

  54.7

  45.8

  58.4

  51.0

  55.2

  Namibia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2.2

  39.3

  42.4

  15.6

  7.9

  Swaziland

  4.9

  3.3

  1.3

  1.1

  3.0

  4.6

  1.5

  1.6

  2.9

  2.8

  4.9

  4.8

  4.4

  4.7

  3.2

  Tanzania

  13.8

  10.8

  20.0

  17.1

  17.9

  23.9

  23.1

  25.5

  20.1

  19.5

  31.4

  23.6

  23.1

  63.5

  46.3

  Zambia

  4.9

  8.7

  13.6

  17.2

  5.5

  17.9

  22.4

  11.1

  12.1

  19.4

  20.7

  14.6

  17.7

  54.1

  95.7

  Zimbabwe

  —

  4.2

  1.7

  5.8

  6.9

  19.4

  3.0

  2.7

  4.2

  8.9

  11.9

  6.9

  6.5

  12.8

  34.0

  SADC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  35.9

  43.8

  57.1

  55.5

  53.6

  109.9

  91.6

  91.1

  84.3

  134.4

  177.2

  203.4

  219.1

  282.3

  372.0

  Source:

  OECD DAC Publications.

  Table B: Net official development assistance from the EC to SADC countries in constant 1993 prices (£ million), 1979–93

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Angola

  0.7

  0.8

  3.0

  1.6

  2.6

  10.3

  8.4

  9.7

  7.0

  15.6

  14.6

  34.1

  33.9

  34.9

  30.4

  Botswana

  5.7

  5.2

  6.4

  1.7

  2.3

  8.1

  3.3

  7.1

  4.3

  6.4

  6.8

  5.3

  4.3

  2.7

  12.7

  Lesotho

  3.0

  4.2

  6.4

  6.6

  6.0

  8.9

  8.7

  6.1

  6.2

  10.1

  9.0

  9.0

  6.0

  11.4

  11.7

  Malawi

  15.0

  18.6

  12.9

  10.8

  6.3

  17.2

  12.6

  16.9

  23.0

  28.1

  32.0

  28.6

  25.9

  32.2

  30.0

  Mozambique

  6.2

  6.3

  9.7

  4.0

  16.2

  25.3

  29.3

  32.9

  21.7

  48.8

  66.4

  51.6

  61.5

  51.5

  55.2

  Namibia

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2.7

  44.3

  44.7

  15.7

  7.9

  Swaziland

  12.2

  6.9

  2.4

  1.9

  5.0

  7.3

  2.2

  2.3

  4.0

  3.6

  5.9

  5.4

  4.6

  4.7

  3.2

  Tanzania

  34.4

  22.5

  37.4

  29.8

  29.6

  37.8

  34.5

  36.9

  27.7

  25.4

  38.1

  26.6

  24.3

  64.1

  46.3

  Zambia

  12.2

  18.2

  25.5

  29.9

  9.1

  28.3

  33.5

  16.1

  16.7

  25.2

  25.1

  16.4

  18.6

  54.6

  95.7

  Zimbabwe

  —

  8.8

  3.2

  10.1

  11.4

  30.7

  4.5

  3.9

  5.8

  11.6

  14.4

  7.8

  6.8

  12.9

  34.0

  SADC

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  89.4

  91.5

  106.9

  96.4

  88.5

  173.9

  137.0

  131.9

  116.4

  174.8

  215.0

  229.1

  230.6

  284.7

  327.1

  Source:

  OECD DAC Publications.
  496
  African Development Community for each year since 1979 in both cash and constant prices. [26950]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested is available only for the years 1986–87 to 1993–94. Tables have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total European Union aid(a) to the institution of the Southern African Development Community and its predecessor the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference and (b) to individual member states of the Southern African Development Community for each year since 1979 in both cash and constant prices; what are the projections for future years; and what has been the United Kingdom's contribution. [26949]

  Mr. Baldry
  EC net official development assistance to individual members of the Southern African Development Community from 1979 to 1993, the last year for which figures are available, is set out in tables A and B. South Africa joined the SADC in 1994. Information on EC aid to institutions of the SADC is not available.

  Projections of future levels of aid are not available.

  The primary source of EC aid to SADC states has been successive European development funds. The UK contribution to each EDF is set out in table C.
  497

  Table C: European development funds: United Kingdom shares

  Dates over which committed

  UK share Per cent.

  IV

  1975–80

  18.7

  V

  1981–85

  18.0

  VI

  1986–90

  16.58

  VII

  1991–95

  16.37

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the Government bilateral related aid(a) to the institution of the Southern African Development Community and its predecessor the Southern African Development

  Total bilateral aid to SADC countries at current prices 1979–87

  £000

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Angola

  43

  12

  93

  55

  71

  146

  164

  317

  261

  Botswana

  7,404

  11,546

  10,199

  7,570

  13,289

  15,975

  8,744

  12,301

  12,190

  Lesotho

  6,569

  4,607

  6,364

  4,251

  4,695

  5,233

  2,382

  3,784

  3,942

  Malawi

  23,314

  16,543

  15,999

  16,984

  14,620

  12,959

  22,173

  15,346

  24,865

  Mozambique

  6,369

  4,629

  5,379

  1,924

  1,805

  4,182

  8,366

  7,424

  23,836

  Namibia

  161

  168

  163

  220

  279

  313

  605

  733

  969

  South Africa

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  691

  772

  1,577

  Swaziland

  8,351

  6,472

  4,144

  6,366

  5,665

  5,626

  3,469

  6,402

  3,514

  Tanzania

  23,559

  32,119

  30,040

  27,328

  30,384

  33,033

  17,967

  12,715

  28,789

  Zambia

  29,159

  20,696

  24,119

  14,237

  15,485

  32,901

  25,552

  35,378

  25,349

  Zimbabwe

  5,070

  36,405

  50,048

  21,464

  19,453

  15,062

  23,636

  12,503

  12,498

  SADC1

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  109,999

  133,197

  146,548

  100,399

  105,746

  125,430

  113,749

  107,675

  137,790

  1 Figures for SADC are only available from 1988–89.

  Total bilateral aid to SADC countries at current prices 1987–88 to 1993–94

  £000

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Angola

  471

  1,140

  731

  1,530

  2,484

  1,874

  13,586

  Botswana

  7,978

  7,606

  8,247

  7,487

  11,605

  7,457

  8,413

  Lesotho

  3,937

  5,348

  5,505

  5,856

  6,453

  27,194

  6,070

  Malawi

  36,514

  41,157

  48,197

  43,280

  26,153

  27,328

  26,256

  Mozambique

  20,747

  34,834

  20,839

  26,171

  18,337

  34,141

  34,704

  Namibia

  1,421

  1,633

  2,058

  1,711

  2,359

  4,493

  3,894

  South Africa

  3,159

  4,991

  6,010

  8,094

  9,324

  11,709

  14,291

  Swaziland

  3,123

  6,689

  4,266

  5,255

  3,499

  4,189

  8,196

  Tanzania

  33,617

  31,956

  20,146

  41,578

  32,454

  62,370

  31,491

  Zambia

  17,807

  15,285

  18,279

  49,790

  34,425

  47,974

  47,623

  Zimbabwe

  16,090

  23,375

  21,956

  33,608

  47,688

  44,267

  39,824

  SADC1

  n/a

  3,420

  4,256

  7,525

  9,101

  6,001

  4,420

  Total

  144,864

  177,434

  160,490

  231,885

  203,882

  278,997

  238,768

  1 Figures for SADC are only available from 1998–89.

  Total bilateral aid to SADC countries at constant1 prices 1979–87

  £000

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Angola

  107

  25

  174

  96

  117

  231

  245

  459

  360

  Botswana

  18,460

  24,088

  19,095

  13,172

  21,972

  25,253

  13,077

  17,814

  16,819

  Lesotho

  16,378

  9,611

  11,915

  7,397

  7,763

  8,272

  3,562

  5,480

  5,439

  Malawi

  58,128

  34,513

  29,955

  29,553

  24,173

  20,485

  33,161

  22,224

  34,307

  Mozambique

  15,880

  9,657

  10,071

  3,348

  2,984

  6,611

  12,512

  10,751

  32,887

  Namibia

  401

  350

  305

  383

  461

  495

  905

  1,062

  1,337

  South Africa

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,033

  1,004

  2,176

  498
  Co-ordination Conference and (b) to the individual member states of the Southern African Development Co-ordination for each year form 1979 to 1994 in cash and constant prices; and what is the projection for future years. [26948]

  Mr. Baldry
  Following is a table which indicates levels of bilateral aid given both to SADC as an institution and to the member states of SADC between 1979 and 1993–94. South Africa has also been included even though that country only became a member of SADC very recently.

  Projections of future levels of aid are not available. However, the FCO departmental report for 1995, Cm 2802, page 61, contains a table which outlines the expected levels of bilateral aid expenditure on a regional basis.
  499

  Total bilateral aid to SADC countries at constant1 prices 1979–87

  £000

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Swaziland

  20,821

  13,502

  7,759

  11,077

  9,367

  8,893

  5,188

  9,271

  4,848

  Tanzania

  58,739

  67,008

  56,243

  47,552

  50,237

  52,217

  26,871

  18,414

  39,721

  Zambia

  72,701

  43,177

  45,157

  24,773

  25,603

  52,008

  38,214

  51,234

  34,975

  Zimbabwe

  12,641

  75,950

  93,704

  37,348

  32,164

  23,809

  35,349

  18,107

  17,244

  SADC2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  274,256

  277,881

  274,378

  174,699

  174,841

  198,274

  170,117

  155,820

  190,113

  Notes:

  1 Calendar years in 1993 prices. Financial years in 1993–94 prices.

  2 Figures for SADC are only available from 1988–89.

  Source:

  British Aid Statistics—published by financial year from 1992.

  Total bilateral aid to SADC countries at constant1 prices 1987–88 to 1993–94

  £000

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Angola

  661

  1,500

  899

  1,743

  2,662

  1,931

  13,586

  Botswana

  11,203

  10,011

  10,146

  8,528

  12,436

  7,685

  8,413

  Lesotho

  5,528

  7,039

  6,772

  6,670

  6,915

  28,026

  6,070

  Malawi

  51,274

  54,170

  59,294

  49,295

  28,027

  28,164

  26,256

  Mozambique

  29,134

  45,847

  25,637

  29,808

  19,651

  35,186

  34,704

  Namibia

  1,995

  2,149

  2,532

  1,949

  2,528

  4,630

  3,894

  South Africa

  4,436

  6,569

  7,394

  9,219

  9,992

  12,067

  14,291

  Swaziland

  4,385

  8,804

  5,248

  5,985

  3,750

  4,317

  8,196

  Tanzania

  47,206

  42,060

  24,784

  47,356

  34,779

  64,278

  31,491

  Zambia

  25,005

  20,118

  22,488

  56,710

  36,891

  49,442

  47,623

  Zimbabwe

  22,594

  30,765

  27,011

  38,279

  51,104

  45,622

  39,824

  SADC2

  n/a

  4,501

  5,236

  8,571

  9,753

  6,185

  4,420

  Total

  203,421

  233,560

  197,801

  264,113

  218,488

  287,533

  238,768

  Notes:

  1 Calendar years in 1993 prices. Financial years in 1993–94 prices.

  2 Figures for SADC are only available from 1988–89.

  Source:

  British Aid Statistics—published by financial year from 1992.

  ACP States
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total European Union aid to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states for each year since 1979 in cash and constant prices; what projected aid is planned; and what has been the United Kingdom's contributions. [26953]

  Mr. Baldry
  EC net official development assistance to African, Caribbean and Pacific states from 1979 to 1993, the last year for which figures are available, is set out in table A.

  Projections of future levels of aid are not available.

  The primary source of EC aid to ACP states has been successive European development funds. The UK contribution to each EDF is set out in table B.

  Table A: Net official development assistance from the EC to ACP states, 1979–93

  £ million

  Current prices

  Constant 1993 prices

  1979

  335.9

  837.6

  1980

  311.1

  649.0

  1981

  447.1

  837.2

  1982

  398.2

  692.9

  1983

  467.5

  773.0

  500

  Table A: Net official development assistance from the EC to ACP states, 1979–93

  £ million

  Current prices

  Constant 1993 prices

  1984

  588.8

  930.7

  1985

  726.4

  1,086.3

  1986

  733.8

  1,062.6

  1987

  746.8

  1,030.3

  1988

  1,001.6

  1,303.2

  1989

  1,074.2

  1,303.8

  1990

  1,001.9

  1,128.1

  1991

  1,195.7

  1,259.2

  1992

  1,536.2

  1,550.8

  1993

  1,442.6

  1,442.6

  Source:

  OECD DAC Publications.

  Table B: European development funds: UK shares

  Dates over which committed

  UK share Per cent.

  IV

  1975–80

  18.7

  V

  1981–85

  18.0

  VI

  1986–90

  16.58

  VII

  1991–95

  16.37

  501
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the United Kingdom Government total bilateral aid to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states for each year since 1979 in both cash and constant prices; and what future projected aid is planned. [26951]

  Mr. Baldry
  Total United Kingdom Government bilateral aid for the period 1979 to 1993–94 is set out. Projections of future level of aid are not available.

  Total UK bilateral Gross Public Expenditure1 to ACP states, 1979 to 1993–942

  £ million

  Current prices

  Constant 1993–941 prices

  1979

  278.1

  693.4

  1980

  317.1

  661.5

  1981

  366.4

  686.0

  1982

  311.2

  541.5

  1983

  292.9

  484.3

  1984

  328.5

  519.3

  1985

  371.2

  555.1

  1986

  339.6

  491.8

  1987

  374.3

  516.4

  1987–88

  422.1

  592.7

  1988–89

  485.0

  638.3

  1989–90

  582.4

  716.5

  1990–91

  636.7

  725.2

  1991–92

  525.0

  562.6

  1992–93

  618.6

  637.5

  1993–94

  531.1

  531.1

  Source:

  British Aid Statistics 1994 Edition.

  Notes:

  1 Gross Public Expenditure on aid is expenditure by all official UK sources i.e. Government Departments and public bodies such as the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

  2 For years up to 1987 information is available on a calendar year basis only. For subsequent years information is available only on a financial year basis.

  3 Calendar year figures are in 1993 prices while financial year figures are in 1993–94 prices.

  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total British humanitarian and emergency relief through both bilateral and multilateral channels in cash and constant prices to the African, Caribbean and Pacific states for each year since 1979; and what humanitarian aid is planned for future years. [26952]

  Mr. Baldry
  British bilateral emergency aid includes that part of emergency aid channelled through multilateral agencies for which the British Government can identify the specific recipient country in advance. The allocation of other multilateral emergency aid to individual countries is not available.

  The following table gives total British bilateral emergency aid to African, Caribbean and Pacific countries for the years 1987–88 to 1993–94. This is the only period for which it is possible to provide this information for these countries on a consistent basis. It is not our practice to publish estimates of expenditures on emergency relief which, by its very nature, is unpredictable.
  502

  British bilateral emergency aid to African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries 1987–88 to 1993–94

  £ million

  British bilateral emergency aid

  Bilateral emergency aid at 1993–94 prices

  1987–88

  36.1

  50.7

  1988–89

  45.5

  59.9

  1989–90

  31.5

  38.8

  1990–91

  44.7

  50.9

  1991–92

  58.8

  63.0

  1992–93

  83.8

  86.4

  1993–94

  86.1

  86.1

  Multilateral Aid (Export Benefits)
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what value in export benefit to British manufacturers arises from each pound contributed in multilateral aid in each year since 1979. [26868]

  Mr. Baldry
  Data on sources of procurement by the multilateral agencies are subject to various qualifications. The quality and coverage varies from agency to agency; there are considerable fluctuations from year to year in procurement from single countries and the data made available to donors are often late. 1982 is the earliest year for which the comprehensive data are available.

  There is no direct link between donor contributions and procurement, but we estimate that over the 10 years between 1982 and 1991 the agencies procured about £1.20 of UK goods and services for every £1 contributed by the UK to the agencies. Estimates for individual years are unreliable.

  We are currently compiling estimates from the data provided for 1992 and 1993 and will provide data shortly.

  Social Development Summit
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons Her Majesty's Government did not support the Copenhagen social summit proposal tabled by the UN Development Programme in respect of a levy on international currency transfers; and if he will make a statement. [27392]

  Mr. Baldry
  We support the summit's conclusion that this type of taxation should not be promoted as a way of assisting developing countries. There are huge practical difficulties in the application of such a tax and it would distort international financial transactions.

  The best way to help poorer countries develop is to allow them to participate fully in international commerce. This is why my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development made it clear in her address to the summit that full implementation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade is more likely to generate increased jobs worldwide than any other single international development.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds Her Majesty's Government did not support the Copenhagen social summit proposal tabled by the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund and the United Nations Development Programme in respect of the 20:20 initiative; and if he will make a statement. [27400]
  503
  Mr. Baldry
  We worked with our international partners to agree an acceptable formula for the world summit for social development declaration. We support the Copenhagen declaration and programme of action including the section which refers to the 20:20 initiative.

  China (Family Planning)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will place in the Library the information provided by the International Planned Parenthood Federation to his Department on the activities of the Chinese Family Planning Association; [27296]

  (2) what information he has on the amounts donated to China from the core funds of the United Nations Population Fund—UNFPA—and the International Planned Parenthood Federation for each of the last 16 available years; [27238]

  (3) what facilities or arrangements exist for Parliament to monitor the expenditure of funds by the International Planned Parenthood Federation and—UNFPA granted by Her Majesty's Government to the core funds of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UNFPA; [27295]

  (4) if he will list the results of his policy of funding the Chinese population control programme via the core funds of the UNFPA and the International Planned Parenthood Federation; and if he will make a statement; [27241]

  (5) what is his estimate of the number of ultra-sound machines now operating in China; what assistance has been given by the UNFPA, IPPF and the Chinese Family Planning Association in respect of supplying, operating or training operators of such machines; and what information he has on the purposes to which such machines are being put. [27233]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answers 8 June 1995]: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write to the hon. Member and copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has on the situation in the villages of Feng Jia Zhuang and Long Tian Gou in Hebei province, following the Chinese Government's push to enforce population control laws there; and what representations Her Majesty's ambassador to China has made regarding the situation in these villages; [27227]

  (2) what information he has on the situation of Chinese Roman Catholics who conscientiously object to Chinese population control policies; and what assurance he has received from the Chinese Government that conscientious objection will be respected; [27228]

  (3) if his Department has obtained a copy of the law of the People's Republic of China on maternal and infant health care adopted in October 1994; and if he will raise the law at the United Nations as liable to breach the United Nations guaranteed human rights to found a family freely and decide the number and spacing of children; [27229]

  (4) what information he has on eugenic practices in China's population control policy; and if he will make a statement; [27230]
  504
  (5) what information he has on the Chinese Government's announcement in February 1995 of tougher goals for population growth rates and the measures to be taken to achieve such goals; and if he will make a statement; [27231]

  (6) what information he has on Chinese Government proposals to offer incentives to those complying with population control legislation and to reward local officials who successfully lower regional birth rates; and if he will make a statement; [27232]

  (7) what information he has on the reasons for the disproportionate proportion of boys born in China compared with the world's natural birth ratio; and if he will make a statement; [27234]

  (8) if he will make a statement on the special report in the April edition of the "Catholic World Report" on the new eugenics law and population control programme in China, a copy of which has been sent to him. [27237]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answers 8 June 1995]: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will write to the hon. Member, and copies of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Desertification
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's schedule for ratification of the desertification convention; and what additional resources will be committed to it. [28014]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have no specific schedule. We intend to ratify concurrently with other EU and OECD countries. The level of resources committed will depend significantly on the priority given by our developing country partners to projects to combat desertification, in relation to their other proposals for funding from our aid programme.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 58, what satellite remote sensing technology has now been, or will be, supplied to the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry under (a) the bilateral aid programme and (b) commercial arrangements; what is the precise nature of the technology; and which British companies are involved. [28186]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: Under the tropical forestry management programme we have supplied the Ministry of Forestry with a local application of remote sensing techniques—LARST—system to receive and process up-to-the-minute information from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellite and Meteosat which are used to monitor the incidence of forest fires in Kalimantan. The project has also supplied NASA satellite imagery for forest and land use mapping purposes.

  LARST is a personal computer—based system developed by the Natural Resources Institute at Chatham, in co-operation with the universities of Bradford, Reading and Cranfield, and the Meteorological Office, under an ODA research grant.
  505
  LARST is low cost, simple and robust, and has many applications: drought and famine early warning, vegetation and pest monitoring, animal tracking, weather forecasting and aquatic resource management.

  As to the precise nature of the technology provided under the aid and trade provision, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 6 June 1995, Official Report, column 58. The seminar was arranged by Technology Applied Systems Ltd.—using a team which included representatives from the British National Space Centre, Farnborough, the universities of Dundee, Nottingham and North Wales, the Natural Resources Institute, Technology Applied Systems Ltd., Hunting Technical Services and Gems of Cambridge.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 584, if he will give the exact date on which full and formal appraisal documents were submitted by the Overseas Development Administration and the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of the aid and trade provision support for the AIS submarine cable project; and by whom the appraisals were undertaken. [28189]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry's appraisal document was completed in March 1984 and that of the Overseas Development Administration in June 1984. Each appraisal was conducted by officials of the relevant department. The ODA obtained additional advice from technical staff of the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, columns 56–57, what specific equipment was supplied under the Bali and Medan airport security project; and who the Government engaged to carry out the associated training programme. [28183]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: The equipment supplied under the Bali and Medan airport security systems project was as follows:

  External Items

  CCTV Cameras

  Lifting Boom type gates

  Hand-held radios

  Mobile X-Ray units

  Portable X-Ray units

  Microphonic fence detection systems

  Microwave transceivers

  Internal Items

  CCTV Cameras

  Hand baggage X-Ray units

  Hold baggage X-Ray units

  Hand-held metal detectors

  Hand-held explosives vapour detectors

  Archway metal detectors (Passenger gateways)

  Passive infra-red detectors

  Access control system

  Guard tour points

  Associated Items

  Cables—mains power, coaxial video, fibre optic, data

  Video recorders

  Central control console

  Camera control system

  506

  Alarm monitor computer

  Tools and test equipment

  Uninterrupted power supplies

  Spares

  Training was carried out at the college of the UK supplier.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 584, if he will give the exact date on which full and formal appraisal documents were submitted by the Overseas Development Administration and the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of the aid and trade provision support for the Bukit Asam rail bridges project; and by whom the appraisals were undertaken. [28187]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry's appraisal was completed in August 1984 and that of the Overseas Development Administration during October 1984. The appraisals were undertaken by officials of the departments, with assistance from technical staff of the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 584, if he will give the exact date on which full and formal appraisal documents were submitted by the Overseas Development Administration and the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of the aid and trade provision support for the isolated diesels project; and by whom the appraisals were undertaken. [28188]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: The appraisal documents for this project were submitted by both Departments in August 1982. The appraisals were conducted by the relevant officials in each Department.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 584, if he will give the exact date on which full and formal appraisal documents were submitted by the Overseas Development Administration and the Department of Trade and Industry in respect of the aid and trade provision support for the Mrica hydro project; and by whom the appraisals were undertaken. [28190]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: The Department of Trade and Industry's appraisal document was completed in September 1981 and that of the Overseas Development Administration in January 1982. Each appraisal was conducted by officials of the relevant department.

  Coconut Shells (Fuel)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid he gives to schemes designed to substitute empty shells of coconut and other palm, fast-growing trees and other materials for mangrove, as fuel in coastal areas of developing countries. [26332]

  Mr. Baldry
  Research carried out by the Natural Resources Institute into the use of coconut shells as fuel, based on carbonisation with waste heat recovery, helped to develop technologies which are being used commercially in Indonesia and Sri Lanka. In addition, the
  507
  Overseas Development Administration continues to fund research into fast-growing tree species, to provide fuel and other products, through its forestry research programme managed by the Oxford Forestry Institute.

  We have helped several developing countries in Asia and central America to carry out tree inventories of coastal zones, including mangrove forests. Most recently, the ODA has offered United Kingdom expertise to South Africa to help prepare strategies for managing its coast line and hopes to agree a coastal zone project shortly in Ghana.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help is being given to St. Helena to restore unique and rare ecology. [26333]

  Mr. Baldry
  In 1993 the ODA funded a visit to St. Helena by a consultancy team led by the royal botanic gardens, Kew, which prepared a report containing proposals for a sustainable environment and development strategy on the island. Following their consideration of the report, the St. Helena Government made a number of further requests for assistance from the United Kingdom. As a result three consultancies, each dealing with discrete areas of environmental or conservation concern, have taken place. One report, on the rehabilitation of Crown

  Multilateral contributions in cash terms 1979 to 1997–98

  £ million

  EC budget (CEE/FSU share in brackets)

  EDF

  WB/IMF

  Other MDBs (EBRD share in brackets)

  UN

  Other multilateral

  Total

  1979

  45

  73

  44

  14

  69

  12

  257

  1980

  58

  62

  73

  14

  48

  8

  264

  1981

  102

  56

  116

  15

  49

  10

  346

  1982

  103

  71

  154

  14

  58

  12

  411

  1983

  114

  75

  205

  15

  57

  14

  481

  1984

  150

  76

  197

  29

  66

  14

  531

  1985

  164

  70

  128

  34

  84

  14

  494

  1986

  144

  79

  154

  36

  81

  16

  510

  1987

  128

  94

  157

  30

  100

  13

  523

  1987–88

  128

  100

  159

  33

  88

  17

  525

  1988–89

  154

  131

  201

  30

  78

  16

  613

  1989–90

  163

  142

  201

  30

  80

  18

  633

  1990–91

  188(5)

  146

  160

  32

  102

  18

  646

  1991–92

  255(30)

  200

  230

  69(35)

  120

  18

  892

  1992–93

  285(59)

  192

  260

  92(54)

  132

  20

  981

  1993–94

  350(93)

  172

  246

  76(46)

  136

  18

  997

  1994–951

  333(91)

  238

  315

  90(40)

  67

  27

  1,070

  1995–962

  480(195)

  247

  248

  97(40)

  55

  19

  1,146

  1996–972

  560(240)

  267

  232

  107(40)

  62

  17

  1,245

  1997–982

  629(264)

  300

  209

  113(40)

  59

  16

  1,326

  Notes:

  1 Estimate.

  2 Figures taken from 1995 Departmental Report (Cm 2862).

  Outturn data are from British Aid Statistics, which has been published on a financial year basis from 1992.

  For the constant price series, calendar year figures are in 1993 prices; financial year figures are in 1993–94 prices.

  EDF = European Development Fund.

  WB/IMF = World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund.

  Other MDBs = Regional development banks (African, Asian, Inter-American and Caribbean) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

  Other multilateral = Commonwealth programmes plus international research organisations.

  CEE/FSU = Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union.
  508
  wastelands, has been forwarded to the St. Helena Government for comment. Two further reports, dealing with an endemic plants rescue programme and organic waste composting technology, are awaited.

  The ODA also supports the agriculture and forestry department of the St. Helena Government as the body responsible for environmental conservation on St. Helena, through provision of three technical co-operation staff and substantial grant-in-aid contributions to facilitate the Department's on-going habitat restoration work.

  Multilateral Aid
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the value of the United Kingdom's contribution, in cash and constant prices, to multilateral aid programmes for each year since 1979 by category of institution; what are the projections for future years; and if he will provide a breakdown of the United Kingdom's contribution to specific programmes of international institutions. [26947]

  Mr. Baldry
  The information requested, by major categories of multilateral spending, is contained in the tables. Detailed information on UK contributions to individual institutions is published in "British Aid Statistics", copies of which are in the Libraries of the House.
  509

  Multilateral contributions 1979 to 1993–94 in constant prices

  £ million

  EC budget (CEE/FSU share in brackets)

  EDF

  WB/IMF

  Other MDBs (EBRD Share in brackets)

  UN

  Other multilateral

  Total

  1979

  112

  182

  110

  35

  172

  30

  641

  1980

  121

  129

  152

  29

  100

  17

  548

  1981

  191

  105

  217

  28

  92

  19

  652

  1982

  179

  124

  268

  24

  101

  21

  717

  1983

  188

  124

  339

  25

  94

  23

  793

  1984

  237

  120

  311

  46

  104

  22

  840

  1985

  245

  105

  191

  51

  126

  21

  739

  1986

  209

  114

  223

  52

  117

  23

  738

  1987

  177

  130

  217

  41

  138

  18

  721

  1987–88

  180

  140

  223

  46

  124

  24

  737

  1988–89

  203

  172

  265

  39

  103

  21

  803

  1989–90

  201

  175

  247

  37

  98

  22

  780

  1990–91

  214(6)

  166

  182

  36

  116

  21

  735

  1991–92

  273(32)

  214

  246

  74(38)

  129

  19

  955

  1992–93

  294(61)

  198

  268

  95(56)

  136

  21

  1,012

  1993–94

  350(93)

  172

  246

  76(46)

  136

  18

  998

  Notes:

  Outturn data are from British Aid Statistics, which has been published on a financial year basis from 1992.

  For the constant price series, calendar year figures are in 1993 prices; financial year figures are in 1993–94 prices.

  EDF = European Development Fund.

  WB/IMF = World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund.

  Other MDBs = Regional development banks (African, Asian, Inter-American and Caribbean) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

  Other multilateral = Commonwealth programmes plus international research organisations.

  CEE/FSU = Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help he gives to schemes for eco-tourism in Cameroon. [26334]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are not directly assisting eco-tourism in Cameroon. However, ODA-supported forestry/biodiversity projects at Mount Cameroon and the Korup national park are attracting small numbers of eco-tourists.

  Madagascar
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help he gives to promoting the needs of biodiversity in Madagascar. [26336]

  Mr. Baldry
  Under our joint funding scheme we are providing £402,000 in support of two World Wide Fund for Nature projects to assist the Government of Madagascar in biodiversity and protected areas management, and environmental education.

  As soon as Madagascar ratifies the convention on biological diversity, it will become eligible to receive funding under the global environment facility.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Baytril
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the use of the drug Baytril in farm animals; [26779]

  (2) when the drug Baytril was approved for use in farm animals in the United Kingdom; and how much has been administered per month since approval; [26781]
  510
  (3) what estimates he had made on the future levels of Baytril which will be administered to United Kingdom farm animals. [26782]

  Mrs. Browning
  Baytril contains enrofloxacin, a synthetic broad spectrum antimicrobials, bactericidal in action and effective against a wide range of gram positive and gram negative bacteria, as well as mycoplasmas. It is presented as an oral solution, or injection for farm animals, and licensed for use in pigs, cattle and poultry. Full details are given in the 1994–95 "Compendium of Data Sheets for Veterinary Products," published by the National Office of Animal Health. The major use is in poultry for which licences were issued on 11 November 1993.

  Baytril is available on veterinary prescription only and indicated for use only where clinical experience, supported where possible by sensitivity testing of the casual organism, indicates enrofloxacin as the drug of choice. Its use is therefore at the discretion of individual veterinary surgeons, in exercising their professional judgment over the treatment considered necessary on clinical grounds. For this reason, no information is available on the amounts administered per month, nor can forecasts be made on future levels of administration.

  Non-human Primates
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information is available to quantify the numbers of non-human primates in transit through or via the United Kingdom for which the United Kingdom is not the final destination. [26671]

  Mrs. Browning
  Official records are available for all non-human primates entering the United Kingdom which have to be licensed under the Rabies (Importation of Cats, Dogs and other Mammals) Order 1974, as amended. These include animals moved immediately to another port
  511
  or airport for re-export. Non-human primates which arrive and depart from the same port or airport without entering the United Kingdom are not licensed. Details of such movements will be available from the animal holding facilities at the port or airport.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review importation controls for live primates entering the United Kingdom following the ebola outbreak in Zaire. [26679]

  Mrs. Browning
  The importation of live non-human primates originating in or coming from Zaire into the European Union is currently prohibited under Commission decision 95/171/EC following the ebola outbreak in that country. My officials are also considering whether any longer-term changes to the import controls for live non-human primates may be necessary.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what European Community restrictions apply in respect to member states independently legislating for(a) food labelling and (b) food safety. [26659]

  Mrs. Browning
  Food labelling is a harmonised area of legislation in the European Community and as a result member states can make new national rules only if they have been notified to the Commission and other member states and if there have been no objections.

  Similar arrangements also apply in most cases of food safety legislation. However, member states have greater scope for independent action to deal with emergencies or threats to the safety of their food supplies, in accordance with article 36 of the treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many foods produced using genetic modified organisms have been(a) licensed for sale and (b) labelled as from genetically modified organisms. [27212]

  Mrs. Browning
  Ministers have accepted the advice of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and cleared, on food safety grounds, nine foods produced using genetically modified organisms. The food advisory committee has recommended that GMOs containing ethically sensitive copy genes must be labelled. None of the foods cleared so far requires such labelling, although applicants are encouraged to give informative labelling on a voluntary basis in response to public interest.

  Mr Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce labelling of country of origin for(a) meat, (b) meat products, (c) eggs and (d) dairy products. [27198]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave him on 8 June 1995 to a similar question covering meat and meat products. The situation as regards dairy products is the same.

  Eggs are covered by separate EC egg marketing regulations, which already contain an option for the use of country or locality of origin descriptions. For eggs imported from third countries, the country of origin must be declared.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the projects being undertaken by his Department's deregulation unit. [26941]
  512
  Mr. Jack
  The departmental deregulation unit co-ordinates the Ministry's deregulation programme which covers key measures such as the deregulation of the milk market, the potato market and, more recently, the agricultural tenancy rules. The unit is currently involved in the completion of a comprehensive review of the Department's legislation, with a view to repeal or simplification wherever possible;
  the repeal of unnecessary primary legislation using the new deregulation order-making powers contained in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994;
  use of the new deregulation enforcement powers contained at section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 following a comprehensive review of enforcement provisions;
  the preparation of compliance cost assessments for all new regulatory proposals which have the potential to impose burdens on business;
  the improvement of regulatory practice through, for example, the promotion of risk assessment and better guidance to enforcement bodies;
  action on priorities for deregulation identified by the deregulation task force;
  action to repeal or simplify national food composition regulations, and to simplify national food labelling regulations and food additives regulations.

  Slaughterhouses
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom have failed to reach the required standards of hygiene and animal welfare in the years 1994–95. [26956]

  Mrs. Browning
  Where hygiene falls below the required standards, action depends on the circumstances of the case and will range from discussions—confirmed in writing—with slaughterhouse operators explaining the specific deficiencies and suggesting improvements in working practices and equipment, to the refusal or revocation of licences. In the 1994–95 financial year in the UK we acted to refuse or revoke 19 licences on hygiene grounds, of which 11 were subsequently relicensed.

  The state veterinary service made 1,982 visits to licensed red meat and poultry slaughterhouses in Great Britain last year and 206 visits to unlicensed poultry premises in England and Wales at which welfare was monitored. Figures for visits to unlicensed premises in Scotland are not available. In 17 cases—three licensed and 14 unlicensed premises—conditions were found which warranted welfare advice to be given. Where necessary, follow-up visits are made to ensure that the advice is acted upon.

  In Northern Ireland departmental veterinary staff on permanent duty at meat plants regard animal welfare as a priority. Advice is provided when necessary and on no occasions were conditions found to be unacceptable.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances sheep may be exported for outdoor religious slaughter, and in what circumstances such slaughter conforms with EU slaughter and hygiene regulations. [27106]
  513
  Mrs. Browning
  Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport contains measures subject to which the transport of animals between member states is permitted. The provisions of this directive are implemented in our national law by the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994, as amended.

  As for slaughter, this is covered by directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing which recognises the particular requirements of certain religious rites. The directive also requires that all animals, including sheep slaughtered by a religious method outdoors, are spared any avoidable excitement, pain or suffering during their movement, lairaging, restraint or slaughter. However, outdoor religious slaughter is carried out for the owner of the animal and the meat derived from the animal is returned to the owner for his own use. As no sale is involved, such slaughter is not required to comply with EU hygiene rules, which apply only to the slaughter of animals whose flesh is intended to be placed on the market and require such slaughter to take place in approved premises.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated number of sheep and lambs that die, each year, in transit from the United Kingdom. [26957]

  Mrs. Browning
  No such estimates are made.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what grounds he has decided not to implement article 36 of the treaty of Rome in respect of imposing export restrictions on grounds of public morality, public policy or the health of animals; and if he will make a statement. [27338]

  Mrs. Browning
  My right hon. Friend has set out in some detail the legal reasons why article 36 of the treaty of Rome is not available to justify imposing restrictions on the export of live animals. I refer the hon. Member to the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 2 February 1995,Official Report, columns 846–47.

  Food Science Laboratory, Torry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of the most recent refurbishment of the food science laboratory at Torry, Aberdeen; and if he will make a statement on the proposal to close the laboratory. [27372]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: The most recent refurbishment of the food science laboratory at Torry took place between 1991 and 1994 at a cost of £1,997,000. It was completed before Tony became part of the enlarged central science laboratory. As to the proposal to close the Tony laboratory, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on 6 June 1995, Official Report, columns 1–2.

  Fishing Vessels
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his Spanish counterpart in respect of avoiding acts of aggression towards United Kingdom fishing vessels; what measures are in place to ensure the safety of fishing 514
  vessels; what steps have been taken in anticipation of the opening of the tuna fisheries; and if he will make a statement. [27404]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 June 1995]: We keep in close contact at ministerial, diplomatic and technical level with the Spanish authorities both directly and through EU channels. The Royal Navy has the dual role of enforcing fisheries regulations and protecting UK fishing vessels. In the case of this year's tuna fishery in the north-east Atlantic, the Government have been closely in touch with the fisheries organisations. Among other things, a procedure has been agreed for measuring and recording the length of their nets before departure to the fishing grounds and for regular checks at sea.

  Wine Industry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount of financial support has been given by the European Community to the wine industry in each member state for the past five years; and what is the forecast of funding for each of the next three years. [28155]

  Mr. Jack
  Details of expenditure on the wine regime by the EU, broken down by member state, are contained in annexe 2 of the annual financial reports on the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, guarantee section, copies of which have been deposited in the Library. The latest report available relates to 1993. Figures for the main wine-producing member states for 1994, taken from the draft annual financial report, are set out in the table.

  Country

  £ million

  Germany

  6.1

  Greece

  29.2

  Spain

  290.6

  France

  176.5

  Italy

  365.5

  Holland

  2.5

  Portugal

  29.4

  United Kingdom

  0.8

  EU Total

  901.3

  The common agricultural policy budget is drawn up one year in advance, and is set in relation to forecast expenditure throughout the EU, and not on the basis of allocations to individual member states. The current budget for 1995 is £843 million and for 1996, £913 million.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what veterinary products are now approved by his Department to prevent sheep scab and flystrike which avoid the need to use organophosphorous sheep dips; and if he will make a statement. [28353]

  Mrs. Browning
  A number of non-organophosphorus products are licensed for the treatment of these conditions. Details are contained in the booklet "Veterinary Medicinal Products (Dips, injectables, pour ons and sprays) available in the United Kingdom for use as Ectoparasiticides in Sheep" published by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. Copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.
The Earl of Morton—The Earl of Morton—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his kinsman.

Mr. Ian Hay Davison
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the action they initiated 10 years ago in the American courts against Arthur Andersen, arising out of the De Lorean affair, to come to trial; and whether they are now prepared to consider Mr. Ian Hay Davison (a partner in Arthur Andersen at the time of the affair) as eligible for any such government appointment as may be appropriate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, Arthur Andersen and Company has filed a Motion for summary judgment in this action. No date for trial will be set until the United States Federal Court has decided that Motion. While the proceedings continue, it would not be appropriate to offer any public appointment to anyone who participated in Arthur Andersen's work for De Lorean Motor Cars Ltd.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble friend a straightforward question. Does he really believe that it is fair or respectable to keep a British citizen, Mr. Ian Hay Davison, effectively in quarantine for as long as 10 years while the action which they have launched in the American courts winds its labyrinthine way towards a trial, and to do so at the behest of an American lawyer who simply fears that Mr. Ian Hay Davison's evidence, as a witness for the defence, might be more valuable as a result?
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I have no control over the speed at which the American courts process this matter, but, as I said in my opening remarks, while it is before the courts it would be prejudicial to the proceedings against Arthur Andersen to offer any public appointment to anyone who took part in Arthur Andersen's work for De Lorean. That obviously includes Mr. Ian Hay Davison.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have a Question on the Order Paper, not dealing with the person involved in this Question, but with the company? Is the Minister further aware that the Arthur Andersen company was pretty heavily involved in the nonsense and lack of probity that took place in the Wessex Regional Health Authority? Is the Minister also aware that, as I understand it, that company has just been awarded another government contract for over £300
1632
million by, I believe, the DSS? What criteria are the Government using in awarding contracts, particularly to a company with a reputation of this kind?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not aware of the noble Lord's Question. But I can tell him that in 1985 an understanding was reached between Arthur Andersen and the Government in relation to the firm's appointment to undertake public sector assignments while the US action continued. The Government agreed to treat those arrangements as confidential and I cannot go further than that.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does it not seem rather unjust that Mr. Ian Hay Davison, who was not a party to that agreement, should be penalised as a result of it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am very sorry, but I do not believe that it is unjust. The simple fact is that Mr. Ian Hay Davison will be a witness and I do not believe that I can go further than what I said in answer to my noble friend's first supplementary question.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how much was lost by the taxpayer because of the De Lorean affair; who was the Minister responsible at the time and what proportion of that loss does he believe is attributable to the activities of Arthur Andersen and Company?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is another Question, but I can tell the noble Lord that the earliest decisions in terms of lending money to De Lorean were made by, I believe, the party represented by the noble Lord opposite. I believe that they were made while the noble Lord's noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there must be many members of Lloyd's who look back on Mr. Ian Hay Davison's period there with affection and gratitude?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure there are, but I believe my noble friend will appreciate that that is another Question.

Money Laundering: Gibraltar Discussions
2.43 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with the Gibraltar Government on money laundering.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have frequent discussions with the Government of Gibraltar on this important issue. We believe that the introduction of effective anti-money laundering legislation is crucial to help Gibraltar build a successful financial services industry.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, with which I very much agree, may I ask whether she is aware that it creates a very difficult situation when this Parliament passes legislation

1633
dealing with money laundering in terms of the proceeds of serious crime and the Gibraltar authorities have not taken appropriate action? Is she further aware that there is serious concern about this matter? Is she also aware that the sooner this matter comes to a satisfactory conclusion, the better pleased we shall all be?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord. The United Kingdom is determined that Gibraltar will implement the necessary legislation. We now believe that Gibraltar is of the same mind, and that progress can be made through co-operation and constructive dialogue. The only way that Gibraltar can ensure that it maintains its position as a competitive and reputable financial centre is by passing the legislation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is not this the third time that the Government have made entreaties to the Gibraltar Government to take realistic action to curb money laundering, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has indicated, is tied up also with international crime of the most sinister kind? Why does the Minister feel that on this occasion those entreaties are likely to receive a more fertile response?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord whether it is the third, fourth or fifth time. I have lost count, to be honest. What I do know is that it is necessary. Gibraltar has made some regulations to implement the directive to deal with the laundering of drug money. She must now do so for the proceeds of other crime. The reason I am more hopeful this time on this issue than I have been in the past stems from the discussions, which must remain confidential, which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had with Mr. Bossano last month.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, will my noble friend consider that Mrs. Jean Cooper on secondment from the Bank of England as Financial Services Commission banking supervisor recently said that she agreed with the Chief Minister that there is no significant money laundering through the Rock? Will she also consider that the Gibraltar Government could need further assistance regarding the extension of the directive making laundering of drug money illegal so as to cover the many other criminal activities to which my noble friend has just referred?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should have thought that if there were no significant money laundering operation there could be no possible reason for not passing the legislation. However, it is clear that in all our dependent territories there is an effort to deal with money laundering. That is something that we are taking up in all parts of the world for which we have any jurisdiction. It is also critically important to prevent money laundering. By having the legislation, one prevents bad things from getting started.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is the Minister aware of international reports being carried by the international media that Her Majesty's Government intend to impose
1634
direct rule on Gibraltar on or about 15th July? Does she agree that that would be inappropriate at this stage, and will she categorically deny such reports?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I would hope very much that such action would not be necessary. As I have made clear in answer to earlier questions, we believe that Gibraltar is now taking the sensible path of introducing the legislation that is important for its own future. If Gibraltar passes that legislation, I see no reason why one would have to consider such measures as mentioned by the noble Lord, which are pure press speculation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while I concur completely with the Minister's observations that it is essential that the legislation should be in place in Gibraltar to deal with the problem, does she agree that one of the greatest problems is that of enforcement, and that there are many capitals of the world, including our own, where enforcement may not be as adequate as it should be?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows full well that we are determined to enforce our own legislation. But of course we can never he effective in enforcing our legislation unless other capitals do likewise. That is why, as the noble Lord says, it is most important that other nations agree and implement fully action against money laundering, a question which comes up in a number of different fora.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that Gibraltar is a small territory with a small administrative team, and that, as with many other countries within the EU, it has a backlog of a number of European directives with which to deal? Would she care to confirm that Gibraltar has undertaken to deal with the whole of that backlog, including the money laundering directive provisions, by the end of this year?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I confirm that Gibraltar has a number of regulations and pieces of legislation to carry through. That is why we have offered assistance to Gibraltar to do the work. However, it is essential that the authorities get on with that work because some of the issues have been outstanding for a considerable time.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her answers carry the overwhelming support of this House? This is a matter of high public importance and the sooner that the Gibraltar authorities realise that they must take urgent action the sooner the dispute can be put behind us.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I sincerely hope that the authorities in Gibraltar will act with all speed. Only in that way can they have a real relevance in the growth of their own business financial services and other legitimate interests which are carried on in Gibraltar.
Lord Merrivale: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Gibraltar Government have promised to pass 20 directives per month? As it is a small territory, 20 directives per month is not bad. Should not the Government be given a fair wind to assist them in that respect?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, if when notified of the legislation to be carried through one does not make an early start, inevitably a backlog will build up. In order to clear the backlog one must then move faster than one would have done had one started at the right time. That is why we are giving Gibraltar help to get on with the job.

Single European Currency and UK Assets
2.53 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is correct that, as stated in the European Journal, if the United Kingdom were to join a single European currency, it would be necessary to give away for ever £36 billion of United Kingdom taxpayers' money.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the statement referred to by my noble friend is incorrect. If the United Kingdom were to join a single currency it would be necessary to transfer part of our foreign exchange reserves to the European Central Bank, receiving in exchange an equivalent claim on that bank. There would, therefore, be an exchange of assets. It is not possible to say with certainty how large the value of that exchange would be, but it is clear that it would be a mere fraction of the sum quoted.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. If we make such a payment and join the European currency, can we get the payment back if we withdraw?
Lord Henley: My Lords, first, the transfer would not be as large as suggested in the European Journal, to which my noble friend referred. Secondly, it would be an exchange of assets and obviously we would have a claim on it. Thirdly, nothing is ever irreversible and there is no point in trying to make one's flesh creep by suggesting that it would be.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, given that the statement is inaccurate—which is hardly surprising given that it comes from Bill Cash and the European Foundation document—it is as likely that there will be a loss of £36 billion as it is that we will be asked to eat only straight bananas? Is not the Government's position that it is what is needed by the end of the century and if there is a wholly sustainable convergence it would be sensible then to join, having waited some time to observe the situation, and that if we did not it would be extremely costly and damaging? Does the Minister concede that that is the Government's present position?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is difficult to work out exactly what the noble Lord is asking me to accept because he put a great many acceptances to me. I believe that he is asking what is the Government's position if and when we join the EMU. I can take him no further than the frequent statements made by all Members of the Government on many occasions; that it is too early to
1636
judge whether successful monetary union will be possible by 1999. Thanks to our opt-out, we can consider that matter at the appropriate time.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Answer he gave to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter may be inadequate? Under Article 107 of the same treaty are we not precluded even from asking questions about what can be done with whatever amount of our reserves we hand over?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that my Answer was inadequate. As I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, we can make a decision at the appropriate time, according to the opt-out which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister negotiated. We shall make our decision at that appropriate time.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the amount of the subscription in terms of foreign exchange is more likely to be in the region of 36 billion dollars as distinct from pounds sterling, and that that is a more realistic assessment of the amount to be transferred? Is the Minister aware that at the same time, under a protocol to the treaty which deals with these matters (paragraph 3 of No. 30), a credit will be created in the United Kingdom's favour for the sum that is deposited? Under what circumstances will it be possible for the United Kingdom to draw down on the corresponding credit which it will be granted under the protocol?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions and I shall do my best to answer some of them. He asked whether the correct figure is 36 billion dollars. I believe that the European Journal referred to 36 billion dollars but my noble friend referred to £36 billion. I cannot work out from where either of those figures emerged. The treaty refers to a sum of 50 billion ecu, which would be some £41 billion or 66 billion dollars. Obviously, if we were to join we should pay as our contribution some fraction of that total. What that fraction would be would depend very much on the number of others joining.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that in 1978 when we joined the European monetary system—we joined the system and not the exchange rate mechanism—we similarly had to subscribe to the capital of the system? Can my noble friend say how much profit we have made on the subscription in view of the regrettable depreciation that has since occurred in the value of the pound?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice. It may have helped had my noble friend asked the question in a rhetorical style and given me the answer. I am sure that he is well aware of the answer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the Minister said that we could get back the money that we had deposited. Is it not true that Article 109/L4 in the body of the Maastricht Treaty provides that joining the single currency is irrevocable? Does not "irrevocable" mean that that is the end of the matter and we cannot go back?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I was simply trying to make the fair historical point that nothing—nothing—is ever irreversible. I do not believe that it is worth trying to make people's flesh creep by suggesting that it is.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend suggesting that if, after joining the European currency, we were to withdraw there is any certainty that we should get a penny back?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have not yet decided to join. That is a matter to be considered when we debate the question of if and when we should join.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, whether the UK joins a single currency or not, as regards the City of London's planning for the existence of a single currency it is imperative that City institutions know now the kind of monetary instruments that will be disposed of by a central bank in its pursuit of monetary policy? Yet the Maastricht Treaty states that only the central bank can determine what those monetary instruments are. In those circumstances, monetary union is formally impossible, which may be encouraging to some of my noble friends. What steps are the Government taking to encourage the European Commission or the Council to determine the monetary instruments which will be disposed of by the European Central Bank so that the City of London can plan for and profit from any such eventuality?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that question takes us beyond the original Question. I repeat that it is too early to make such decisions, which can be considered later. It is far too early to judge whether monetary union will be possible by 1999. As the Prime Minister said, it will not be possible, and Britain will not be joining a monetary union in 1996 or 1997.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, in view of the extreme complexity of these matters, will the noble Lord be sure to consult his noble friend Lady Thatcher, who has such a profound understanding of them?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sure that we shall always listen to the advice of one of the most distinguished former Prime Ministers.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is it not desirable that as many as possible of our cross-border financial transactions should be denominated in ecus in advance of any monetary union?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that that is necessary, but that might be something that we could consider when it is necessary to make those decisions.

"Repulse" and "Prince of Wales": War Graves
3 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that war graves such as the warships "Repulse" and "Prince of Wales" are preserved, with the White Ensign flying, on the handover of Hong Kong in 1997.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the White Ensign on Her Majesty's ships "Prince of Wales" and "Repulse" is maintained as and when the opportunity arises, bearing in mind that both lie in international waters. I assure the noble Lord that this will continue to be the case.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he assure the House that Royal Naval divers have recently checked that the White Ensign in position on the propeller of HMS "Repulse" in 1975 is not only still there but is intact, out of respect? Will he assure the House that the non-ferrous metals and the metals which make up the armour plating around the two battleships are kept in position and are not tampered with in the slightest bit, again, out of respect; and that they are not used as a form of salvage bonanza? Is the Minister aware that where money is concerned, respect is very often buried? This nation is quite prepared to forgive but never to forget.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the importance of those two ships as recognised war graves. However, I cannot give the noble Lord the precise assurances which he seeks. There is no set procedure for regular examinations of those two ships. As and when ships from the Royal Navy or various Commonwealth navies are in the area and there are diving teams available, they will be inspected and we shall see whether we can replace the White Ensigns on them. We do not believe that it would warrant a regular visit from Her Majesty's ships nor, because we no longer have bases in that area, would it be feasible so to do.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, this year is the 50th anniversary of a particular event. Would not this be a good year to check?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is right to check as and when a ship from Her Majesty's Navy or a ship from a Commonwealth navy happens to be in the area. I am not sure when the White Ensign was last replaced on those two ships but it will be done as and when it is necessary.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I ask purely as a matter of information, will the noble Lord tell the House which other war graves may be affected by the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997? Are there war graves in Hong Kong itself, on the islands, on the mainland? If there are, what measures are the Government taking to ensure that those are kept properly?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are no complete records of ships lost in action in Hong Kong waters. It is known that HMMTB26 was lost with all hands but that was a tiny wooden vessel and it was thought that nothing would remain of it. It is not known whether there are any other war graves in Hong Kong waters.
As regards cemeteries on land, there are two which are both managed by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which is not part of the Ministry of Defence but obviously it has close ties with it. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission believes that it has residual rights in relation to the future care of those cemeteries. The question of how best to discuss the matter with the Chinese has been raised with the

1639
Governor. I assure the noble Lord that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has considerable experience of looking after war graves not only in this country but in a large number of foreign countries throughout the world.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House an assurance that all ships of the merchant navy and Royal Navy sunk in war will be preserved as war graves and that permission will not be given for them to be disturbed by diving or in any other way?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can give an assurance that all ships sunk since 1914 will be treated as war graves. Where it is possible, we shall not grant permission for them to be disturbed by divers, but where those ships are in international waters, that will be somewhat difficult to enforce.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is almost impossible for the Government to protect those ships from being looted? There have been reports from responsible sources that HMS "Prince of Wales" and HMS "Repulse" have already suffered large-scale looting by salvage people in the area?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there may be such reports. It is very much to be regretted if those ships are being so looted. I tried to make clear that we recognise them as war graves as well as a great many other ships lost in both world wars. Obviously, in view of the large number of war graves scattered throughout the oceans, it is extremely difficult to enforce our desires in that respect. However, we view most seriously any looting of them.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is not very difficult to check the condition of the "Prince of Wales" and the "Repulse" as, in fine conditions, they can be seen very clearly from the air lying on the sea bed, as I have seen them myself. I welcome the Minister's assurance that when Royal Navy ships are in the area, they will be inspected.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for passing on that information to the House. As and when ships are in the area, wherever possible and if a diving team is available, the ships will be examined and, where possible, the battle ensigns replaced.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, do not the ships remain the property of Her Majesty's Government and in addition to their importance as war graves, surely the Government should be protecting that which they own?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a legal point, but I presume that he is right that they remain the property of Her Majesty's Government. Whether or not we can protect them is another matter. Whether our defence resources should be devoted to protecting a very large number of war graves scattered throughout the world is debatable.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to render unlawful certain kinds of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation; to extend the functions and powers of the Equal Opportunities Commission to discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates, 14th June
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of Baroness Elles and the Lord Brabazon of Tara set down for tomorrow shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Human Tissue (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): 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 Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "disability" and "disabled person"]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("has") insert ("or is perceived to have").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to move the first of what will be many amendments on the Disability Discrimination Bill. I am sure that I speak for all Members of this Chamber in saying that we want the Bill to deal with discrimination against all disabled people who suffer discrimination; in other words, we want a comprehensive

1641
response. But the Bill does not provide that. All the disability organisations like RADAR, Scope, MIND and the Disability Alliance believe that the legislation, particularly Clause 1 and Schedule 1, are too narrowly drawn. However good or effective are the subsequent clauses in the Bill on employment, on goods and services, on education and on transport—and for the most part we are broadly happy with them, although we shall want to push them a little further than the Government may wish to go—if the Bill is not inclusive enough in whom it protects, then it will remain a partial, inadequate and incomplete Bill, as we believe it is.
Why is there a problem? It is because the Government are operating a rather simple-minded and medical model of what disability is. The Government assume in the Bill—and I would ask Members of the Committee to be kind enough to follow me on this point—that those with no disability do not suffer discrimination; that those with only very mild disability suffer only very mild discrimination; but that those with substantial disability suffer substantial discrimination. Therefore, say the Government, in the Bill we need to protect only the most severely disabled because they suffer the most severe discrimination. That is the shape of the Government's logic.
However, a moment's reflection will show that the latter is not the case. You can have a minor disability, such as a minor facial disfigurement, and yet experience considerable discrimination from it, particularly, say, in work. You may have a major disability—for example, you may be blind—but experience very little discrimination in the field of goods and services. In other words, discrimination reflects not just the disability or impairment that a person brings to the situation; but also the perceptions that he encounters as he seeks work or seeks the supply of goods or services. Yet, the Bill outlaws discrimination against only those with severe disability as medically defined.
Therefore, if a person has no disability but an employer wrongly thinks that he has—for example, the employer may believe that he has a mental health problem or may believe, when it is not the case, that the person is HIV positive—then he may discriminate. There is no protection under the Bill to cover that situation. If, perhaps, a person has a mild disability such as mild cerebral palsy but which the employer thinks is a major impediment, the latter may discriminate. Similarly, there is no protection in the Bill to cover that situation. However, if a person has a severe disability, which may, for example, confine him to a wheelchair, the employer may not discriminate because that disability is severe enough to be defined by the definition of "disability" contained in the Bill.
Thus, paradoxically, the less disabled you are, the more an employer can discriminate against you on the grounds of your disability; but the more disabled you are the less he can do so. That is perverse. If the employer is wrong about your disability, you have no redress: but if he is right, you may have. The reason for that is that the Government have focused on a tough medical definition of disability to the neglect of the issue of discrimination. As we know, in practice—and as I have tried to suggest—
1642
the degree of disability is not tidily related to the degree of discrimination. The Bill assumes that it is. That is why we need to amend both the definition of who is covered, as well as how reasonable the response may be of the employer or the service provider. Hence the amendment. The amendment would forbid discrimination where a person has or is perceived to have a disability; in other words, where the problem of discrimination lies with the perception rather than the impairment of a person.
At a later stage, we shall deal with the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Carter, who is trying to widen the definition of disability, which is very tightly drawn and more tightly drawn than in the incapacity benefit Bill. My noble friend's amendment seeks to add functional impairments to the definition. Otherwise, someone may be sufficiently disabled to qualify for incapacity benefit under one piece of government legislation, but not be deemed sufficiently disabled to acquire the protection of this Bill when he wishes to seek work or goods and services.
The Government have tabled their own amendments about past history, which we all welcome. However, my noble friend Lord Carter has also tabled additional amendments which would cover people who have experienced mental disorders in the past. Moreover there are later amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, covering such conditions such as HIV and asymptomatic situations where, if the employer knows about them, he may discriminate.
The first amendment, which seeks to insert the words "has" and
"or is perceived to have",
to Clause 1 as regards a person with a disability, perhaps picks up the most unfair situation of all; namely, where the disability may not or does not exist, but where there is a perception in the eyes of an employer that it does, and, because he holds such a perception, he may and does discriminate. However, because the person is not really severely disabled, he does not count as "disabled" under the provisions of the Bill and therefore is not protected.
Such a situation could affect someone who may or may not be thought to be HIV positive; it could affect someone who may or may not have a genetic predisposition such as Huntingdon's Disease; and it may affect someone who is, for example, facially disfigured. The Government protect those with severe disfigurement; but, as the charity Changing Faces makes clear, discrimination is not related to the severity of disfigurement or to the severity of disability. Small wounds can be very disfiguring, whereas a large burn carried by an airman may be worn with pride as a sign of war. Alternatively, mild facial palsy is, for example, very isolating. Therefore, it is not size, it is not seriousness and it is not the conspicuousness of disfigurement which affects the person's ability to cope: it is another person's perception of it. Yet, such a person would not be protected under the provisions of the Bill.
There may also be a perception against older people on the grounds that they are more likely to experience disability, so that they face double jeopardy both in age and in the perception of disability, which may not be the case. Therefore, the amendment focuses on the discrimination that results rather than the disability that

1643
triggers it; in other words, the consequences as much as the conditions. In the Long Title of the Bill it holds both in balance. It says that it is,
"unlawful to discriminate against disabled persons".
Yes, but the definition of a "disabled person" is so tightly drawn that discrimination will occur against people who are less disabled than as defined in the Bill and those who are not disabled at all, but where employers think that they are. That is perverse as well as being unfair. That is why we seek to move the amendment. It would mean that not only those with severe disability (as medically defined in the Bill) but also those with less disability and those where there is a perception of disability—indeed, where any such people suffer discrimination—would, as a civil right, receive protection and equal rights against that discrimination. That is the purpose of the amendment. That is why I am happy to move it. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I rise briefly to support the amendment. I should also like to take advantage of the opportunity to declare that I have an interest in the Bill as I am a registered disabled person. The disability that I have is dyslexia and I have spent many hours trying to explain to people what that is and what it does and does not do. Effectively, a good example of that would be the way in which the education policies of the Government (aimed at trying to convince people of what something is) do not work because people will not listen. People have closed minds. That is why the amendment moved by the noble Baroness is important.
If you perceive someone to have a problem, you will still discriminate against them. The amendment would give them the level of support that they require. I hope that the Government will look favourably on this amendment, or something like it, because by accepting it they would give people the chance to acquire equal opportunities particularly in the workplace, and to strike down ignorance and the failure of a policy that is purely concerned with education.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment because it is of far more profound importance than it appears to be as it appears on the Marshalled List. One may ask why we should protect people where there is a misunderstanding. But in point of fact this misunderstanding recurs over a wide range of issues; it affects a large number of people and results in tremendous damage and unhappiness. The purpose of this Bill is to prevent discrimination which is unjustified. It could not be more unjustified than to discriminate against someone who is not disabled and yet there are countless examples of this discrimination. The classic example, of course, is that of people who have HIV. The other classic example is those people who have been found by genetic testing to be potentially disabled. They are not disabled but they suffer an appalling level of discrimination. This Bill fails to protect those people. There can be no justification for that.
It is ironic that people who are not disabled will suffer even more than those who are disabled simply because, as my noble friend said in her eloquent introduction, those who are disabled will receive some degree of protection. If this amendment is turned down, there is no hope for those who suffer real discrimination because of this
1644
perception, or rather misconception, by others. The Minister is, I believe, speaking for the Government who have indicated that they do not sympathise with this amendment. In the Second Reading debate the Minister was kind to me at the beginning and at the end of the debate. I am hoping that he will maintain that kindness and say some warm words, not about me but about this amendment. I know that he will do so if he can. All I ask him to do is not to close the door, to think about this amendment and to try to give us a good response later on.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I enjoyed listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, but I cannot support this amendment because I believe that it is almost an impossibility to legislate on the basis of perceptions. I believe that is totally unrealistic. People have amazing perceptions about themselves and about everyone else. It is impossible to know what one means by perception. If one is to try to prove that someone had a perception, one has to prove that they had a certain thought. This Bill should be realistic. The way to deal with perceptions about HIV is to educate people on that matter and to show them how unreasonable their perceptions are. One cannot say that one perceives a problem because in the case of someone who had HIV but who showed no symptoms of that, other people would not even know that person had HIV and therefore they would not perceive that. One could not perceive that condition if one was not aware that a person had it. A person who feels that he or she is different in any way may be self-conscious of that. I remember years ago talking to a beautiful girl who told me that she felt her whole appearance was marred by a terrible fault that she had and that she intended to undergo plastic surgery. When I asked her what was wrong she told me that her little fingernail was deformed. People have extraordinary ideas about themselves and other people can have unusual perceptions too. I cannot support the amendment because I think it is too unrealistic.
Lord Renton: Although I do not doubt the sincerity of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, or of the two noble Lords who have supported her, I hope that they will not doubt my sincerity either because my interest in the disabled is pretty well known as the father of a severely handicapped daughter. But I am afraid this really is a misconceived amendment. These cases, if they come to court, are going to be decided in the light of the evidence that is presented. What matters is not whether the discriminating person who will be the defendant in these proceedings has perceived something; what will matter is whether the disabled person has got the disability. It is just as simple as that. I am sorry to have to say that although well intended, this amendment, if made to the Bill, could only cause great confusion in the courts and elsewhere.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he kindly tell us whether in a court of law the question would not be whether the person has a disability but, when this Bill is an Act, whether the person has been discriminated against; has he suffered discrimination? The object of this Bill is to end discrimination. Would that not be the question before the court?
Lord Renton: I am afraid the answer to the noble Lord is that whereas the Bill as it stands enables an objective test to be made in the light of the evidence, the noble Lord

1645
is suggesting that there should be a subjective test in the mind of the person who is the alleged discriminator. It would not be in the interests of disabled people for the court to have to decide the matter in that light. Disabled people will not be helped merely by an examination of the minds of those who discriminate against them. They will be helped only by the evidence as to the nature of their disability. That is what will matter. Quite frankly, this amendment is contrary to the interests of disabled people.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Lord sits down I hope that he can help us. How does he understand his remarks in the light of Clause 5(1) (b)—where the test will not, alas! be the objective test that the noble Lord has described to us; I wish it were and we shall be putting forward an amendment to that clause later—which refers to a situation where it is reasonable for the employer to hold a particular opinion? In other words, in the courts the test is not objective but subjective, in that it refers to the mind of the employer. It is that that worries us. I hope that the noble Lord can help us by giving us his views on that.
Lord Renton: With great respect to the noble Baroness, I am sorry to say that she does not have that right because it will be for the court to decide what is reasonable in all the circumstances, and that must continue to be an objective test.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I have the greatest sympathy with the point made by Members of the Committee opposite. It clearly is most unjust if persons who are, for instance, affected by the HIV virus but do not show symptoms of that, are discriminated against. That is unjust. I very much take the point made by the noble Lord opposite that if someone is shown to have a genetic defect simply through genetic testing, or is shown to have a potential genetic defect—for example, a shortened life expectancy or something of that kind—it is quite clearly unjust that that person should be discriminated against. I would be very much in favour of appropriate legislation to protect his or her position. The Title of the Bill reads:
"An Act to make it unlawful to discriminate against disabled persons".
I very much doubt that it is an appropriate procedure to fulfil the objective which Members of the Committee have expressed, and with which I sympathise, to enlarge the definition of "disabled persons" to a degree which goes beyond sense. As the noble Lord himself said, someone who is, for instance, HIV positive may live happily for many years without incurring any symptoms, and until that time he is not properly regarded as disabled, in my view, and should not be regarded as disabled. In some senses it would be counter-productive to regard such persons as disabled, would it not? It would be against their own interests to regard them as disabled. It may well be that one could consider legislation which would make it illegal to discriminate against persons on the grounds that they have a genetic factor or an acquired factor which might subsequently lead them to become disabled. While I have the greatest sympathy with the objectives which Members of the Committee express, I doubt whether it is in the interests of those persons that they should be defined as disabled before they have an actual disability.
1646
For that reason it seems to me that the amendment is not an appropriate one in this context, or is not appropriately framed, even though I would warmly support a Bill, a Motion or an amendment which, in a more appropriate manner, would protect the position of those persons.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may take forward some of his points and raise the question as to whether this legislation is based on determining in a court of law that discrimination has occurred on the part of the employer because the employer believes or decides that a person, due to disability, is unable to carry out a job. In those circumstances I find it difficult to conceive of a situation in which it is acceptable to discriminate. This legislation is against discrimination on grounds of disability. Discrimination on grounds of disability has to be proved in a court of law. That has to be proved to be the motivation behind the decision of the employer.
Therefore, how can we logically argue in a piece of legislation that a minor form of disability or potential disability forms an acceptable basis for such a perception in the mind of the employer and for such action on the part of the employer, and that serious discrimination cannot be taken up if the disability is minor or potential? Discrimination on the grounds of disability, as perceived by the employer, is surely the basis of this legislation.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: As I have not sat down perhaps I may try to answer the noble Baroness. There is a great distinction between the two points which she made. If there is a minor disability, I entirely agree that it is appropriate for it to fall within the scope of the Bill. We then have a disabled person, and the Bill is framed in such a way that it will be unlawful to discriminate against that person. If that person has the disfigured fingernail that we have heard about it would be grossly improper to discriminate on those grounds. That is the situation as regards a disabled person.
However, there is a separate issue, although I agree that it is a serious issue and I have expressed every sympathy. If someone has a potential disability, for example, a genetic defect which may shorten his or her lifespan or have other unfortunate consequences, but at the time in question that person is not disabled, it is against logic and, as my noble friend said, will lead to many difficulties to define such a person as disabled. It would be something of a nonsense.
I feel, therefore, that the amendment is not well framed although, as I say, I have every sympathy with persons who can be medically recognised as having a potential disability. However, it is a different case.
Baroness O'Cathain: I have great sympathy with the thought behind the amendment, but one also has to consider the matter from the point of view of the employer. It is not only disabled people who are discriminated against; a situation could arise in which the employer is discriminated against.
The amendment would alter the Bill to read:
"if he has or is perceived to have a physical or mental impairment".

1647
Perceived by whom? Is it the disabled person himself or the employer? Individuals could believe that they had a physical impairment or disability which they had built up in their own minds. They might feel that they do not look right, or have a disfigured fingernail or a club foot. If they do not get a job they might well think that the employer was discriminating against them because of their perceived disability, whereas the employer might have no perception of the disability. I should like some clarification on that point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may respond to the question asked directly by the noble Baroness. The intention of the amendment is to address instances where the employer holds such a perception, even where that perception is ill-founded. Because it is ill-founded the person has no protection, whereas were it well-founded the person would have protection.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am grateful for that clarification. Perhaps I may pursue the matter further.
If an employer saw somebody on the opposite side of a desk at an interview and said to himself that because that person had a club foot, a damaged fingernail or a facial problem there was no way he would give that person a job, he would not say that that was because of the disability. Does the noble Baroness believe that employers will admit that? How would the candidate prove that that employer had not taken him or her on for the job because of the perceived disability? It is a minefield. I can see the reason for the amendment, but this is a minefield.
Baroness Seear: I should like to ask for clarification. It is a genuine question concerning an interesting and difficult point.
People have the most extraordinary idea that they can diagnose what is wrong with other people. If someone has a bad colour they say that he has a blood condition. They are not doctors and know nothing about it, but they form the idea in their minds that a particular person, although he merely has bad skin, looks as if he has a bad blood condition. An employer believes that a person has a bad blood condition because he has diagnosed that in his own mind, and on those grounds he turns the applicant down.
I very much take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, concerning the difficulty of proof. However, suppose that the would-be employee has reason to know, because of something that was said or was seen to be written, that the employer had made that judgment. Suppose that it could be established in court that the employer had made that judgment, that he believed that the applicant did not look a healthy type and looked to him as if he was an alcoholic. People say very indiscreet things when they are interviewing and write very unwise scribbles on interview papers. I have done a lot of interviewing myself and one sometimes writes down some rather strange things to remind oneself of the people one has seen. Some very interesting cases have arisen as a result. Suppose the employer writes "Looks as if he suffers from alcoholism" or "Looks as if he is going to develop tuberculosis". Would that not be actionable in court? I ask that as a genuine question.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, and other Members of the Committee have illustrated very well how complicated the issue of disability can be. It is very important to have trained people who can decide who is disabled and who is not. Many doctors and other professionals are not well trained in matters of disability. I ask the Minister who will sort out these problems, because surely we need to avoid the necessity to go to courts of law if possible.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting opening debate on an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to this opening clause of the Bill, which is of fundamental importance to the effective operation of the ensuing provisions contained in the Bill since it describes and prescribes the definition of the terms "disability" and "disabled person" which, subject to Schedule 1, apply to the main provisions of the Bill. Those Members of the Committee who were with me on the Jobseekers Bill will appreciate that I am more than pleased that the opening clause of the Bill does not say that the definition will be as Ministers decide it will be, because they will recall that I had considerable trouble with that issue on the Jobseekers Bill. However, in this case there is a definition.
Our aim is twofold: to produce a broad general definition of disability which covers those people who would generally be regarded as disabled, and at the same time to produce definitions that can be understood and applied by those who will have to comply with the measures in the Bill; namely, ordinary businesses and disabled people themselves. I believe that the definition achieves those aims. It covers both physical and mental impairments. The Committee will be aware that that includes sensory impairments, indeed all impairments other than those mental illnesses which are not clinically well recognised. We shall come to that issue later this afternoon.
We wish to cover people who would commonly be understood to be disabled. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked me who would make those decisions. In my view most of those cases would be self-evident. However, if it comes to an argument, it will have to be argued before a tribunal, if it is an employment point, as to whether the disablement exists and whether it comes within the definitions in the Bill. We have defined a disabled person as someone who has a physical or mental impairment which has a long-term and substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. We think that such a person would generally be taken to be disabled. That is what we have sought to do in the Bill.
In the debate in both Houses we have sought to keep the definition of disability and disabled persons as close as possible to that common sense view which links disability to having a condition with substantial and long-term effects on normal day-to-day activities. We believe that if the Bill is to be effective—I am sure that we all want that—it has to be as unambiguous as possible. It must define "disabled" people in such a way that most people, both disabled and others, can understand and accept that definition.
We have to guard against the road down which I fear some of the speakers from the Benches opposite have been tempting us. It is a path which discusses a general

1649
anti-discrimination measure: that one must not discriminate against people (period). I am not entirely sure how we would go through life if we could not discriminate. Every time we interview someone for a job, at the end of the day we have to discriminate between one and another applicant. The wider we cast the net the more likely it is that the net will prove to be very inefficient and ineffective for those people whom I believe we and the public outside wish to protect.
We shall come to the issue later but it is worth saying this now. We have accepted that people with a history of disability should be brought within the coverage of the Bill. I have amendments to which I shall turn shortly which will do just that. We have accepted that it is undesirable for someone who has recovered wholly, or even in large part, from a disability and still faces discrimination, to be in the position of losing the coverage of the Bill unless he claims that his disability is still present. That situation can apply in particular to people with mental illness, but there will be other examples. Such a situation is undesirable because it could cause difficulties for courts and tribunals, for the employer and for the disabled person himself, in judging the point at which a person was sufficiently recovered no longer to count as disabled. The situation is also undesirable not least because it may add to that person's difficulties in putting his disability behind him.
However, I cannot accept that we ought to give similar weight to the argument to extend the coverage that we shall give to people who are perceived to have a disability, or to those with disabilities whose effects are perceived to be substantial and long term. Perception is necessarily the response of an individual person to whatever matter triggered that perception. My perception of someone may well be related to the fact that he looks like someone with whom I have had either good or bad experiences in the past. That is perception. As some of my noble friends have asked this afternoon, how can one base important legal issues of the kind mentioned in this Bill on what are shifting sands?
The amendment states "is perceived to have" a disability. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain asked the question: perceived by whom? The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave the answer, "by the employer". I do not believe that that is clear from the amendments. If Members of the Committee read the clause with the amendments, the position is not in the least clear, quite the contrary. It could be perceived by the employer or the service provider. What happens if that person says, "I have no such perception"? Is that an end of the matter, or does one have to look into the minds of people? Are we to have some kind of thought police on this issue of perception? I really do not believe that the amendment is the right way to proceed. I believe that it could potentially hinder the very people we seek to help.
In her speech, the noble Baroness addressed us in her usual style, which I admire greatly. I have to say that my perception of the noble Baroness is perhaps slightly different from her perception of herself. I shall not be drawn into saying what I think her perception is of herself or what is my perception of myself. However, in her usual well-argued way, in attempting to tempt my noble friends
1650
and noble Lords on the Cross-Benches from my side on these matters the noble Baroness made a number of points that I seek to address. She stated that only severe disabilities are covered in the Bill. Perhaps I may state now, at the beginning of our debates, that that is not the case. The Bill covers disabilities which have a substantial and long-term or recurring effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Such effects may well be, and frequently will be, caused by disabilities which are not severe. The focus is thus on the effects and not on the disability itself.
Perhaps I may address a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. A moderate degree of dyslexia could well have a substantial effect on day-to-day activities—for example, the ability to learn.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, sought to suggest that we were somehow differentiating. If I remember her words aright, she said that we assume that people with the most substantial disability face the most discrimination; those with less disability face less discrimination; and that those with little disability face little discrimination. If one reads the Bill, that argument does not arise. Anyone who meets the definition in the Bill is equally protected by the Bill. Whatever his degree of disability, if it comes within the meaning of the Bill, then the protection given by the Bill is equal, wherever it comes in the gradation which the noble Baroness attempted to persuade Members of the Committee was the way in which the Government considered the issue. That is not true.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister is absolutely right, but does he accept that anyone not coming within the definition of disability is therefore not protected? That is the point we sought to establish.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not entirely sure that there was not some far too subtle meaning underlying that intervention. The purpose of the Bill is that people who come within the definition of disability are protected. Therefore I should have thought it self-evident—it does not need me to confirm it—that people who do not come within the definition are not protected within the terms of the Bill. They may be protected in other ways but they are not protected within the terms of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: If the definition of disability is too narrowly drawn, there may well be people who are disabled but who are therefore not protected. That is the point of the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are getting into this dead-end road to which I referred earlier. The noble Baroness really wants an anti-discrimination Bill (period). That is, discrimination on any ground. I have made my case. I shall stick to it. I hope that the Committee will agree with me that if we are determined, as I certainly am, to help the people whom I understand, and I believe that most of the population understand, we mean by "disabled people", we have to make sure that we do not draw the net so widely that the efforts we put in through the Bill are a waste of time because we have drawn the net so widely that the issue falls into some form of disrespect; or we find that the provision cannot be operated and the very people whom we wish to help are not helped.

1651
As I stated, and I underline it, we are protecting people whom we believe are disabled, as it is commonly understood. This is a Bill to protect disabled people; it is not a general discrimination Bill. I hope that I do not have to state that too often. I fear this afternoon, just as we start—
Baroness Seear: The Bill refers to "substantial effect". It does not mean a substantial disability. That is extremely important. I am speaking on the Minister's side. I well recall in my industrial days that it was far more difficult to find a job for someone who had a quite mild industrial dermatitis. People would have said that that was a mild disability. However, it had substantial effects. It was far more difficult to place that person than someone who had lost his legs. Most people would have said that that disability was more substantial. It is the substantial effect that matters, not the substantial nature of the disability.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is what I said a moment ago when I spoke of the greater, the middling and the lesser disability having greater, middling or less protection. It is not that at all. We shall come to the various ways of examining and testing whether the disability comes within the definition, but if it does, then there will be the protection of the Bill. Later today we shall discuss some of the points which we have put down which will test whether the person is disabled.
We want to give disabled people an Act which will mean that employers, businesses and the disabled persons themselves will be clear about where they stand and whom we are talking about. We want to be sure that if employers come across someone with a common trait of anger, shyness or stubbornness, they will not say, "I wonder whether he is protected, because the Act goes much wider than the matters I consider when I ask who the disabled people are". I believe that that would be quite wrong.
The last thing we want to do is to allow the Bill to leave this House containing uncertainty and vagueness. We must protect the people whom the Bill seeks to protect; that is, those who are clearly disabled, as most people in the country would understand it. Although Members of the Committee understand the points made by the noble Baroness, for the reason I gave, we should concentrate on the main issue. I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Before the Minister sits down, he referred to courts of law and tribunals; but earlier he told us that he hoped that there would be few references to courts of law and tribunals. I agree with him. Does he therefore agree that one of the points of the amendment is to send a signal to employers, institutions and other organisations that they must be careful with their perceptions? That is as important—if not far more important—as arguing about arid points of law. I say that with due deference to all the distinguished lawyers here. We need not go to law on the Bill, the Government aim to avoid it and so do we. So please do not send the wrong signals to institutions.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may respond immediately. I believe that the noble Lord is inviting me to take a course which would lead to the
1652
position that he fears. If we draw the definitions tightly, then I hope not many cases will end up in tribunals or courts. But frankly, if we start introducing concepts like perceptions, we shall be in severe danger of many more cases ending in tribunals and in the courts. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I should not like to see that.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may press him further on the issue of perceptions and what is in the mind of the employer when the decision is taken. In describing why the Government oppose the amendment, he stated that employers discriminate every day. It is my understanding that the legislation prevents employers from making judgments on the basis of arbitrary decisions and discrimination. If challenged, they must be able to say with justification that the right person who applied for the job, so far as possible using objective criteria, got the job. If a person is from an ethnic minority background or is a woman, he or she can ask to see the process, the judgment and the criteria on which the appointment was made. People can ask to see the notes of those who interviewed applicants for the job to see which factors allowed the person chosen to be appointed. They can challenge the decision if discrimination has taken place.
Presumably the Government's intention with regard to those whom they classify as being within the Bill would be that a similar process will take place. It would equally be a process of identifying the perceptions of the employer, employers or the group of people making the appointment to the job or taking the decision. For example, in a town like Preston it is known that certain families suffer from Huntington's Chorea. There is not 100 per cent. certainty—thank God!—but a strong possibility of it being hereditary and affecting the children. Surely it would be totally unreasonable to have the position where an employer arbitrarily chooses someone who is less qualified for a job on the grounds that that employer believed that another applicant might suffer, or would be extremely likely to suffer, from a disability in the future. That kind of case gives me concern. It may not apply in a large city but it could in a fairly small community. I fail to see how we are now dealing with perceptions any more than we have already done in terms of legislation which says that an employer may not refuse to appoint the best person for the job on the basis of gender or race.
All we ask is that the same protection be given when an unfavourable judgment is made, against all the evidence that such a person should have got the job and when it is clear that the only factor that could have weighted the decision was not gender or race but an assumption as to the disability of the individual. That disability may well not be one which has a major impact on the applicant's ability to carry out a normal set of tasks in daily life in the job. It may not be major, but it could be total in terms of preventing someone getting a job.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that I can add much to what I have already said to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. I believe that she is going down the dead-end road against which I warned her,

1653
believing that she can have anti-discrimination legislation—period. I am sure that decisions are often taken on hunch grounds or pretty irrational grounds about whom one employs. What the Bill attempts to do (and I hope will do) is to ensure that a person who is disabled is not discriminated against for reasons which relate to his disability. That is a much tighter and more narrowly drawn basis than the one which the noble Baroness would like me to advance.
If you live in a small community, you know a great deal about the work record of families whose members you interview. I have no doubt that that will play some part, perhaps quite unjustifiably. You may decide not to take on the only member who works well of a family who do not work well. That person might have worked well, but you do not know that. Those are prejudices, discrimination or whatever one wishes to call them which will inevitably happen. I for one would have no part in attempting to bring the thought police into that kind of world. We must keep this important Bill on its main track, which is to help people who are clearly disabled. I understand that there is a division between us in the Committee but I believe I shall not be able to bridge it by argument.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: First, I wish to thank Members of the Committee for taking part in the debate. It was thoughtful and interesting, and we all recognise that there is a problem. It is not easy to shape an amendment which adequately and appropriately deals with it, but almost no one has disputed that there is a problem.
Perhaps I may pick up one or two points before coming to the main thrust of the Minister's argument. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, says that she finds it hard to support such an amendment dealing with perception, because perception is impossible to test in the courts. I think that was the import of her remarks. The trouble is that whether somebody is or is not suffering from a disability or impairment, while that is objective perceptions are not. But discrimination is about perception. In other words, this Bill is seeking to prevent employers or the suppliers of goods and services bringing into play a consideration of disability when that consideration is irrelevant. That is what we are talking about. There may be other considerations that are relevant: whether you have a good work record and whether you can get up early in the morning, or whatever. We are trying to say that where a disability is irrelevant it should not be brought into play as part of the considerations.
4 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: May I interrupt the noble Baroness? My point about perceptions was the question of what the employer was thinking. I believe that in any tribunal or any court no employers will ever say that they thought that a person was disabled if that was not so. If he was disabled, then, as has been said, he will have protection under the Act. So I think it is the perception that is the problem.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We shall come back later to amendments on reasonableness but at the moment, as the Bill stands, the burden of proof is on the disabled person. He needs to show that the reason for being rejected as regards an application for a job, promotion or whatever is disability. That is always difficult for a disabled person to do. If this amendment is not in place then for many it will be impossible.
I suppose the difference between these Benches and noble Lords opposite is that we are concerned with discrimination. Discrimination is what happens at the interface between a person's impairment and the response of another person, in this case the employer, to it. Clearly if the disability is, so to speak, objective, then this Bill, which has substantial long-term effects—whatever the employer's response, unless it is a reasonable one—will provide protection. However, if that person's disability is not empirically observable but nonetheless the employer behaves as though it exists, the person being discriminated against has no remedy. That is our problem.
We are therefore trying to pick up the points made by the Minister. We are not seeking to say that this is a general anti-discrimination Bill. We are trying to outlaw disability as a consideration where it is not relevant. Disability may be a consideration but we believe it is not relevant, not just where that disability is as defined by the Bill but where it is a perception; and that perception of a disability we believe should be as irrelevant as the Government's definition of disability. Otherwise we get into a situation in which somebody is believed to have HIV but is well, and you may discriminate against him and he will not get the job. But if he has HIV and is not well you may not discriminate against him and he may have the job. So the person who may very well be your best employee you may discriminate against, but as regards someone about whom you may have real worries, you may not. So we have this perverse situation that if you believe somebody has a disability and he does not, you can discriminate. If you believe him to have it, and he does, you may not discriminate. That is the dilemma that we face.
It is not an anti-discrimination measure. All we are trying to eradicate is disability where it is irrelevant, and it is irrelevant in a whole range of circumstances at work. The employer may bring it into play if it is in his head but not if it is a fact. That is our concern, and it has not gone away as a result of today's debate. If an employer is wrong to hold that attitude he may discriminate; if he is right to hold that attitude, he may not. Are we comfortable with that? If he is wrong, he is OK in the face of the law. If he is right in the face of the law he may not discriminate. I think we need to rethink this matter and see whether we wish to come back to it at the Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I believe that we have opened up a real problem for ourselves concerning those people who are discriminated against on grounds of alleged disability, against which under this Bill, unless it is amended, they will have no protection.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Past disabilities
(".—(1) The provisions of this Part and Parts II and III apply in relation to a person who has had a disability as they apply in relation to a person who has that disability.
(2) Those provisions are subject to the modifications made by Schedule (Past disabilities).
(3) Any regulations or order made under this Act may include provision with respect to persons who have had a disability.
(4) In any proceedings under Part II or Part III of this Act, the question whether a person had a disability at a particular time ("the relevant time") shall be determined, for the purposes of this section, as if the provisions of, or made under, this Act in force when the act complained of was done had been in force at the relevant time.
(5) The relevant time may be a time before the passing of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 and to speak to the other amendments which are grouped with it. Your Lordships will recall that I announced during the Second Reading debate of this Bill on the 22nd May that after very careful consideration we accepted that the Bill should confer protection against discrimination for people who have had a disability. This decision was not made lightly. We have rightly been concerned that the protection conferred by the Bill should be sharply focused on those people who are commonly accepted as being disabled, as I have just been explaining.
However, we have been prepared to listen to the arguments and to consider seriously the implications of extending the coverage of the Bill. It has become increasingly clear that people who have had a disability, although they may be no longer disabled as such, share with people who are currently disabled, a need for protection against discrimination in relation to their disability. MIND, the National Institute for Mental Health, has argued the case for people who have recovered from mental illness. Other voluntary organisations have made representations on behalf of people who have recovered from other disabilities. It is clearly a very important part of the whole process of recovery that someone who has been disabled is able not only to participate fully in employment and social activities but to feel confident in doing so.
The amendments which are now before your Lordships' Committee will help meet concerns which have been expressed. In addition, we have been persuaded that it is not always possible to tell when a person has fully recovered from a disability and when the condition is no longer likely to recur. The inclusion of people in the Bill who have had a disability removes the need for individuals, businesses, courts and tribunals to have to deal with this grey area. We therefore recognise the serious concern about discrimination against people who have had a disability but who have now recovered. Amendment No. 3 and those grouped with it are a comprehensive package which ensures that the Bill protects people who have had a past disability, in the same way as it protects people with a present disability.
The new clause provides that Parts I, II and III of the Bill apply to a person who has had a disability in the same way as they apply to someone who is currently disabled, with modifications where appropriate. The new schedule supplies those modifications. The new clause makes clear that if a person alleges discrimination in respect of a past disability the question of whether the person has a disability will be decided by reference to the definition of disability at the time of the alleged act of discrimination. This makes clear that the Bill will cover people who have recovered before the Bill has passed and it will also ensure consistency of treatment between people who are currently disabled and those who have recovered from the same condition.
The remaining amendments ensure that the bodies set up to advise the Secretary of State, the National Disability Council, the National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities and any successor body, will represent the interests of people who have had a disability as well as those who currently have a disability. They ensure also that the code of practice to be prepared by the Secretary of State to provide practical advice for employers will cover discrimination against people who have had a disability. As I have said, the Government have listened to arguments about this. We have accepted their strength, and I hope that these amendments will be welcome to all those people who have put forward arguments in favour of covering people who have had a disability. I therefore commend the amendments to the Committee.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We very much welcome these amendments and we thank the Government for bringing them forward.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: May I ask the Minister if, under this guidance, he will be able to advise employers that they should not ask people to take HIV tests as a condition of obtaining employment if they have no visible or known history of it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am unable to answer that point immediately. I am not sure whether it comes within the ambit of this Bill. Employees may be asked to do tests for quite different reasons; it may be sensible, as part and parcel of the job that they are about to take on, that people are asked to take a test, not just for HIV but on other grounds. As this is a Committee stage, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to check up on her question and write to her so that I can give a proper answer.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that reply. I should be grateful if he will look into the matter. I am concerned about situations in which people are asked to take tests that have no relevance to their particular employment.
Lord Monkswell: It is quite interesting that the Government are now introducing an amendment which effectively states that discrimination is not allowed, even though a person is not disabled, on the grounds of attitude to disability on the part of the employer. In the earlier debate the Government argued slightly differently. They said that to have a case at all there had to be a disability. I see the Minister nodding his head. In this new clause, they

1657
effectively say that the disability does not have to be there; that it may have existed in the past. That is the angle that the Minister is arguing.
I suggest that it may be useful in resolving problems of discrimination in the future, as well as saying that consideration of past disability should not be acceptable, to say that consideration of future disability should also not be acceptable. The situation at which I am trying to arrive is one wherein an employer has a perception that somebody will become disabled in the future and effectively throws him or her out of the job because he does not wish to have a disabled person in his employment. That takes place before the disability occurs.
So far as I can gather from the debate that we had, it would be legitimate for an employer to get rid of an employee on the basis of the risk of future disability. His defence would be: "My ex-employee, who is taking me to the industrial tribunal on grounds of discrimination against disability, is not disabled". It is only the risk of future disability that causes the person to lose the job. I suspect that that is not the intention of the Government in carrying forward this Bill. I respectfully suggest that the Minister may want to think again about this matter. Having widened the scope of the Bill with this new amendment, perhaps the Government will consider widening its scope in a future direction as opposed to a past direction to prevent what would effectively be discrimination in employment on the basis of the risk of future disability, although the disability would not be present.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to make the point that my statement was not linked to the noble Lord's last remarks. I think that we are at cross-purposes. If you are already in a position and an employer sees that you are liable to become disabled in the future, you would be covered by normal industrial law. If you have been in a post for two years, you cannot be dismissed without good reason or for being unable to do the job. In such a case, your inability would be the cause of your disability.
My question was related to first going for employment. There is a point here. There are certain cases, such as nursing very sick people, handling foodstuffs, or risky jobs in which someone might cut their hand and someone else become infected from the blood when an HIV test might be necessary and desirable with appropriate counselling in advance. Texaco, for example, ask that as a routine question and insists that everyone takes an HIV test. That is the point that I was bringing to the Minister's attention for his consideration in the future.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I did understand the point that my noble friend made to me about HIV. Another noble Lord accompanied a delegation to me on this issue. That was one of the points raised.
I return to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I suspect that he has fallen into the trap that I thought somebody might fall into. The previous series of amendments, which I was not prepared to accept, were about perception. This amendment is about disability. The disability may have been cured, it may have abated, or whatever. It may no longer affect the person. On that day,
1658
or in that week, they may not fall within the definition of the Bill. But they would clearly have fallen within that definition in the past, and would have had the protection of the Bill in the past. That is what this amendment is about. It is not about perception. It is about a real disability that somebody has had in the past. Therefore, much as I admire the noble Lord's neat attempt to tie me backwards, if I may put it that way, from this amendment that I am proposing, to the last one, which I rejected, I do not believe that the link suggested by the noble Lord exists.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Schedule 1 [Provisions Supplementing Section 1]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 28, line 6, leave out from ("mental") to end of line and insert ("disorder").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 5 to Schedule 1. Before I do so, perhaps I may make a general point which affects this amendment and perhaps others that we shall consider. Listening to discussion on the previous amendments, I wondered whether we were discussing a disability and discrimination in employment Bill. We should remember that the Bill is about employment, access, goods and services and premises. Virtually all the discussion on previous amendments related to the concerns of employers. But there are other areas of interest that we should consider.
The purpose of these two amendments is to deal with paragraph 1(1) in Schedule 1. The paragraph states:
"'Mental impairment' includes an impairment resulting from or consisting of a mental illness only if it is a clinically well-recognised illness".
The aim is to ensure that mental disorder is included within the term "mental impairment" for the purposes of this Bill. As the Bill is drafted, people suffering from mental illness are required to comply with an extra condition before they can seek the protection of legislation. As I just read out, a mental impairment must include a mental illness only if it is "a clinically well-recognised illness". The term "clinically well-recognised illness" is not further defined. We are advised that that is likely to cause lengthy legal and medical arguments as to whether the person seeking to enforce the right is suffering from a clinically well-recognised illness.
Amendment No. 5 refers to the fact that the term does not even relate to the powers of compulsory detention. Under the Mental Health Act 1983, a person can in certain circumstances be detained on the grounds of his or her mental disorder. It is often referred to as being sectioned.
The definition of "mental disorder" is extremely wide. It includes mental illness and also any other disorder or disability of the mind. However, under the Mental Health Act 1983 there is no requirement that the person detained must be suffering from a clinically well-recognised illness. That means that a person could be detained in hospital against his or her wishes and still not fall within the definition of mental impairment.
We are advised that inclusion of the term "mental disorder" in "mental impairment" will help to avoid such inconsistencies. It would also introduce a workable term,

1659
one with which legal and medical practitioners are familiar. "Mental disorder" is not the most acceptable of terms. It is certainly not ideal, but it is a term that is well-recognised. I have had to deal with it before in relation to other Bills.
When this subject was discussed in the other place, the Minister for disabled people, Mr. William Hague, argued against such an amendment on the following basis. He stated:
"We are clear also that there is no function in the Bill to cover moods or mild eccentricities and to say that they constitute a disability".
That seems to me to be a fairly curious statement. He continued:
"Nor do we want to open up the possibility of claims which are based on obscure conditions unrecognised by reputable clinicians, which courts and tribunals would find extremely hard to assess".
That seems to me to be a complete failure on the part of the Minister concerned to understand the nature of a mental illness.
That response confuses the term "mental impairment" with the definition of disability. My amendment seeks to ensure that mental impairment includes the conditions which fall within the term "mental disorder". However, it is important to realise that that is only part of the definition of disability. As drafted in the Bill, the definition of disability requires that mental impairment has:
"a substantial and long-term adverse effect on [a person's] ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
A person who suffers from a mental disorder but does not meet all those criteria would not be considered disabled for the purposes of the Bill.
Let me return to the quotation from the Minister for disabled people. I find it hard to understand, in a Bill which the Government have produced, that the Minister with responsibility for disabled people should feel that "moods or mild eccentricities" would have:
"a substantial and long-term adverse effect on [a person's] ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
The Government have argued that the reason for imposing that additional condition is because mental illness has a much greater scope for doubt than other mental or physical impairments. I hope the Minister can explain why the Government consider that mental illness is likely to cause more difficulty than any other impairment. As I said, in order to fall within the definition of disability, the impairment has to fulfil certain other stringent criteria.
We feel that the requirement that mental illness has to be clinically well recognised is an unwarranted additional hurdle which will create confusion and uncertainty. For example, the definition proposed in the Bill does not include certain groups of people with learning difficulties, those with personality disorders or those who have suffered some brain damage. As I said, in relation to mental illnesses, only those which are clinically well recognised will be included.
We are advised that there are a number of mental disabilities which are not specifically covered by recognised diagnoses. It is widely established that psychiatric assessment and diagnosis reflect an imprecise science and can vary considerably between different clinicians. Also, the Government's definition fails to
1660
specify the required qualifications of the clinicians who may be called upon to say whether or not an illness is clinically well recognised.
There were discussions at Second Reading and on previous amendments about the inappropriateness of relying on a medical model within which there are considerable differences of opinion to establish a legal definition. The Government's definition will cause considerable uncertainty which can only be removed, we feel, through litigation to clarify its meaning. As I said, the proposed amendment makes use of the statutory definition of mental disorder, which is already well established.
The definition of disability must not only be clear but flexible to take account of the differing conditions which cause disability and their variable effects on individual disabled people. Some amendment through regulation will be necessary in the course of time to reflect the medical achievements and changing social conditions; the regulations as laid down in the Bill should not be used to exclude the broad categories of disabled people or people with disabling illnesses.
The amendments that we propose may not be perfect. However, this is Committee stage. I hope that the Minister will accept that they are a genuine attempt to help to solve a problem which I know concerns many people in both the mental health area and the legal profession outside this Chamber. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: Once again I rise briefly to support this amendment. To have a clinically well recognised illness which is not defined creates all the terms of confusion to which the Minister referred in relation to earlier amendments. There is no definition of a well recognised illness. It is well known that if five professional people are asked their opinion, there will be at least six different answers. I suggest that considerable problems may be caused. Moreover, when does a new development become well recognised? That is another problem.
The amendment goes back to an earlier definition brought forward by the Government in another piece of legislation. It refers back to what the Government know and have dealt with. Surely the amendment is an acceptable step forward.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I may add a few words to the debate. I have had long experience of mental illnesses. I understand my noble friend's difficulties in trying to make sure that a lot of cases do not go to tribunals and courts. This is a very difficult area for someone who, after the Bill has been enacted, complains that he or she has been badly treated.
The words used in the Bill are "a clinically well recognised illness". In my experience, on many occasions, even now with all the advances that have been made in the past 30 or 40 years, it may be quite clear that somebody has a mental illness but it is difficult to diagnose. Is it schizophrenia? Is it some other form of illness which has similar effects and symptoms? That is my one query: somebody may clearly be suffering from a mental illness but the doctors may not for months be able to say exactly which illness it is.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: One of the problems is that the definition of mental impairment leaves unprotected the very people whom we ought to be protecting: people with learning difficulties or personality disorders and those who are brain damaged.
The Minister argues in the Bill that only clinically well recognised problems should be included. He gives the impression that he has been advised by junior hospital doctors who are concerned with broken legs and other simple problems. Psychiatry is not like that. It is a very young science in a very complex area. It is a little like talking to economists: every economist has a different opinion. Practically every psychiatrist has a different opinion about a given disorder or whatever. I do not feel that one can insist, as the Minister insists, that one is only concerned with clinically well recognised problems.
The provisions are narrow and inadequate. They are very restrictive. I am surprised that the Minister lends his name to them. I know that he recognises the need to go as wide as possible. The provisions give a sense of injustice to people who are mentally ill and certainly a sense of injustice to those campaigning for them.
Members of this Chamber have been advised by some splendid organisations and have been sent wonderful briefs. I have in mind organisations such as RADAR and the Disability Alliance. The excellent briefing on this issue from MIND assures us that it makes no sense to abandon the perfectly good definition in the Mental Health Act. I see no argument against that. That definition, as I am sure the Minister is well aware, is comprehensive, is used by medical practitioners and is fair. So we could not ask for more. We ought to depend on that well established definition.
My noble friend referred to the comment made by the Minister in another place, which, I must say, took me aback. He said that it is no function of the Bill to cover "moods and mild eccentricities". We should challenge the noble Lord the Minister to say whether or not he agrees with that incredible comment. The Minister in another place is a caring person who has worked hard on the Bill. I hope that he will agree to some improvements. I do not want to criticise him personally. But I believe that the Minister in this Chamber ought to say whether or not he agrees with that irrelevant and misleading comment.
The final point I wish to make is this. Mentally ill people are in desperate need of protection, and protection from this Bill. They suffer more discrimination than people in wheelchairs and those who are blind, because the latter are understood and their problems recognised. But the problems of those who are mentally ill are not. However, where they are recognised, people feel embarrassed and uncomfortable. Therefore, they are given a low priority. People are frightened of mental illness. This fear, prejudice and embarrassment leads simply to inadequate resources. If Ministers today—and certainly at Report stage—refuse to give proper protection to mentally ill people, they themselves are guilty of discrimination. I hope that the Minister will be able to take on board these amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not follow the line which has just been put, although I found it an interesting one. The fact that one is not being asked to give a named mental illness suggests that the terminology is sufficiently wide to enable everything under psychiatric treatment to be covered. I read the MIND definition on the orange paper which is splendidly clear and easy to follow. It says that the term is not defined. I would have thought that "clinically well-recognised illness" would have covered all these conditions. I should like the Minister to make clear to me that the "mental impairment" referred to covers congenital mental defects like cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome or anything of that kind, and that "mental illness" is the only clinical point we are discussing at the present time. I believe that the present wording is all right.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may begin by agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, when he reminded us that there is a good deal more to this Bill than just discrimination in employment. We should remember that. Indeed, I suspect that we shall be coming to that in more detail later on. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, indicated that this was a very difficult field as indeed it is. Perhaps I may say a few words about our approach to the coverage of mental illness. I should also like to underline that "mental impairments", including learning disabilities, and so on, which are not mental illnesses, are covered as set out in Clause 1. We see no need for particular reference to such mental impairment in this schedule. We are now dealing only with the mental illness part of the issue.
We are clear that a recognised mental illness which has substantial and long-term effects on day-to-day activities should be within the scope of the Bill. People who have such illnesses are disabled in any commonsense use of the term. That would include, for example, schizophrenia, manic depression and severe and extended depressive psychosis. It would also include a range of other conditions well recognised by clinicians, both psychiatrists and psychologists, who practise in this field.
But as my right honourable friend William Hague said in another place—and this has already been quoted—we are clear that it is no function of the Bill to cover mild eccentricities, moods, etc. as constituting disability. I mentioned earlier on in previous debates that shyness, stubbornness, etc., also lie outside the scope.
The point being made by my right honourable friend in the other place was this. These symptoms, if I may call them that, could be claimed to come from a mental illness in the case of someone who either does not get a job and wants to find a reason for not getting it; or decides not to turn up at work when he already has a job, or does not agree to do a particular part of it. Service providers and employers could well be taken to court in those circumstances. That is why we have tried to make it clear. We do not want to open up and widen discussion to the possibility of claims based on obscure conditions which, as we say, are unrecognised by reputable clinicians.

1663
I know that there are many Members of this Committee who are interested in the world of science and medicine. They will be aware that there always seems to be someone in the world, with fairly impeccable credentials on the face of it, who comes up with some of the most amazing theories in the world of science. Is it not amazing how often we find that somebody attaches themselves to it and begins bombarding Ministers, Members of Parliament and Members of your Lordships' House, with closely argued letters, all based on the views of perhaps one clinician—dare I say it?—in some obscure American university? That seems to be the favourite stomping ground of some of them.
For these reasons, we want to make sure that in this Bill we are dealing with mental illnesses which are clinically well recognised. I take the point that perhaps we do not have the tightest definition we should like, or certainly that I should like. It is not an easy field, but a difficult one. I believe that the words we have chosen will encompass all the types of people and conditions that we want to help.
In dealing with physical impairment, I am confident that we can rely on the reference in Clause 1 to the,
"ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities"
to ensure that minor impairments, which do not amount to disabilities, are not covered by the Bill. The relationship of mental illnesses with the ability to carry out day-to-day activities, is a more difficult relationship to set down. We shall be debating it in connection with a later amendment.
I believe that we need a further provision to make it clear that the Bill does not cover unrecognised conditions of the kind which I have mentioned. That is the purpose of Schedule 1, paragraph 1(1) of the Bill as regards which the noble Lord's amendment seeks to take out words including, "clinically well-recognised".
The other part of the noble Lord's proposal is to link the definition of mental illness or mental disorder in this Bill to the definition in the Mental Health Act 1983. I do not believe that that is helpful. The definition in that Act is as follows:
"Mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder and any other disorder or disability of mind".
That definition appears to fall within the wide coverage of our term "mental impairment". The area of difference lies in alleged mental illnesses which have not achieved adequate clinical recognition. I believe that I have already explained the reasons why we feel that they should be excluded.
A further difficulty as regards this amendment is the specific reference to the term "psychopathic disorder" in the Mental Health Act definition. We made it clear in the other place that we intend to use the regulation-making powers to exclude psychopathic and other personality disorders from coverage in the Bill. I do not believe that it is in the public interest to protect people with psychopathic disorders from discrimination. It would bring the Bill into disrepute and cause employers and service providers great concern.
Perhaps I may reiterate our overall purpose. As I said, we do not intend to include in the Bill obscure conditions which are unrecognised by reputable
1664
clinicians. It seems likely that the only additional illnesses brought in by the Mental Health Act definition would be those which are not so recognised. That apart, our intention is that "mental impairment" shall be widely construed. We believe that we have achieved that.
I hope that that assures the noble Lord. I do not believe that there is too much between us although it may look as though there is quite a lot when one looks at the paper. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my reassurances as to why we believe these words are necessary and that it would not be wise to take on board the definition in the Mental Health Act.
Lord Carter: We are grateful to the Minister for his helpful answer. As he says, we are trying to tease out the underlying problems of the definition. This will not be the only occasion upon which that occurs. I thank other Members of the Committee who have contributed to the debate. I wish to pick up on just a couple of points. One of them is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, who said that she thought the definition in the Bill was sufficiently wide. I can but quote directly from the Law Society brief:
"It is inappropriate to rely on a medical model, within which there are considerable differences of opinion, to establish a legal definition. The Government's definition will cause considerable uncertainty, which will only be removed through litigation to clarify its meaning".
The Law Society feels that there is a problem with the definition.
I have to admit that I was a little puzzled by the Minister's reply when he referred to learning disability being caught by Clause 1, which refers to,
"a physical or mental impairment".
The Minister then referred back to the definition contained in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, which provides:
"'Mental impairment' includes an impairment resulting from or consisting of a mental illness only if it is a clinically well-recognised illness".
If mental illness is going to include learning disability and other forms of mental handicap in Clause 1, the Minister seems to be implying that mental impairment will include mental handicap if it is not a clinically well-recognised illness. We need to look again at the drafting. The Minister has made a point at which his officials might well wish to look.
There has been some confusion throughout the debate about this important distinction between mental illness and mental handicap. I repeat the point I made earlier, which was made also by my noble friend Lord Ashley. The Minister in the other place referred to moods and mild eccentricities, and the Minister referred to shyness, I believe. How are any of those terms supposed to create a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities?
There is one point upon which I would agree with the Minister. He also mentioned stubbornness. I would say that in the case of government Ministers stubbornness does have a substantial long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out their normal day-to-day activities.
I should like to study what the Minister said about the definition we suggested from the Mental Health Act. It might not be perfect and it might be possible to come

1665
back at a later stage with a definition which picks up some of the points out of the Mental Health Act but not the one which the Minister fairly made. For all those reasons, I believe there is still an area of concern here. The Minister's reply began to be helpful, but we shall have to consider it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 28, line 23, leave out ("continuing to have that effect if that") and insert ("a long-term effect if that substantial adverse").
The noble Baroness said: This too is a probing amendment but one which we believe the Government may be able to support or make clear in their reply that it is unnecessary. We think the Government intend that where someone has a substantial disability within the field of mental health but that disability is exhibited only intermittently or recurs only intermittently, nonetheless such a person is covered by the Bill.
We believe that the wording makes that insufficiently clear. MIND gave the example of someone suffering from manic depression. There may be periods of stability, interrupted, unfortunately, by periods of deep depression, followed by periods of over-active behaviour. We believe that the Government intend such a situation and such a condition to be covered.
The wording of the amendment would make that point unambiguous. We hope that the Minister will feel able to support the amendment or to persuade us that it is unnecessary, because the situation is already covered in the Government's subsequent amendments to "substantial" and "adverse". I beg to move.
Lord Renton: With respect to the noble Baroness, the amendment raises a narrow point. It is simplified— but not over-simplified I hope—by pointing out that it refers to the difference between a continuing effect and a long-term effect. That is all it is. Frankly, I am not certain that it is in the interests of disabled people to abandon the term "continuing" and to go for the term "long-term". Nor is it in the interest of those who will be affected by the provision as employers, and so on. I think on balance that it is better to keep the word "continuing". I hope that the Government too will feel that way.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As the Committee will be aware, to meet the definition of "disability" a person has to have an impairment which has a substantial long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. But that does not adequately reflect the position of people who have impairments where the effects fluctuate—for example, arthritis—or recur, as with multiple sclerosis.
1666
To ensure that those people are covered, even when their impairment may have little or no effect at a particular time, there is a provision in paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 which says:
"Where an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur".
In other words, it deems the substantial effects to continue during the intervening period of insubstantial effects or no effects.
However, to be covered by the definition of "disability", the person still has to fulfil the requirement of the definition in Clause 1: that the effects have to be long term—that is, they have to last or be reasonably expected to last at least 12 months. That means for a recurring condition to be a disability, as defined, at least one recurrence has to be, or be likely to be, at least 12 months after the first.
The reason why we have a requirement that the effects would be long-term is because the idea of disability does not cover temporary or short-term conditions. We believe that that is something with which most people would agree.
The effect of the amendment would be to deem a recurrent condition to be long-term however briefly after the first occurrence that the final recurrence occurs. For example, if a person has one further bout of an illness a week after the first, and then has no more relapses or recurrences ever, they would be regarded as having a disability. That would be in contrast to another person who had a single continuing illness over the same period of, say, three weeks, and recovered completely. That person would plainly not be regarded as having a disability.
I am sure that it is not the intention of the noble Baroness to cover those circumstances, but that would be what would happen. I hope that I have explained what we are looking for in this paragraph of Schedule 1. I hope that the noble Baroness will see my point and why we have put the matter the way we have, and understand that her amendment does something that I do not expect that she intended for a moment. I hope that she will withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I should like to ask the Minister for a little further clarification. I take the point when he gave the example of the illness never recurring. What happens when one cannot tell? In other words, what happens where the recurrence is unpredictable and that unpredictability is part of the illness itself, as is the position with some mental health problems which are heavily dependent upon medication or something like that? Manic depression would be an obvious case. There might he an occurrence. There might, as the Minister said, be a recurrence a month later. There might then be a reasonably long period during which there were no recurrences.
What happens if that person is carrying the condition of which part of the diagnosis is that there could be a traumatic event which could trigger a recurrence? One cannot anticipate that traumatic event. It might be a bereavement, a divorce or something like that. That

1667
condition may then recur. Is that situation covered by the Minister's explanation? If it is, I am well content. We need some protection in that situation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We are getting into difficult territory. I hope that I can explain the matter. If my explanation is not quite right, I am sure that the noble Baroness will not mind me writing to her. Towards the end of her intervention, she mentioned something that might happen once and might never recur but because of some crisis in one's life, it does. One cannot look ahead to such a possibility and decide that therefore the person is disabled. I draw the noble Baroness's attention to paragraph 7. If the condition is progressive, such as multiple sclerosis, the situation is different and is dealt with after the first symptoms have become apparent. We shall deal with that matter in a moment.
I believe that the problem about which the noble Baroness is anxious is dealt with in the Bill. However, we do not want to go so far as reaching the position that I explained: that someone with a problem which lasts for three or four weeks and from which he then recovers completely can rightly not find himself covered, but someone with a problem which gets better but quickly recurs can find himself falling within the definition. I am sure that that is not what we want.
I shall read what the noble Baroness has said, and I hope that she will read what I have said. We can then consider whether we are at cross-purposes, whether I have satisfied her or whether she has raised an anxiety that I too should be anxious about.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I thank the Minister for that helpful and conciliatory response. We want a situation in which someone is not discriminated against because of a previous occurrence—which was dealt with in an earlier amendment helpfully moved by the Minister—and also a situation in which someone is protected. As regards illnesses such as MS, manic depression, ME and so forth, the condition fluctuates and is unpredictable in its recurrence. We do not know, for example, how long the original occurrence would have to last in order for it to be protected. The problem may best be explored behind the scenes, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 29, line 6, at end insert:

"( ) standing;

( ) sitting and rising from sitting;

( ) reaching;

( ) remaining conscious;

( ) breathing;

( ) sleeping;

( ) ability to communicate with other people;

( ) stability of mood;

( ) ability to go, or confidence in going, outside the home;

( ) ability to cope with unfamiliar environments;

( ) ability to care for oneself.)".

The noble Lord said: I return to the definition of disability. Amendment No. 7 attempts to improve on the definitions and the activities mentioned in Schedule 1.
1668
Members of the Committee will be aware that there is real concern that the definition of disability in the Bill will not be broad enough to include all disabled people who are discriminated against. The mere fact that someone has a disability or a disabling condition, no matter in how mild a form, will often lead others to discriminate against that person. We know that from our own experience.
One of the ways to expand the definition of disability is to improve the list of day-to-day activities in the schedule. I am sure that the Minister will reply with problems of listing and leaving things out. However, the Government already have a list in paragraph 4 and we are trying to improve that.
As regards cerebral palsy, for example, Scope states that as currently drafted the Bill will not cover all those with the disease. One of the most striking features of CP is that no two people with the condition will be the same. It is one of the most varied medical conditions. In moderate cases someone with CP might have unsteady movements or stiffness of limbs but will still be able to go about his or her daily life with minimal help. However, cerebral palsy can result in such severe impairment that the person is unable to move at all. As we all know, there are many shades between those presentations of CP. Scope believes—and it should know—that that variability means that the definition of disability in the Bill must be broad.
The definition requires the individual to have an impairment which has a substantial and long-term impact on one of the fixed list of normal day-to-day activities. However, as a result of an impairment a person may be restricted in, for example, breathing because of asthma. But because that does not feature in the list of prescribed activities a person will not be regarded as disabled and cannot claim protection against discrimination.
The amendment lists a number of activities, including standing; sitting and rising from sitting; and reaching. They will ensure that people with conditions such as arthritis, rheumatism, musculo-skeletal conditions, amputations and chronic fatigue syndrome will be covered by the Bill. The current definition of activities or descriptors, such as mobility or physical co-ordination, would fail to include people with one of the above or similar conditions.
The inclusion of "remaining conscious" as an activity is essential to protect people who frequently face discrimination as a result of disability; for example, people with epilepsy or narcolepsy, or people who experience frequent transient ischemic attacks or periods of altered awareness. I have already mentioned breathing as an included activity. The amendment will cover individuals with chronic respiratory conditions as well as those with cystic fibrosis and asthma. It appears that they are not covered in the present definition.
It would be helpful if, in reply today or in writing, the Minister having read what I have said about the various conditions listed, would say whether we are correct in believing that they are not covered by the list in the Bill. An individual with advanced AIDS may not qualify under the current definition but would if, for example, their night sweats and insomnia were taken into account.
The ability to care for oneself in the sense of being able to bathe, dress, go to the toilet, get in and out of bed and feed without assistance is the key criteria to qualify for disability living allowance. These should be recognised as normal day-to-day activities. The list is not exhaustive and we are trying to ensure that large groups of people are not excluded from the Bill because of the failure of the definition in Schedule 1.
Perhaps I may make a general point which is not directly related to the amendment but covers all the amendments that we are considering. The Bill is about attitude towards disability. I have given one example. It is also about avoiding any attempt to stereotype disabled people. I will put the matter as carefully and as tactfully as I can. Throughout our consideration of the Bill we have in the Chamber a classic example of stereotyping. The authorities of the House are to be congratulated on having gone to some trouble to alter our arrangements; the Hansard writers are sitting below the Bar and Members who use wheelchairs have extra room. But why only for this Bill? Why do Members who use wheelchairs have special arrangements only for debates on a Bill dealing with disability?
I ask Members of the Committee to consider the matter most carefully. I accept that the arrangements are entirely well-meant and not meant to be in the least offensive. However, it is a classic example of stereotyping that this Bill is supposed to stop. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for a little more clarification. I find difficulty with the eighth, ninth and tenth activity on the list. Does "stability of mood" mean mental problems? If so, that ought to be dealt with in the part of the Bill that we have just discussed. Is "ability to go, or confidence in going, outside the home" a description of agoraphobia? I find the phrase "ability to cope with unfamiliar environments" the most difficult. It must be extremely difficult to define and I hope that before the end of our discussions we can have further explanation. I believe that the ability to care for oneself is important but it is a matter of degree. As a result of physical disabilities, some people are incapable of looking after themselves, and clearly they should fall within the scope of the Bill, but probably not in this part of the Bill.
Perhaps I may say while I am on my feet—and, as Members know, I cannot stay on my feet for very long—that I thoroughly understand standing, sitting and rising from sitting and reaching, all of which for 50 years I have found extremely difficult.
Lord Addington: I support the thrust of the amendment. There is one important answer that the Government can give today. Are they prepared to expand the list or to issue guidance for expanding it in the future? There is one thing that I have learnt during my time in your Lordships' House; that the minute one starts making a list one leaves something out. Surely there should be the ability to expand the list or to make
1670
changes to it. Will the Minister consider discussions to increase the terms of reference which go with any list appearing in the Bill?
5 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: This amendment deals with yet another group of astonishing exclusions. It very sensibly extends the list of particular activities which could be affected by mental impairment. Not for the first time, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, about the position of the amendment and where it should be dealt with. It is perfectly permissible to deal with it in relation to this schedule.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I only commented on two or three points and I thought that only'two of them—certainly in relation to the mental impairment—should be dealt with elsewhere in the Bill.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I know that, but it is those two or three points to which I am referring. I believe that it is quite legitimate for them to be dealt with at this point in the Bill. It is a matter of plain, irresistible logic and common sense that anyone with seriously unstable moods and the inability to communicate and cope with the environment may suffer discrimination. That is almost inevitable.
The fact that those people are different, are seen to be different and react differently from the norm marks them out from the herd. One only has to watch a child who is different in the playground to see how he is mocked and sometimes ostracised because he is different from the herd. One sees there the first glimmer of discrimination. That is the point in relation to people who behave differently in that manner.
To make it worse, the adults about whom we are talking in that group are often prescribed drugs which have a very powerful effect on them and which exacerbate their swinging moods, inability to communicate and failure to cope with the environment.
I am aware that the regulations will make or mar this Bill because it is essential that the will of parliamentarians is reflected fully by the initial list of day-to-day activities, which will signal a parliamentary message. So far the message has been that this Bill is more concerned with physically rather than mentally disabled people. That is totally wrong and morally indefensible. We are seeking to provide for both. This afternoon we are providing the Minister with a glorious opportunity to put that right. I am confident that he will grasp it.
Lord Swinfen: I support the ideas behind the amendment. However, I am sure that when my noble friend answers the debate, he will say that everything can be covered by paragraph 4(2) in Schedule 1. It is very important that this amendment should be considered seriously by the Minister. I am not sure whether the list given in the amendment is the best list or the right list but serious consideration should be given by the Government to the points that have been raised already before the matter comes before us again on Report. I support the tenor of the amendment.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I have been listening to all the Committee's deliberations with much thankfulness that the able-bodied Members of the House of Lords have taken the time, trouble and thought to bring the Bill before the Chamber and to discuss it so fully.
I do not believe that I have to declare an interest because it is rather obvious. Therefore, I shall not formally declare an interest. But I am particularly interested in the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for what he said about the Hansard people vacating the two places here. That is very welcome to us all. Many times I have sat on the Steps of the Throne unable to utter a single word in this Chamber, and that has gone on for many years.
However, when I read Amendment No. 7, I wonder who is normal. I am worried that I shall go away thinking whether I should be included in the list. If one is, what does one do about that? I believe that the original list is quite long enough. If one goes into the problems of sleeping, stability of mood and so on, that is almost putting it into the category of a laughing stock and I do not want that message to go out from this Chamber. Therefore, I am in favour of the original list.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: First, I am pleased to see my noble friend Lady Macleod in what we Scots would call the body of the kirk rather than sitting on the Steps of the Throne. Whether or not that view will prevail for very long when some of her colleagues come and sit there remains to be seen. I may well be campaigning to get the Hansard writers back there so that my noble friend and her friends must watch from the Steps of the Throne. But I am sure that that will not be the case.
I appreciate the points behind the amendment and we have had an interesting debate about it. I fear that my noble friend Lord Swinfen has listened to me rather too often because he predicts that I shall say that it is not necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, too says that he has listened to me too often.
I suggest that the amendment is not necessary and that the points are covered and covered clearly in paragraph 4(1). Perhaps I may recap on what the list of normal day-to-day activities in Schedule 1 is for and the basis on which it was drawn up.
As the Committee well knows, disability is defined in the Bill as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term effect on normal day-to-day activities. The list, which is exhaustive, sets out the categories of activity which are to be treated as normal day-to-day activities for the purpose of the definition. The list is exhaustive because in our view it is important to make that key element of the legislation as clear and certain as possible. We wish to keep to a minimum the amount of time that courts and tribunals have to spend deciding whether an activity is or is not a normal day-to-day activity.
The list in the Bill is based on fairly broad categories of activity. That avoids the need for too much detail and also reduces the risk of omitting inadvertently a particular activity relating to a less common disability. Perhaps I should point out to the Committee that the Bill provides the power to add to that list if necessary. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was asking
1672
me about that. It is refreshing to be asked by a Member on the Liberal Democrat Benches to make sure that I have sufficient powers to make regulations. Normally the argument is the other way round, so that was a refreshing change.
Although we have that power, we do not wish to use it more than we have to. Obviously, repeated use would not be helpful to the clarity and certainty which, as I have already mentioned, is so important to the effective working of the Bill.
The categories in the Bill have been tested carefully against the effects of a wide range of conditions which we should expect to cover. I am confident that it will achieve that coverage.
Perhaps I may now turn to the amendment itself and the little list which the noble Lord wishes to add to my little list. There are a number of elements in it which all relate to mobility which is the first matter dealt with on my list. Paragraph 4(1) (a) refers specifically to mobility. In our view, that would be subsumed within the term and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has clearly supported that position.
The ability to stand, to sit, to rise from sitting, to breath, to move confidently outside the home and to cope with unfamiliar environments as listed in the amendment are all essential to normal mobility. "Mobility" is the first item in my list in Schedule 1 and it is a broad category of activity which, I believe, includes all the matters in the noble Lord's list. The ability to reach is also referred to in the amendment. That is clearly related to "physical co-ordination" and to the,
"ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects",
both of which are actually listed in the Bill. The ability to remain conscious, which also appears in the amendment, will affect all normal day-to-day activities—even including attending this place—while the ability to breath will affect "mobility", "ability to lift" and "speech", as set out in the schedule.
The amendment also includes the,
"ability to communicate with other people".
Turning to the categories already in the Bill, that is covered in large part by "speech, hearing or eyesight". However, it also introduces the concept of language as a barrier which may be an important factor in some cases. But I believe that that would be irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill. I recognise that some people will have difficulty in communicating because of severe learning disabilities, but they are covered by the phrase,
"memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand",
which is contained in the Bill.
"Stability of mood" is also suggested by the noble Lord in his amendment. I believe that that is a very difficult concept; indeed, we have already discussed it once or twice this afternoon. I believe that the normal boundaries would be almost impossible to set. Where someone has a clinically diagnosed depression, that will affect memory, ability to learn, concentrate or understand. The Bill, rightly, does not encompass the concepts of unhappiness, lack of self-confidence or lack of self-worth as disabilities in their own right.

1673
Finally, there is the suggestion in the amendment of the ability to sleep and the,
"ability to care for oneself".
The first category is very difficult to define because there are people who sleep very little but who perform all their day-to-day activities prodigiously well. Each of us seems to have quite different sleep needs. If someone has severe insomnia in connection with another condition—such as, for example, manic depression—and is unable to concentrate as a result, that will clearly have an effect on his normal day-to-day activities. The difficulty with the phrase,
"ability to care for oneself",
is that it does not explain the nature of the problem. People who need help in caring for themselves do so because of a physical or mental disability which effects areas of activity already within the list; for example, mobility, co-ordination, or the ability to concentrate, learn or understand, or, indeed, continence. Therefore, I believe that that is covered in the schedule.
I hope that I have been able to give the desired reassurances. Although it is not included in his list, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned the question of cerebral palsy, as regards hand movements and the like. That would be covered by "physical co-ordination" in subparagraph (c) of the schedule.
I understand why the noble Lord tabled the amendment. Indeed, I thank him for doing so because it has given me the opportunity actually to show what we mean by the list that we have provided. I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord and other Members of the Committee who took part in the debate that the list of "normal day-to-day activities" in Schedule 1 is sufficiently comprehensive and is appropriate to the purposes of the Bill. If we were to accept the noble Lord's amendment, there would, perhaps, be some danger of an overlap. However, I am sure that the noble Lord tabled it as a probing exercise. I trust he finds that his probe has been successful and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carter: I am most grateful to the Minister. Indeed, he is exactly right; the intention of tabling such an amendment was to get on record the way that the Government are interpreting the list contained in the Bill. Obviously, I shall have to read the Minister's remarks with some care and take advice. However, it seems to me that all the categories of activity that we listed are—it is to be hoped—caught by the definitions in the Bill.
In fact, I was also going to rely, for once, on regulations in respect of paragraph 4(2) (a) of Schedule 1, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It is now clear that we can add to the list if we need to do so through regulations. Therefore, unusually from the Opposition Benches, we welcome the fact that we can make regulations to deal with a problem. As I said, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his most helpful reply. I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 29, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations may prescribe that the effects of any medication or treatment, or the impact of pain, fatigue or stress on the performance of any of the activities in paragraph 4(1), shall be taken to affect the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities.").
The noble Lord said: I shall move the above amendment, but, on reflection, I realise that it might have been better if we had grouped it with the previous amendment. I say that because, if we are not careful, we shall merely cover the same ground. The amendment seeks to ensure that the side-effects of medication—such as "pain, fatigue or stress", and so on—are taken into account when determining whether an individual qualifies as disabled.
The amendment would ensure that many disabled people who would otherwise be denied the benefits of the Bill would be included in the definition. It seeks to address the often adverse effects—such as "pain, fatigue or stress"—that medication can have on a person's condition. Those factors often amplify or heighten the effects of disability and can combine to debilitate the individual more than his main condition. For example, pain often causes fatigue, or medication to combat severe pain can be accompanied by unpleasantly debilitating side-effects such as nausea and dizziness. There are also the kinds of drugs which are commonly prescribed for serious mental illness, which can have serious and lasting side-effects.
The effects of medication or treatment can have a substantial and adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out,
"normal day-to-day activities",
as stated in the Bill. For that reason, the amendment proposes:
"Regulations may prescribe that the effects of any medication or treatment… shall be taken to affect the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
I am not sure that the drafting of the amendment is absolutely perfect, but I am sure that the Minister will get the drift of the argument. I shall be brief because, as I said, we shall merely be covering the same ground if we are not careful. However, it would be most helpful if the Minister could just explain how the Government envisage such a problem being dealt with under the definition in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has set out his reasons for introducing the amendment. I believe that the points he made deserve careful consideration. The adverse effects of a condition on ability to carry out normal day-to-day activity are the basis of our approach to defining disability in the Bill. It is important that we cover all the adverse effects which may reasonably be said to result from such a condition.
I can, I hope, convince the noble Lord that a substantial part of the range of factors in his amendment is already covered in the Bill. If a condition produces its adverse effects on ability to carry out day-to-day activities through the pain, fatigue or stress which it causes to the person who has it, then those effects—if

1675
they are substantial and long-term—will be capable of bringing that condition within the definition of a disability. If a condition causes pain, fatigue or stress, those factors are just as much part of that condition as would be, say, stiffness in a limb, or difficulty in controlling a particular set of muscles.
I believe that that deals with the first part of the noble Lord's amendment. The other part concerns the effect of "any medication or treatment". I accept that there is some doubt as to whether that is covered, but it seems unlikely that there will be more than a very few situations in which a person has a condition which does not itself have long-term and substantial effects on his ability to carry out his day-to-day activities. The amendment implies that the condition itself does not fall within the disabilities at which we are looking; it is the medication or treatment which has that effect. I am pretty uncertain as to whether you can actually have the latter without the former.
In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will accept my explanation on pain, fatigue and stress. I must say that I am unsure as to whether one would get results from medication which might potentially bring someone within the scope of the Bill if the condition being treated did not already bring that person within its scope. It is an important issue to which, clearly, we have given some thought, but I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by what I said at least regarding the first part of his amendment.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. He said that this was an important point. We shall have to reflect on the interesting point that he made. I cannot quickly think of an example of medication where the underlying condition would not be caught under the definition. I am sure that our advisers outside the Chamber would be able to produce a list of at least 20, but I cannot think of any at the moment. I am grateful to the Minister for his good explanation of the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 29, line 13, at end insert:
("Substantial adverse effects
. Regulations may make provision for the purposes of this Act—

(a) for an effect of a prescribed kind on the ability of a person to carry out normal day-to-day activities to be treated as a substantial adverse effect;

(b) for an effect of a prescribed kind on the ability of a person to carry out normal day-to-day activities to be treated as not being a substantial adverse effect.").

The noble Lord said: The Committee will be aware that it is our intention to have a definition of disability that is based on a common sense understanding of the term—I believe that I have said that on a number of occasions this afternoon—that is, a person who has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. In other words, the impairment has to be such that it has effects which are of some substance, not merely minor. The effects have
1676
to be long term, not temporary. And the effects have to be on the sort of activities that any of us might wish to undertake, not on specialist activities perhaps unique to one person in one situation.
We think that employers, service providers and disabled people will usually know who the Bill is meant to cover, as will courts and tribunals. This is particularly so given that Schedule 1 contains provisions supplementing the definition and Clause 2 allows guidance to be issued which will give examples of what constitutes substantial and long-term adverse effects. The word "substantial" is the best word to use in describing the degree of effect we have in mind; it is also used in other legislation such as the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. However, it is not a term that courts have always, found easy to pin down. What would happen if, faced with a difficult set of circumstances, a court or tribunal came to a mistaken decision on what a substantial adverse effect really was? The decision might well go against a person who would otherwise be covered by the Bill, or it might declare something to be a disability that we never intended to be regarded as such. Without a regulation-making power we would have no means of clarifying the proper way to deal with that type of case for the benefit of future disabled people, employers and others. This seems to me to be an important gap in our powers and the purpose of this amendment is to correct it.
I know that the Committee regards the question of delegated powers as important. The Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers reported on the Government's memorandum on the delegated powers in the Bill on 17th May. In the memorandum, we had pointed out that the Bill set out clear and sometimes innovative principles together with a number of regulation-making powers to enable more detailed provisions to be introduced later, if necessary, in line with those principles. We pointed out that experience of the operation of the Bill might be such that some of the powers would never need to be used. But, where they were used, we said that they would be subject to consultation with disability organisations, employers' organisations and other appropriate bodies. I am pleased to note the committee was satisfied that, although the powers are numerous, the framework within which they are being made is sufficiently clear and fully set out in the Bill to avoid the charge that this is a "skeleton" Bill. It saw no need to draw any of the delegated powers in the Bill to the attention of the Chamber.
This amendment would, as I have said, add a further delegated power to the Bill. But it is a power of the same type as other powers on which the committee commented and is for a similar purpose. It does not detract at all from the solid framework which we have established for the Bill and, if used, would be subject to the same degree of consultation as other delegated powers. The power is clearly necessary if we are to ensure that we can operate this Bill with confidence, and without the need, in this respect, to rely on further primary legislation should the courts or tribunals encounter difficulty in applying these principles. I hope that I have not gone on for too long in explaining what

1677
this amendment seeks to achieve and in explaining why we believe that the power is an appropriate one. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 30, line 5, after ("cancer") insert ("HIV infection,").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 10 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. This group of amendments is concerned with the scope of the Bill as it affects progressive conditions such as multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy which are already referred to in paragraph 7(1) to Schedule 1; and HIV and cystic fibrosis, which are not.
I shall begin by explaining briefly the effect of the amendments. Amendment No. 10 simply adds HIV infection to the short list of progressive conditions which the Bill explicitly indicates as giving rise to disability in the terms of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 are slightly more radical. They change the sense of the Bill to provide that protection will be given to a person with a progressive condition on diagnosis if that condition is expected to give rise to a substantial and long-term effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
We have debated that aspect to a considerable extent this afternoon and therefore I do not intend to speak in great detail on Amendments Nos. 11 or 12 because from what the Minister said earlier this afternoon it is quite clear that he considers it essential that there should be a symptomatic HIV condition rather than one which has been diagnosed but which has no symptoms at that stage. I would like the Minister to consider Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Amendment No. 11 seeks to delete Clause 7(1) (b) which states,
"as a result of that condition, he has an impairment which has (or had) an effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
In view of all that was said earlier this afternoon I cannot believe for one moment that the Minister will find that acceptable.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to alter Clause 7(1) (c) to make it state,
"he shall be taken to have an impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
I claim that from the moment of diagnosis HIV has an effect that will be long term. I believe it is not disputed that HIV is a progressive condition. The length of time that it takes for the condition to progress from HIV to AIDS varies in individual cases, but there is a progression and medical opinion states that although one or two cases in the world have not been progressive no one has yet established that the condition is not progressive. The experience in this country is that the condition is progressive.
I remind the Committee that the Bill already makes adequate provision—which I am pleased about—for circumstances where less favourable treatment of the disabled is justified. It is clear in the Bill that no one should have to employ a disabled person to do a job
1678
which, because of his disability, he cannot do. The Bill also has to draw a line beyond which it is unlawful for someone to discriminate on the basis of the likely prognosis of a person's future condition. The point of the Bill is to ensure that the disabled can continue to be useful members of society in all the many ways that they can, for as long as they can.
I would say to my noble friend that I understand why the Bill has this common-sense definition of disability which lies at its heart, and which I support. However, I would suggest that in this particular instance there is a common-sense solution and that my suggestion is one such solution. It replaces uncertainty with certainty. Instead of arguing about whether someone with a progressive condition has an impairment which will develop into a substantial impairment—which is rather a subjective judgment—it allows for diagnosis to be sufficient. I believe that would create a situation where disabled people would feel protected. They want clear statements and in that context I should tell the Committee that I have received support for these amendments from the Multiple Sclerosis Society and the cystic fibrosis society.
The case for protecting those with HIV infection in this way is even stronger; hence the need for Amendment No. 10. I believe that Amendment No. 10 is simple and straightforward and should be accepted by the Minister.
Those with HIV, even though they are perfectly healthy, fall under the shadow of the irrational yet understandable public fear of AIDS. If they cannot work they will become a public liability in the sense that the social security system will have to support them. That point should not be taken lightly. Since HIV and AIDS seem to be linked to stress and worry, it is likely that sufferers will become ill earlier than they might otherwise have done. It has to be appraciated that death often occurs due to HIV-related diseases long before AIDS develops. I also believe that there will be an advantage in terms of the Bill as a whole if the words "HIV infection" are included as an example of a progressive condition.
I need hardly stress that HIV is probably at present the medical condition which gives rise to the most obvious prejudice. If the Bill explicitly states that those with HIV-related disability are protected, it will be clear that the Bill covers all disabled people. It would also be significant for all the organisations working in this field to know that the Government recognise HIV as a special case.
I noted the undertaking given by my noble friend at Second Reading that those with symptomatic HIV are covered. On that point he and I are one, and I am grateful to him. I want to help those disabled in this way to feel protected. We agree on policy. Let us make it more explicit on the face of the Bill by adding the words "HIV infection" to the examples of a progressive condition. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: I wish to support the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, particularly in her Amendment No. 10, which is the one on which she concentrated.

1679
As I understand the Bill, it is intended to prevent discrimination at work. People with HIV are undoubtedly discriminated against, despite the excellent guidelines for employers issued by the Department of Employment. As the noble Baroness stated, such people are undoubtedly suffering from a progressive condition. I have a letter which I received today from Professor Anthony Pinching who is Professor of Immunology at the Medical College at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, stating categorically:
"Once HIV disease supervenes, progression has already started and will progress further, for practical purposes in all cases. Current therapies may slow this slightly but will not reverse it nor will they prevent progression indefinitely … HIV disease would be more analogous to fully developed cancer, although obviously some cancers/leukaemias are now curable, which HIV disease is not".
As we know, most sufferers are young, often in their 'twenties. Owing to the long-term nature of the progression of the disease, they are able to work for long periods. As the noble Baroness said, if they are discriminated against they become a burden on the state. Therefore, adding HIV as she suggests is a cost-free exercise, unlike most in the social security and disability field.
At present I am slightly confused by the Government's position. However, I have no doubt that the Minister, with his customary lucidity, will clarify everything when he comes to reply to the debate. In Committee in another place his honourable friend Mr. Hague said:
"We have drafted schedule 1.7 so as to avoid difficulties that might arise should courts or tribunals find it difficult to define the point at which someone with a condition such as multiple sclerosis becomes disabled."
He also said:
"I believe that our definition—although it may need to be clarified in regulations in due course—would cover, for instance, people with AIDS and symptomatic HIV, but would not cover people without symptoms of HIV".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 7/2/95; col. 85.]
We are all agreed on that. However, it is not certain to my mind that the Bill as drafted covers symptomatic HIV without any further mention on the face of the Bill.
If paragraph 7(1) (a) of Schedule 1 is intended to be indicative—which I believe is the term of art for such lists—it is strongly indicative in the main of genetic conditions, with the possible exception of viral cancers, and not of other progressive viral conditions such as HIV. Therefore, it could well be construed against HIV as drafted.
Later, in paragraph 7(2) of the same schedule, we read:
"Regulations may make provision … for conditions of a prescribed description to be treated as being progressive".
No indication is given as to who is to make that prescription or on what criteria.
Turning to what the Minister said at Second Reading, which has been quoted by the noble Baroness, he said:
"we have also ensured that people with progressive conditions are covered from the point at which they develop effects on day-to-day activities, however slight, and that people are covered who have impairments where the effects fluctuate or recur".—[Official Report, 22/5/95; col. 801.]
We were very glad to hear that from him at Second Reading. I am sorry that I was not able to be present, but I read that with some relief. However, I do not see it reflected on the face of the Bill.
1680
Putting HIV on the face of the Bill is simply to put beyond legislative doubt that HIV is a progressive condition, as certified by Professor Pinching, but will not trigger any application under the Bill until such time as a disability is recognised under regulations against criteria which the Government have full power to dictate after taking the appropriate advice. I find it very hard to understand any objection to that. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he will accept the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Lord Monson: I totally lack the medical expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. However, can we be absolutely certain that acceptance of Amendment No. 10 could not jeopardise the health and well-being of other employees in the long term?
When AIDS first hit the headlines the Government, in an attempt to avoid panic, fell over themselves to try to convince the public that AIDS could only be transmitted by sexual contact or infected needles. However, latterly there have been one or two cases which cast doubt upon that and there are indications that it can also be transmitted in other ways. The medical profession constantly change their minds, often in a dramatic fashion. A prime example is asbestos. Some 25 years ago asbestos was considered to be God's gift to mankind. One could hardly find a doctor in the entire country to criticise the stuff. Now we know very differently. Therefore, one has to be careful and ensure that one does not rush into something precipitately at the possible expense of the health of other employees.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I wish to support this group of amendments and particularly to reinforce the arguments made by the noble Baroness in introducing them and by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about the need to reinforce the position of HIV and AIDS on the face of the Bill.
Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness made points about the unique position of people with HIV infection and AIDS in terms of the specific discrimination which has been shown to them because of their condition. It is also worth reminding the Committee that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said at Second Reading, people with symptomatic HIV with AIDS can still make a significant contribution. Although, as we have heard, there is considerable confusion about the nature of the precise definitions of HIV and AIDS which arises all the time as more is known about the condition, we are certainly sufficiently into the world epidemic to know that people can be HIV positive and infected with the virus and still appear to be well and be capable of working for at least a decade after their infection can be diagnosed.
Despite the pessimism of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, about the Government's response to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12,I still believe that it is worth discussing those amendments in terms of the specific condition of HIV and AIDS, as well as the other conditions which she mentioned such as multiple sclerosis and cystic fibrosis.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 suggest that the good practice which many employers in this country already exhibit should be enshrined in statute. I believe that that good practice has only occurred because there have been

1681
some notorious cases of bad practice. That factor has been recognised in particular by the voluntary organisations working in this field and in the work that they have done with a number of important and influential employers in this country.
Perhaps I may take a few moments of the Committee's time to describe one initiative. It was developed when I was director of the National AIDS Trust. It was specifically related to the issue of the employment of people with non-symptomatic HIV illness—people whose diagnosis was known to them and to their medical advisers, but might not have been known to their employers or anyone else involved with them. The scheme was devised precisely to make more open the discussion of HIV infection and the recognition that it could be a condition which, although with obvious long-term serious implications, did not necessarily impair someone's ability to work at the time of diagnosis or indeed for perhaps a decade after, as I have described.
The National AIDS Trust, with the support of the Department of Employment—the honorary chairman of the initiative was and remains the right honourable Sir Norman Fowler—put together a group of substantial plcs, among them, for example, GEC, IBM, J. Sainsbury, National Westminster Bank, Marks and Spencer, Glaxo Holdings, and so on, with the idea that they would sign an explicit employment protocol which demonstrated their intention not to allow an HIV diagnosis to become any form of impairment to employment. The constituents of an equitable HIV/AIDS employment policy to which they all signed as members of the initiative states explicitly that,
"The policy must address both HIV and AIDS separately, and the company's response to each should acknowledge that they are separate and different conditions".
It also provided that,
"The policy should state clearly that AIDS will be treated in the same manner as any other progressive or debilitating illness".
The fact that many companies of large, substantial and influential nature in our industrial world felt it important to provide that policy indicates the need to reinforce good practice in this field. Good practice exists. However, if we were to give the provision statutory force it is more likely that such good practice would spread.
Perhaps I may underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. Many of the people included in the category of those with HIV, compared with many other disabling conditions, are of relatively young age. They should have a lot of working life and creativity before them. Discrimination towards them is particularly wasteful and costly to the taxpayer, especially if people who are simply identified as being HIV positive are thrown on the dole. I support the amendment.
Lord Addington: The noble Baroness is absolutely right in her approach. The disease is not only of long term incubation, but also a killer of the young, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, said. This provision should be on the face of the Bill. It is a growing problem and one which will become worse.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I hope that this legislation will educate people about the needs and problems of people with disabilities. Having an infectious virus within one's system must be a disability. One of the greatest problems for people with HIV must surely be the attitudes of some who fear infectious conditions. Will it not help to educate the public if reference to HTV is included in the Bill?
Baroness O'Cathain: I am very sympathetic to the amendment. However, I have a slight concern which I would have raised with regard to one of my subsequent amendments.
The Bill could be in force for 20, 30 or 40 years. Twenty, 30 or 40 years ago none of us had heard of HIV. If we include this provision on the face of the Bill, are we in danger of limiting the discrimination legislation to a disease about which we know now but not one which might crop up? We could have another type of disease— I hope and pray not. A few weeks ago we had a scare about the Ebola virus in Africa.
My concern is about putting on the face of the Bill a provision which restricts the legislation. I prefer to see some reference on the face of the Bill to any other disease of a nature which could cause discrimination. I recognise that there has been discrimination about HIV. I know that good employers have made every effort to stop it. However, in the workplace there has been discrimination between junior employees; it does not necessarily take place at the top of organisations. However, I am not sure that it is right to tackle the issue in this Bill. I state that as a word of warning.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: The point is surely not that putting this provision on the face of the Bill limits the Bill, but that if, for example, in years to come, with luck and with hope, medical science deals with the issues of AIDS, or cancer (which is also on the face of the Bill), the provision might well fall into desuetude. That does not preclude the provision being on the face of the Bill now when we confront a real issue.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Is it not possible to amend Acts of Parliament and to add in issues as they arise? I am sure that the Minister will tell us that.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that if the Government are given regulation-making powers, it is comparatively easy to change these matters in the future when the need arises and the House agrees.
However, with regard to the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, Schedule 1 paragraph 7 deals with the question of people with progressive conditions. We recognise that there is a need to protect people where the effect of the condition is not yet substantial but is expected to be so in the future. That is why the Bill specifically includes people with progressive conditions as soon as there are any effects on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. However, we do not believe that it would be right to include people with conditions which may remain latent, possibly for a considerable number of years.

1683
Members of the Committee have argued that people with HIV infection are discriminated against. That is not the issue here. The Disability Discrimination Bill is designed to protect people who have, or, as a result of accepting my earlier amendment, have had, an actual disability. It is not a general anti-discrimination Bill nor a general health discrimination Bill. If we extend it to cover people who may develop a disability at some unspecified time in the future we will undermine the effectiveness of the Bill by creating uncertainty about who is covered. I am advised that as medical knowledge advances it may be possible to arrest the development of HIV infection so that it does not progress beyond the asymptomatic stage in a normal human lifetime.
I suspect also that if one reads the press reports of 10 or 15 years ago, it will be seen that perhaps the asymptomatic stage was prophesied to be a great deal shorter than it has turned out to be. At present the asymptomatic stage usually lasts—I say "usually" because we are dealing with issues which vary from person to person—10 to 15 years during which time people, although infectious, feel perfectly well and are able to work and, quite rightly, as a number of noble Lords have said, should work. The amendments categorise as disabled people anyone who was found to have a progressive condition at whatever point that condition is identified. We cannot accept that people whose condition has no effect whatsoever should be counted as disabled or covered by the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Perhaps I may raise this point with the Minister. Surely having a killer virus within one's system must cause a serious psychological disability. I cannot believe that it does not.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is quite a difficult question to answer; it depends on how the person reacts. I cannot believe that it is pleasant to find that one has the disease, but I do not feel that it comes within what we all intend the Bill to do—that is, to help people who are clearly disabled. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness.
My noble friend wishes to ensure that HIV is counted as a progressive condition by including it in the list of examples. There are only three: cancer, multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy. I do not wish to extend the list because inevitably it will mean that many other groups may want conditions listed. There will be a risk of the list being seen as all-inclusive instead of exemplary. However, I agree that current medical opinion recognises HIV as a progressive condition and that, like people with other progressive conditions—not only the three mentioned in the Bill—people with HIV will therefore be covered by the Bill once the condition begins to have an effect—not necessarily amounting to a substantial adverse effect—on their day-to-day activities. I can assure my noble friend that if, nevertheless, it develops over time that courts or tribunals do not follow current medical opinion, then we will be able to make the matter absolutely clear in regulations. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The regulation power is there if the worst comes to the worst.
I hope that my explanation of how we view HIV under the Bill will reassure not only my noble friend but other Members of the Committee. To sum up, when a person
1684
moves from the asymptomatic to the symptomatic stage, he will come within the compass of the Bill. However, like other diseases which I suspect we will find we can diagnose long before they become apparent, we ought to keep the dividing line at where the disease moves from its asymptomatic to its symptomatic stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate and I wish to reply to some of the points raised. What has not been mentioned is that whole families are affected by HIV. In those cases, it is usually because of blood products. We have a number of such cases under treatment in the hospital with which I am involved.
I did not press Amendment No. 11 because I realised that the Minister could not accept it—it would bring in the asymptomatic conditions. However, I believe that he is wrong in not including HIV as an example in the list. Only three conditions are listed, and no Member of the Committee has brought forward any other condition that he wishes to have listed. There has been support from all parts of the Chamber today for HTV to be included.
Earlier I said to the Minister that it was a probing amendment and therefore it would not be fair to divide the Committee on it. I do not intend to do so, although people are encouraging me to do so. I hope that before the next stage I shall be able to persuade the Minister that it is right to include it. I am glad that he agreed that it is a progressive condition. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for reading out the professor's comment on the subject.
The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was interesting and important. It brought out the lack of understanding that people have and their genuine anxiety about how contagious or infectious HIV is in normal day-to-day life. His attitude is the usual one for people to have. I am sure that the Committee will remember the occasion when the Princess of Wales kissed the person with HIV in order to show that she had no anxiety about infection through the normal course of events. That was a significant breakthrough in public attitudes towards the disease.
As a dentist, I found it interesting that a patient whom I might have had for years would say: "I am HIV-positive. Can you treat me?" It would not have mattered what the dentist said, it was the other patients who were terrified of it, it was the public reaction. At the time I was in practice, there was an HIV-infected dentist who took all such cases himself and treated them at the time when the UCL dental hospital was open. But it was a surprise to me to see that people treated a diagnosis of HIV-positive as being a full-blown AIDS case which required full nursing. People have become alarmed by what is in the newspapers. It is a terrible condition, but this year the Association of British Insurers confirmed that the increase in cases is far below what was anticipated. That has been due to good health education.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned the danger of limiting examples and that other conditions might arise in a few years' time. They might, but we cannot possibly write into the Bill conditions which do not exist today. With the Ebola virus, and the suspected case recently in this country nursed at my hospital, there was

1685
tremendous alarm—much greater than with AIDS or HIV. No one was allowed to approach the patients; nurses had to work through large plastic hands and gloves. It was terrifying for the public. Fortunately, it was not a case of the Ebola virus, merely a suspected case that proved to be unfounded. However, people should realise that HIV is not in the same category. There have been instances of needle stick injuries where a blood-infected syringe has pierced someone's skin while working on a case. Such examples have proved that one can transmit the virus in that way. But on the whole, one cannot transmit it by ordinary day-to-day contact, giving meals and caring for people. Another fact that is not realised is that there are false positives and false negatives which cause people great anxiety.
I shall not speak any longer about AIDS, but the HIV infection is at present a unique condition. The point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that we hope cancer will be cured. Who knows? Cancer may be cured sooner than HIV. These are important and significant issues and to add the words "HIV infection" under the progressive conditions would not be asking too much of the Minister. I know that Members would like me to divide the Committee. I shall not do so, but I intend to harry the Minister between now and the next stage of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 13:
After Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule:

Disability Discrimination Bill
  SCHEDULE 1A

    PAST DISABILITIES
    1. The modifications referred to in section (Past disabilities) are as follows.
    2. References in Parts II and III to a disabled person are to be read as references to a person who has had a disability.
    3. In section 4(1) (a) and (2) (a), for "do not have" substitute, in each case, "have not had".
    4. In section 5(1) and (5), for "do not have" substitute "have not had".
    5. In section 6(1), after "not disabled" insert "and who have not had a disability".
    6. In section 6(5), for "has" substitute "has had".
    7. In section 18, for "do not have" substitute "have not had".
    8. In section 19(1) and (3), for "do not have" substitute "have not had".
    9. For paragraph 2(1) to (3) of Schedule 1, substitute—

    "(1) The effect of an impairment is a long-term effect if it has lasted for at least 12 months.

    (2) Where an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect recurs.

    (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), the recurrence of an effect shall be disregarded in prescribed circumstances."").

    The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2 [Guidance]:
    Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 14:
    Page 1, line 12, after ("may") insert ("by order").
    The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 14 are grouped Amendments Nos. 17, 19, 20 and 142. We have now come to Clause 2 which raises a matter of constitutional importance; namely, whether laws should be made by or with the consent of Parliament or whether they should be made by Ministers under the guise of giving guidance; and whether Ministers can therefore, under that guise, decide what the law should be and merely inform Parliament by laying a copy of such guidance before each House, as required by Clause 2(5).
    We are not told what kind of guidance will be given: whether it will contain matters of principle or of relatively minor detail, we just do not know. But, as it stands, I suggest that the whole of Clause 2 is fundamentally flawed. May I say in passing that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who cannot be here today, for alerting us to the implications of Clause 2. He raised the matter briefly at Second Reading at col. 891 of Hansard when my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish was winding up. There is a small misprint there, because there is a reference to Clause 4 whereas it should be to Clause 2.
    One would have been justified, I suggest, in moving that this Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill and that it should be replaced by a clause containing the guidance intended to be given by the Secretary of State. In that way it could have been turned into primary legislation and so be directly enacted by Parliament. But in what I hope your Lordships will regard as a spirit of constructive and helpful compromise, the amendments I have tabled—with the support, I am glad to say, of the noble Lord, Lord Addington—will still enable the Secretary of State to give guidance, but that guidance would have to be contained in an order approved by both Houses of Parliament under Clause 37(4), to which Amendment No. 142 refers. That would make it subject to affirmative resolution of each House.
    If any noble Lord wishes me to explain the drafting effect of any of these simple amendments I shall of course be glad to do so. I should mention that our Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has considered this Bill, including Clause 2; but as the guidance to be given under that clause is not legislation our scrutiny committee could not comment on it or advise us about it, except to say, as the legal adviser to that committee did say in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I quote the exact words:
    "It does not lessen the importance of the question"—
    referring to the fact that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee had no power to comment on it.
    It is indeed an important question. Its importance, I suggest, is highlighted by Clause 2(3) on page 2. For the sake of the record and for the benefit of your Lordships, I think I should read it out. It says:
    "(3) A tribunal or court determining, for any purpose of this Act, whether an impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, shall take into account any guidance issued under this section which appears to it to be relevant."
    Surely any guidance so given could have a crucial effect in deciding most of the cases brought before a tribunal or court by any disabled person. That is the

    1687
    position. It is not enough for the Government to say, as is said in Clause 2 (4) and (5), that the Secretary of State has got to consult appropriate persons and lay a copy of any guidance issued before Parliament. That is not good enough. I trust therefore that the Government will gracefully accept these moderate amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
    6 p.m.
    Lord Campbell of Croy: My noble friend has raised an important point. It was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, not just at the end of our debate on Second Reading; he mentioned it generally in his speech at the opening of the debate. He raised the point: what would be in the guidance? Here was guidance which might contain important matters, but there was not an opportunity for Parliament to debate it.
    I am a member of the Select Committee on delegated powers, and our report on this Bill happened to be published at midday on that day, so it was technically available but of course those who were taking part in the debate did not actually have it in their hands. As my noble friend has said, we looked through the Bill. Of course I am speaking for myself in your Lordships' Committee, but I think that I am the only Member of the Committee who is here, so for the information of your Lordships I can say what we did. However, I speak with my own views on the Bill. We did, as my noble friend said, consider all the points in the Bill where it was proposed that delegated legislation would be used after the Bill had been enacted. We did not consider that guidance fell into that category.
    In the Bill the guidance has to be laid before Parliament, but there are no arrangements for it to be discussed, far less to be amended or thrown out. So the real question is: what would that guidance contain, and would it be important? I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us that at the end of this debate. Except for powers of altering or adding to the functions of the National Disability Council, which require the affirmative procedure, the delegated legislation elsewhere is proposed to be governed by negative procedure, if there is procedure at all. So I think we need to hear how significant the guidance is likely to be.
    I must tell your Lordships that organisations representing disabled people and employers and businesses have made it clear that they are opposed to too much going into this primary legislation which would make sweeping judgments on subjects which they think are to be worked out in detail in consultation after the Bill has been enacted. I understand that feeling arising on a Bill where a great deal needs to be sorted out afterwards with the people who are going to be mostly concerned. I have received this information from both the disabled organisations and from the employers. The guidance of course should play a major part in that process—guidance from the Government—and they are seeking that guidance. When we come to later parts of the Bill I am sure that some of your Lordships will be saying that certainly employers are seeking guidance and I think that guidance will be sought on other parts of the Bill as well as in connection with employment. There is general agreement that a lot should be left to be dealt with in subordinate legislation after the Bill is enacted. The
    1688
    question is, how much of that needs to come before Parliament as regulations in orders of affirmative or negative procedure, and whether something which is called "guidance" should come into that category too.
    This is very definitely not a skeleton Bill. During the past two or three years we have had some Bills which have been described as "skeletons" because there was not very much in the primary legislation and pretty well all the decisions needed were to be taken by means of secondary legislation. This is not one of those Bills; but I think that there is a constitutional matter here, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, because at some time in the future we could have a short Bill with very few clauses which did not say very much, and where everything else would be done by guidance. So there is a point there. We need to know what "guidance" means and how it will be used in legislation, both in this Bill and in future. What is the status of the guidance in this Bill, and should it be made debatable by Parliament? That is the issue that we must now address.
    Lord Addington: Clause 2 is effectively the most important clause in the Bill, in that it states that guidance will be given. Without the guidance, we do not have advice for courts and tribunals. Without such advice, we do not effectively have anything to provide support and enforcement powers and to make sure that people with disabilities do not suffer discrimination. That is the nub of the matter.
    If that sort of power, namely, to make the Bill effective, is taken away from Parliament, we are losing control of this Bill. There are no two ways about it. There is a very important constitutional point here.
    On purely practical grounds, I have often seen this House and another place prove themselves very much more open to ideas from many more outside bodies, approaching matters from many more angles than the Government, or indeed any government, can ever expect to do. All governments have their own process of drawing in information. I strongly suspect that that would be the case no matter who sat on the Government Benches. If we are trying to draw in the best information, we must have it debated in the best forum. This Chamber has proved itself on numerous occasions to be the best forum for drawing in all the various groups, and that is especially true in relation to disabilities. The current code of practice in the educational world is probably one the best examples. It was a long and rather drawn-out process, but the end product was very good. If the Government carry on with this legislation as currently structured, they will deny themselves that input. If the Government cannot accept these amendments, they must have a very, very good reason for not doing so. First, they would be denying Parliament its right to make the meat of a Bill work. Secondly, they would be denying the most important input and the most effective method, as has been shown, of trying to get this type of regulation right. I look forward to a positive answer from the Government. As the Minister will see, normal service on these Benches has been resumed over regulating powers.
    Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise to make a very brief point and to ask a question. On the matter of regulations and guidance, if we take as an example the

    1689
    green belt legislation, which is now quite elderly, over a period of time guidance has changed quite remarkably. Sometimes, from the point of view of those who want to protect the green belt, it changed for the better, and sometimes, I must say, for the worse. Sometimes the worse interpretation has been changed back to a better interpretation at a later stage.
    I wonder whether or not that sort of changeability might not conflict at some point with another process which I suppose will take place; namely, the process of precedents in the courts as cases are settled. "Undemocratic" is not quite the word that I wanted to use, but it will do. How do the Government see this process of rather undemocratic guidance interacting with the process of the courts taking decisions over time? We could end up with some rather difficult situations.
    Earl Russell: I, too, support these amendments. We are in a very important area and one which extends well beyond the compass of this Bill. The point that we cannot cover everything in primary legislation is a sound one. The point that Parliament needs to be able to find out what is done and decide whether to approve it is also sound. We need to consider how we can find ways of reconciling those two factors. To that end, the amendment is very well designed.
    I make just one other point. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, read out Clause 2(3), which states that,
    "A tribunal or court determining … whether an impairment has a … long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, shall take into account any guidance issued under this section which appears to it to be relevant".
    I am not quite sure why there needs to be guidance. Is this not just the sort of question that we have a court to decide? Is it not perfectly grown-up and competent to do it? And is there not a risk that the issuing of guidance may tend to be of the "Mother Hen" school of legislation?
    6.15 p.m.
    Lord Rix: Until this morning, when The Times came through my letterbox, I thought that this was a rather academic and legal point by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, which I did not understand. I am happy to say that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, wrote an article opposite the editorial page this morning which made the matter clear to a simple soul like myself. Therefore I am happy to support—indeed I wish to support—this amendment.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate on this matter on the amendment raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. Perhaps I may begin by explaining what Clause 2 does. It enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance about matters to be taken into account when determining whether an impairment has substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. It is general guidance which must be taken into account by courts and tribunals where relevant. It is fair to point out that guidance, not being legislation, need only be taken into account by courts and tribunals. In that sense, it has a less determining effect than regulations. It will be of great benefit to those who need examples of what constitute
    1690
    substantial and long-term adverse effects. This is particularly so given the wide range of possible impairments and hence effects on day-to-day activities, and the fact that this is a new and untested area of law. My noble friend Lord Renton has an amendment before us which would have the effect of making the guidance—and any future revisions of it—subject to the affirmative procedure.
    Let us first consider the issue of parliamentary scrutiny. The guidance in Clause 2 has a broadly similar function to the guidance, for example, in the code of practice under Clause 26, which would give practical guidance to employers on eliminating discrimination and on good employment practice. Obviously, I have listened to the argument on this point and I discussed—
    Lord Renton: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to intervene. I think he has made a mistake. It is not Clause 26, but Clause 24, to which he should be referring.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbecknish: If my noble friend tells me I am wrong, I am probably wrong. However, my brief refers to codes of practice prepared by the Secretary of State under Clause 26, so I may be right. I do not think that it matters too much. Perhaps my noble friend will just bear with me for a moment as to the argument that I am about to make.
    Having discussed the matter with my noble friend Lord Renton and having listened to this short debate, I see the case for making the guidance under Clause 2 subject to perhaps the same parliamentary scrutiny as we have in Clause 26. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that I am very conscious of the importance of the powers of this Parliament. Ministers are always wise, I trust.
    We have discussed the matter at some length, and I fully understand that there have to be checks and balances. Sometimes I am concerned that we are throwing away some of our responsibilities to bodies and courts beyond these shores. That is perhaps a wider issue, but one upon which some noble Lords might reflect when they address the importance of parliamentary scrutiny on matters such as this.
    Having reflected on this matter and listened to the debate, and having accepted that we should indeed consider some form of parliamentary scrutiny, we now come to the parliamentary scrutiny that should be used.
    The provisions of the code of practice in Clause 26 come within the scope of Clause 27 in deciding on the method of scrutiny to be used. Such a code must be laid before both Houses for 40 days and cannot be issued if either House resolves not to approve it—that is, the negative procedure. We believe that this is the right procedure also for the guidance under Clause 2. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy points out, almost all of the regulation-making powers in the Bill are subject to the negative procedure. The Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers regarded this procedure as appropriate for regulations made under these provisions.
    Therefore, I accept my noble friend's argument, though not in its entirety. I believe that Parliament should have scrutiny of this guidance and that it should be done in the same way as other scrutiny is carried out in other parts of the Bill; namely, by the negative procedure. My noble friend said that he had moved a little from his starting

    1691
    point where he might have asked for all of this to be the subject of primary legislation to his amendment. I hope he accepts that I have come a little way towards him in saying that there should be parliamentary scrutiny but it should be by the negative procedure. If my noble friend agrees to withdraw his amendment, I will return at Report stage with one which will mean that the draft guidance will have to be laid before Parliament and may be negatived by resolution of either House. With that commitment, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
    Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I may comment before my noble friend rises to speak again. In my earlier contribution, I was going to say that if it had been thought that the contents of the guidance, about whose significance we were inquiring, required regulations to come before Parliament, in my view the negative procedure was appropriate. I was a little surprised that my noble friend's amendments proposed the affirmative procedure. I am happy with what my noble friend has stated. There are points in the Bill where the affirmative procedure is required, but that is in connection with the National Disability Council. The Select Committee, of which I am a Member, said in its report (which I have with me) that the use of the affirmative procedure was correct in that case, and that in other cases it should be the negative procedure. I agree with my noble friend that the negative procedure is appropriate in this case.
    Lord Monkswell: I wonder whether the Minister has considered the two different aspects of the codes of guidance about which we have spoken today. He has referred to Clause 26. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, also referred to Clause 24. My understanding of those clauses is that they relate to codes of practice that are issued to the general public—that is, employers and those involved in the day-to-day business. The difference between that and the guidance referred to in Clause 2 is that the latter is guidance to the industrial tribunal, not the general public. I suggest that that guidance has greater force in legal terms because it is guidance to what is effectively a court rather than the general public. It may be pertinent for Parliament to consider guidance issued to a court that has an effect similar to legislation, and guidance issued to the general public, which is slightly different. We may wish to have the affirmative procedure for the guidance issued to a court and possibly the negative procedure for guidance issued to the general public. Perhaps the Minister can take those points on board.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The guidance in Clause 2 will be guidance that everybody will take into account as well—both the disabled and employers—when looking at what they should do. As subsection (3) says, it will also be taken into account by a tribunal or court. Under Clause 24(4) a code is admissible in evidence in any proceedings under the Bill before an industrial tribunal, county court or sheriff court. The codes of practice under Clause 24 will also come into play in a court. Indeed, in Clause 26(5) one sees exactly the same words. While the noble Lord makes a nice point, I do not believe that it is a distinction that carries a great deal of weight when Clause 22 is compared with Clauses 24 and 25.
    Lord Renton: I agree with what my noble friend has just said. However, I believe that we should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for raising a subtle point, which had not occurred to me. As my noble friend has said, all guidance given to all courts, tribunals or other public bodies is something of which the public from time to time in different ways needs to take note. I do not believe that there is here a real distinction of principle.
    I owe an apology to my noble friend. Although Clause 24 comes into the picture, he is right to refer first and foremost to Clause 26 and Clause 27 that goes with it. That is the alternative he recommends to the suggestion that I have made that the affirmative procedure should be followed under Clause 37. I am very much influenced by what my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said in advocating a negative procedure. He speaks with the experience of membership of the Scrutiny Committee, which does such valuable work.
    I had hoped that the reasonable compromise that I had put forward would have had general appeal. But one must be realistic and sometimes accept the advice of the Government. I believe that on this occasion it is appropriate for me to do so. Therefore, it is with hope that I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
    Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 18:
    Page 2, line 9, at end insert ("including appropriate organisations representative of employers and appropriate organisations representative of disabled persons").
    The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that employers and providers of business services have confidence in complete acceptance of the fact that consultation on an ongoing basis is necessary. Disability is a very complex subject. New forms of disability arise. Advances in medicine will help, but there are other matters around the corner. New conditions also emerge. For example, there are advances in computer technology. People who perhaps 10 years ago would not have been employable have available to them a whole raft of new opportunities because of advances in technology. I do not believe it is easy to draw fine distinctions. I should like to see this consultation on the face of the Bill. This legislation may last for 100 years. Who knows how a future Conservative administration will behave? I believe that employers, providers of business services and organisations for the disabled need the comfort that when changes take place, they have the right to be consulted on an ongoing basis. I feel that very strongly as does the CBI and everybody to whom I have spoken.
    I should like to point out that, following a comment made earlier in the discussion on a previous amendment, when it seemed that we were dealing only with employers, I realised that the amendment was probably incorrectly drafted. It should include organisations representative of employers and businesses which provide services, because the Bill covers employment and services. However, I understand that this part of the Bill—this particular section—does not deal with employers; it deals with disability. If that is so, the amendment ought to include business providers as well. I can look again at this

    1693
    matter. I want to make sure that on the face of the Bill there is a commitment that the Government will consult. I beg to move
    6.30 p.m.
    Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like to support the principle in this amendment described by my noble friend. I mentioned earlier that all the organisations concerned with this Bill hope for continuing consultations after the Bill is enacted.
    With regard to my noble friend's other point, her amendment would need to be amended because this very important part of the Bill deals with the provision of goods and services and, as I read it, Clause 2 of the Bill covers this part as well. As I said at Second Reading, there are many more disabled people who will be involved in goods and services—for instance, all the people over retirement age, who represent a very large proportion of the disabled people in this country. Only people of employment age, who represent quite a small proportion of the total of disabled people, will be involved in the employment part of the Bill, though it is a very important part of it.
    I agree that the provision would be improved if it could cover goods and services rather than remain with its present wording.
    Baroness Seear: My name is also to this amendment. Certainly I support the general principle that, when any changes or developments are being made, there should be full consultation. However, on reflection, there is something defective about this amendment. There should be something in the nature of:
    "employers, organisations of disabled people and trade unions".
    They surely have a very considerable interest in how people with disabilities are employed in places of employment. On the general principle, I want most certainly to continue my support.
    Lord Murray of Epping Forest: Perhaps I may take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I hope that the spirit and purpose of the amendment will be accepted, not only for what it explicitly states but for what is implied, which could with benefit be explicated.
    The aim is to get the guidance right and to take account of the practicalities of the situation. The reason for including the concept of consultation with employees and their organisations is that discrimination by an employer often stems not only from the employer's negative attitude but also from what he thinks may be the reaction of some or all of his employees. On occasion, the employer may put forward that argument as camouflage for his own negative attitude. In either event, it makes a great deal of sense to involve employees through their organisations, so that it is made clear that employees favour non-discrimination and (or possibly or) to ensure that the organisations of employees put pressure on the employees themselves not to evince the negative attitudes which would make it more difficult for an employer to take a more positive attitude.
    I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with the thrust of that argument. In accepting the general purport and drive of the amendment, the Minister will, I hope,
    1694
    recognise the importance of keeping employees firmly in the frame in the common purpose to which we are now addressing our minds.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We on these Benches very much support the amendment. Perhaps we could use the opportunity to ask the Minister, when he replies to the amendment, to comment on three matters. The first is the degree to which such consultation will be continuous and ongoing—not just an original set piece. Secondly, following the contributions made by many Members of the Committee, that consultation will indeed involve a breadth of organisation. As the noble Baroness said, this provision refers to goods and services and not just employment, as well as to trade unions.
    The third point is one that has not been raised so far and this may be the opportunity for the Minister to address it. As originally conceived there is in the Bill one set of negotiating machinery—the employment section of the Bill—hich will go through the National Council for the Employment of Disabled People set up in 1944, and the response from that is to go on to the industrial tribunal. There is also a second set of responses under the Bill associated with goods and services, which go through the route of local advice and guidance machinery and then through to the courts. So there are two parallel jurisdictions. That is one of the problems about which we are most concerned. There is one for the employment section and one for goods and services; one ending up in industrial tribunals and the other ending up in courts.
    Clearly, we need a framework and a network of guidance for both sections of the Bill. As the Government originally conceived the Bill in the other place, they led Members to believe that they were hoping that NACAB (the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux) would offer that guidance, advice and all the rest of it for the goods and services section en route to the courts. Since then, NACAB has made it very clear that it will not fulfil such a role. Nonetheless, the Government are pledged to introduce a local advice and guidance service in conjunction with national bodies. Could the Minister tell us how that is now to be achieved, given that NACAB will not do it and so far there has been no suggestion that anybody else will do it? Otherwise, we shall have an initial consultation but we will not have the ongoing consultation that we all wish to see.
    Lord Rix: I wish to support the amendment from the Cross Benches, from whom the Committee has not yet heard. If the Government concede that it makes sense for regulations, albeit by negative instrument, to be looked at from time to time by Parliament, surely it would make sense too for all those concerned at the sharp end—employers, employees, trade unions, etc.—to be consulted on an ongoing basis as matters change.
    Baroness O'Cathain: In my concern about the amendment not being properly drafted, I omitted to say that I also wanted to speak to Amendment No. 21. It comes within the same kind of problem area; namely, complexity and the situation which arises because of the complexity of the Bill and the complexity of the situation.
    Again, it concerns employers, business providers, service providers and such organisations. They want to know their obligations and rights from the time that the

    1695
    Bill is enacted. It is essential that the supporting codes of practice, regulations and, most critically, the sources of information and advice are in place before the new provisions come into effect. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that point too.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As we have discussed already, Clause 2 of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance about matters to be taken into account when determining whether an impairment:
    "has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on [a person's] ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
    Clause 2(4) requires him to:
    "consult such persons as he considers appropriate"
    before issuing any guidance.
    Amendment No. 18, my noble friend Lady O'Cathain's amendment, is intended to ensure that the Secretary of State consults in particular organisations representing employers and organisations representing disabled people before issuing guidance under Clause 2.
    I understand that one of the aims of the amendment is to require ongoing consultation. Although, as I believe my noble friend realises, the amendment does not achieve that aim, I can assure her and other Members of the Committee that the Government have every intention of maintaining dialogue with all interested parties as they develop the guidance. I hope that that answers the point from my noble friend and from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis.
    It is our intention that discussions on developing what will inevitably be fairly detailed and perhaps technical guidance, should be with organisations which can offer appropriate expertise. We will therefore not only consult organisations representing employers and those representing disabled people, but we will involve organisations with relevant specialist knowledge. Many of these organisations with specialist knowledge do of course represent disabled people and their interests. Once the guidance has been developed we will ensure that there is wide-ranging consultation on it, including with other organisations which may have an interest. Perhaps that brings in the organisations of the type mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest.
    I am not sure whether I understood the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the advice and guidance service, which no doubt we shall come to later. There is a difference between the advice and guidance which we hope will be available to disabled people through this service run by whoever it is decided should run it, and the advice and guidance being sought by the Secretary of State while he is coming to conclusions about the guidance and the code of practice he wishes to send out. There is some difference between the two.
    Baroness Seear: The noble Lord has said that it is the intention of the Government to continue to consult. Would it not be much more satisfactory if he allowed words to that effect to appear in the legislation? The noble Lord is giving that commitment and we accept that so long as he is here that will happen. We need to have a statutory
    1696
    commitment that that consultation will continue whoever is filling the position which the noble Lord now holds. A few words to that effect in the Bill would help greatly.
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suspect that that is not really necessary, but I shall look at the point raised by the noble Baroness. I have made the point about continuing dialogue. I find that the Government do not normally have to ask people for their opinions. Many organisations are pretty quick in giving us and Members of the Committee their opinions, as they no doubt find from their post every morning, and as I do from mine. These things continue and become really important if the Government have decided, perhaps because of representations made, that they should make changes. At that point there has to be what I may describe as a more rigorous consultation exercise. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness.
    I turn now to Amendment No. 21, which I understand is intended to seek assurance that the advice and support service and procedures needed for those who will be affected by the Bill, are in place before the Bill comes into force. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I take this opportunity to explain our thoughts on how the Bill might be brought into force. The Committee might find that convenient at this time, perhaps not just in listening to it, but using it thereafter once it has appeared in Hansard.
    I believe that the Committee will be aware that the Government intend to bring into force at the same time that part of the Bill which deals with employment rights and certain provisions of the part dealing with goods, facilities and services. We envisage that this will be some time towards the end of next year. It is also our intention to introduce some months before that the employment code of practice and any necessary regulations. We will, of course, consult widely on both with employers, employer organisations, disability organisations and other bodies.
    In addition, advisory bodies and service providers such as the Employment Service and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) will be available to offer appropriate help and advice on the new requirements under the Bill. The Employment Service will provide advice and support to people with disabilities and to employers through its mainstream Jobcentre services and specialist placing, assessment and counselling teams (PACTS). It will continue to provide help to people to get and keep jobs and to get access to training and services. In the case of ACAS, its officials will also be trained and available to provide assistance in the form of conciliation as required under Part II of the Bill. Industrial tribunals are already used by people with disabilities. Where there are access difficulties, alternative arrangements for hearings are made. Tribunals already have discretion to provide communication help for disabled people with hearing, speech and sight impairments. This discretion will be extended to provide some form of personal support for people with mental illnesses and learning disabilities, and we will be consulting appropriate disability organisations about how this might work in practice.

    1697
    We have made clear that we do not intend to introduce initially all the provisions in Part III of the Bill. In particular, we will be introducing over time those provisions which would be the most costly for service providers; those relating to auxiliary aids and to physical adaptations. This is because of potential effects on business and the need for business to have a realistic time to prepare for and to make the changes. We will therefore embark on wide-ranging consultations on issues such as the timing of the introduction of these provisions and on any limits to the expenditure that a business will have to incur in making a reasonable adjustment.
    In the meantime, in time for those provisions that we will be implementing next year, we will be introducing a code of practice on the right of access. The code will offer guidance to service providers on the requirements of the legislation and sound, practical advice on how best to comply. We will ensure that the code is issued well before the first provisions of the right of access are brought into force, so that service providers can familiarise themselves with the right of access and plan any adjustments that will need to be made.
    We will also be establishing a network of advice points to provide advice and assistance to disabled people on the right of access to goods, facilities and services. We are committed to ensuring that disabled people gain the benefit of their new rights quickly and efficiently. We intend the advice service to be readily accessible and locally available, so as to meet the particular needs of disabled people. We are currently exploring how that advice and support might best be provided. I can assure the Committee that disabled people will be able to obtain advice on their rights of access as each of the provisions of Part III are implemented.
    Although the introduction of this Bill will be phased, we intend that the support structure will be fully in place to meet the requirements of the first provisions that come into force. Of course, codes of practice relating to provisions not yet to be implemented will not be in force. And arrangements for advice to disabled people on provisions not yet in force will not be brought into effect either, though they will be introduced and in place in good time for the implementation of those provisions.
    I hope that my reassurances will have convinced my noble friend and those Members of the Committee who are interested, of our commitment to ensure that the proper support, whether provided for in the Bill or helpful to support the Bill's provisions, will not only be introduced in a timely and effective fashion, but introduced after proper consultations have taken place.
    In the light of my commitment to consult and my reassurance on the support and guidance arrangements under the Bill, that they will be in place when the Bill comes into force, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw the two amendments and perhaps forgive me for using her second amendment as a coathanger on which to say a few words about how we intend the Bill to come into force.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Baroness, Lady 0' Cathain, decides what she proposes to do about her amendments, may I press the Minister a little
    1698
    on the additional material in his answer which had not been anticipated at this stage. First, on a mechanical point, is he going to allocate additional resources to PACTS and ACAS to deal with the responsibilities for advising under the Bill? Secondly—and we do not disagree with this—we want to see systems of guidance and advice in place so that as and when sections of the Bill come into force there is already in place an appropriate network. Obviously, we want that advice to be in place. We do not want the job of setting up those advice networks to be an excuse for deferring or delaying the implementation or phasing in of sections of the Bill. Can the Minister be more helpful to us? What sort of timescale does he envisage? We are more worried because the network of advice and guidance he expected to be in place already—that is to say, NACAB— is not. Therefore the Minister will have to build a network of advice, possibly from scratch, which could take several years. Given what the Minister has just said, that could mean very significant delays in the implementation of vitally important parts of this Bill. Can the Minister help us on all that?
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: First, PACTS and ACAS have adequate resources to meet the obligations placed upon them. I cannot go much further. I have already laid out in some detail what we intend to do. We are committed, as I said, to ensuring that disabled people gain the benefit of their new rights quickly and efficiently, but we have to ensure that these things are done in the right order. There is no point in implementing a part of the Bill before the other parts upon which it depends are in place. We have to try to take this in some order.
    Of course the arrangements for the advice to disabled people which the noble Baroness mentioned are not yet firmed. We have explained what we want to do. We are exploring how the locally provided services can be provided. We are sorry that NACAB has decided that it cannot help us in that regard. But we are sure that other people and other organisations will be willing to help us, especially when the Bill becomes law, when those organisations may be more content to try to make the Bill work and to ensure that the system works for disabled people, rather than at present when, perhaps understandably, they are still campaigning on a number of issues, and they do not want to appear to have given away those issues before they feel they absolutely have to.
    Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, he said that he hoped other organisations would help with the guidance, and the implementation of the Bill. What organisations does he have in mind that have the skills and expertise and enough branches throughout the UK to give all the advice that will be required?
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We may well come to this issue two or three days hence. One does not need to use the same organisation throughout the whole of the country. That is something we are considering. As I say, I believe that there are organisations which will be more than interested in providing the service once the Bill becomes law. Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that we cross those bridges when we come to them. Today is not the day to cross that bridge. I believe that there will be plenty of organisations which will be prepared to help and we shall be able to set up what I believe is important;

    1699
    that is, a locally based network. I am well aware of the undercurrent that exists in relation to this part of the questioning.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: May I hope that the Minister will tell us, ideally in Committee, what organisations he has in mind? It is crucial. The Minister has just made that clear in an important statement. I do not object to what he is trying to do here. He has made it clear that he will not bring in crucial clauses of the Bill until the network is in place. So we need to know when that network will be in place. For that we need to know what organisations may be willing to provide that network and be in place. The Minister must tell us. As I understand it the reasons for the CAB—I have its statement here—refusing to play the role that the Government intended was not that it has some other agenda and prefers a different Bill, but that it thinks it is important to protect, as it says, its principles of independence and impartiality, which it fears might be compromised if it were to be seen as a government agent in this field. I understand that that is. the basis of its hesitation.
    Given, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, that to someone like myself only the CAB would appear to have the extensive local network in place—I cannot think of any other organisation that has—the Government must give us a little more help or tell us when they will give us some help, because otherwise the Minister will forgive us for believing that this will be an excuse for delay and delay and delay and delay of the crucial phasing in of rights for disabled people.
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not going to accept that from the noble Baroness, because I made it clear early in my remarks in response to my noble friend that we intend to bring into force at the same time that part of the Bill which deals with employment rights and certain provisions of the parts dealing with goods, facilities and services.
    We envisage that that will be some time towards the end of next year. It is our intention—I apologise for repeating myself, but I clearly need to underline the point—to introduce some months before that the employment code of practice and any necessary regulations. I mentioned some other bodies which will be helping and dealing with those matters and which will need to be ready to be up and running when the powers in the Bill come into force.
    I can understand the Baroness wishing to press me, but we will probably be returning to the point about advice services later in Committee. I shall then be happy to go into it in some detail. I shall underline that we want locally based sources which will be available locally for disabled people. That is an important aspect to which I have no doubt we will be returning. I do not have a crystal ball. I do not know who will be prepared to provide the service. All I know is that I am pretty certain that people will be prepared to do it. We will have to take steps to ensure that we deliver the service we want.
    That is not an excuse for delay. I rebut that suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. We intend that the Bill will work as we intend it to work—efficiently and
    1700
    effectively for disabled people. We will bring it in as quickly as we can, consistent with the fact that it is a complicated area and we have to get it right.
    Baroness Seear: Will not the Minister need a variety of different sources for giving advice? When it comes to what employers will have to do and the considerable and expensive adjustments they will have to make, surely that will be a different organisation. I should have thought that the HSE would be the organisation to give a great deal of advice to employers so as to make their premises such as they can be used by disabled people. They are different sources from the sources which will be needed for implementing other parts of the legislation. Is not that the position? A variety of different sources will be needed to give advice to employers and the people who will use the services.
    Lord Renton: My noble friend is fully entitled to bear in mind that the bodies which will be suitable for consultation will vary from time to time. There may be amalgamations. I fully support what he said.
    Baroness Masham of Ilton: I spoke on that very point on Second Reading, but the Minister was not in the Chamber. I have never received a reply to my questions. I feel strongly about this matter if there are to be different organisations. Many organisations throughout the country are short of money. Some of them have already gone to the wall. There needs to be a national body with bureaux throughout the country which are accessible to disabled people or there will be a mishmash of disorganisation which I am sure none of us wants. I hope the Minister takes the point seriously, otherwise the legislation will be a mess.
    Lord Swinfen: My noble friend will realise that all Members of the Committee, and of this place generally, want to ensure that the Bill works properly for the sake of employers as well as for disabled employees. It would be helpful if at some stage in Committee my noble friend were to give an indication of what organisations he is considering to produce the advice, because the Committee will want to be satisfied that for the various types of advice that will be needed—there will be various types and not all one kind of advice—those organisations have the knowledge and organisation, and a wide enough spread, not necessarily throughout the whole country but in various parts, if my noble friend is going to break it up, to make them capable of doing the job that the Government will ask them to do.
    Earl Russell: While the Minister was speaking I was looking at the wording of Clause 22(1) which states:
    "The Secretary of State may make arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance … with a view to promoting the settlement of disputes … otherwise than by recourse to the courts".
    That looks as though we are considering several different sorts of advice. That sounds to me more like the sort of mediation or arbitration which this place has in the past discussed in relation to law centres, which is a very distinct point from assistance. Clearly the Minister is entitled to consider them separately. Equally clearly, we need to get them right.

    1701
    I hope that the Minister understands that our anxiety to get him to cross a bridge, and to understand the structure of that bridge, is because we want to see him safely reach the other side. He may congratulate himself on having brought forward a Bill which the Opposition are eager to see come into force sooner rather than later.
    7 p.m.
    Lord Butterfield: Perhaps I may interject one quasi-medical point. For some time the Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust has supported the establishment of groups of people in different counties, in particular the West and the South-West, who are in a position to give good advice to disabled people in their neck of the woods. I am concerned that a subtle form of almost computerised service may be needed to provide names and addresses of the people who can give good advice on specific topics under different circumstances.
    Will the Minister consider carrying out a survey of such groups? They have been in operation for some years and in some parts of the country are regarded as providing extremely good clinical services for disabled people.
    Lord Rix: I hope that the Committee will forgive this commercial. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, will confirm that for a number of years MENCAP has used the Pathway Employment Service. It has been of inestimable value and use to people with learning disabilities. We now have 5,000 people with a learning disability in open employment. The Pathway Employment Service is most efficient and is able to give expert advice and support to people with a learning disability who are able and wish to be employed.
    Baroness Lockwood: I have some sympathy with the Minister in the sense that we are straying towards later clauses. His statement on the amendment indicates the complicated system that must be put into operation in order to implement the provisions of the Bill. It underlines some of the points that many of us made on Second Reading; that we require a body with a strategic role which can look at the whole problem, deal with the various aspects of discrimination, establish its contacts and deal with the appropriate organisations in accordance with the problems that have arisen.
    We must look most seriously at what the Minister has said tonight. We must bear it in mind when we discuss not only Clause 22 but those clauses relating to the National Disability Council.
    Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister for his comments on Amendments Nos. 18 and 21. The Committee has probably lost sight of them by now, with the minor bombshell—perhaps that is the wrong word— that the Minister threw into the middle of the debate. He said, rather elegantly, that he was using the amendment as a coathanger but I believe that it is a little more than that. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for supporting me.
    We are trying to do our best for the disabled in every way. I refer not only to employment, because employment in particular in better and larger organisations is well catered for, but also to the provision of goods and
    1702
    services. If we want the Bill to work we must ensure that the people out there who will make it work—they are the employers, the providers of services and the disabled— know that they have the comfort of consultation on an ongoing basis.
    Although I listened carefully, I cannot understand the mass of objection to putting that on the face of the Bill. However, I was grateful to the Minister for his detailed explanation of the Government's intention about the supporting codes of practice and I take comfort from that. I am also grateful to the Minister for saying that he wishes to maintain and to continue the dialogue. I do not wish to sound ungrateful but I should like to know why the provision cannot be on the face of the Bill.
    As regards the Minister's statement attached to the coathanger of Amendment No. 21, it behoves all of us to read Hansard. We have heard a great deal of detail and I tried to scribble down some of the issues. The comments go a long way towards helping me with the remainder of the Bill and I thank the Minister for that. With the proviso that I should like the Minister to look again at putting Amendment No. 18 on the face of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
    Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 20:
    Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (5).
    The noble Lord said: In view of his undertaking, my noble friend may wish me to move Amendment No. 20. If his undertaking is to be fulfilled subsection (5) must be removed in any event. Why should we wait to do so?
    Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend is being extremely helpful. However, I plead with him to let us leave the matter with my promise to return with suitable amendments. They will of course go a little wider than the first amendment that we discussed and will take in the consequential amendments, which may or may not include that which he has just mentioned.
    I wish to study the matter a little more before my noble friend presses me too far. I hope that he, having made his point, will accept my assurance that we will put forward amendments which will do exactly as I have said and will mean that the negative procedure will come into play.
    Lord Renton: I therefore trust that Members of the Committee will grant me leave to withdraw Amendment No. 20.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 [Discrimination against applicants and employees]:
    Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 22:
    Page 2, line 38, at end insert ("and occupational pensions").
    The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 221 shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 37. The purpose of these amendments is to write into the present legislation the requirement that there should be no discrimination in pension provision in regard to people suffering from disability. The wording of the amendments

    1703
    is adapted from Part IV of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, which provides for equal access to occupational pension schemes for men and women. I hope that the Minister will not tell us that the amendment is unnecessary.
    A 1988 Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report found that disabled pensioners had a lower average equivalent income—an average of £91.90 per week— than non-disabled pensioners who averaged £93.70 per week. The 1988 changes to the state earnings-related pension scheme encouraging people to opt out of SERPS—the Minister will know very well what we on this side of the Committee think about that—had a particularly negative effect on disabled people. Disabled workers are often at a disadvantage in occupational and personal pension schemes and therefore rely heavily on SERPS. They lost out in the changes that the Government then made to SERPS.
    At that time the Government estimated that 80,000 disabled people and 30,000 dependants of disabled people would be adversely affected. However, I understand that the Disability Alliance put the figure much higher at more than 1 million.
    We all know that the labour market is changing; employment is now much less secure. Even for those in employment there is insecurity because many people do riot know whether they will still be in employment next year or even next month. Part-time work is much more common and temporary and short-term contracts are replacing continuous employment.
    I deplore those developments, although I know that the Government believe that they are somehow inevitable and even positive. However, they have an effect on pension entitlement. That means that the number of people who do not build up entitlement to a full national insurance retirement pension will grow. That is already happening. For example, in March 1984, 3.49 per cent. of male retirement pension claimants and 10.59 per cent. of female claimants received a pension at a reduced rate. Ten years later, that number had increased substantially. In fact, the number of claimants on a reduced rate of retirement pension grew by 221,000 to just under 1 million in that period.
    Therefore, it is clear that occupational pensions will have to play a vital role in ensuring that people do not have to rely on means-tested benefits in old age. Occupational pensions are largely responsible for the fact that people of retirement age are less likely to be poor now than they were 15 years ago. Therefore, it is extremely important that employers should not be allowed to discriminate against persons regarded as disabled in relation to access to occupational schemes.
    Where membership of a pension scheme is one of the prime non-pay benefits of a job, to discriminate against disabled people in terms of entry would surely run counter to the Government's intentions. Quite rightly, the Bill is designed to require employers to take reasonable steps to remove physical barriers or adjust their practices to enable disabled persons to be employed. That cannot be achieved if disabled people are debarred from participating in one of the chief non-pay benefits available in most good employments. I beg to move.
    Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this important matter and I trust that she will find my response helpful.
    Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 22. The purpose of this amendment is to include "occupational pensions" within the defined meaning of "benefits" in Clause 3. I can tell the noble Baroness that Clause 3 is drafted in the same terms as Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976. It has never been suggested that that Act has failed to cover entitlement to occupational pension benefits. It is easy to see why that is so. Clause 3 applies both to "terms of employment" and to "benefits", which is already widely defined. A person's entitlement to a pension from his employment will normally be a term of his contract, and even where it is not a term, it is so plainly a benefit that I cannot believe that courts or tribunals would have the slightest difficulty on the point. I cannot agree to the amendment as it would throw doubt on the existing wording of the Race Relations Act, but I hope that that assurance will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
    I turn to Amendment No. 37, which seeks to disapply Clause 5(5) in the case of discrimination relating to benefits in employment. It also disapplies the subsection in relation to occupational payments. The Committee will be aware that Clause 5(5) enables regulations to be made to specify additional circumstances in which less favourable treatment is taken to be justified.
    It may be that the noble Baroness intends that the question of justification of less favourable treatment in pensions should be dealt with separately by regulations made under the new regulation-making power which she is proposing in Amendment No. 24. However, we must take great care to understand the possible effect of this Bill upon occupational pensions, and we have to accept that there will be cases where less favourable treatment will occur for wholly justifiable reasons.
    There might be two kinds of case in which the occupational pension benefits of a disabled person might justifiably be less than those for a non-disabled person working next to him. The first is that pensions are almost always linked to pay. If there is a justifiable difference in the pay received by the two workers—perhaps, for example, because the disability means the disabled person has to work fewer hours—it must be right that the pension can also reflect that difference. I cannot believe that Members of the Committee would wish to require the employer to have to arrange for a full pension in such circumstances.
    The second reason is that the disability may create actuarial risks which the employer or the pension fund should not have to take. For example, depending on the circumstances, we believe that an employer who takes on an employee who is terminally ill can be justified in refusing such a person cover under any scheme he operates for death-in-service benefits. The removal of any justification in the case of these benefits and payments would place quite unwarranted burdens on employers. For that reason, the Government cannot accept this amendment.
    I turn now to Amendment No. 24. This provides a power to make regulations to deal with the detailed issues which may arise regarding the application of Part II of the

    1705
    Bill to occupational pensions. I have already indicated that the Government accept that Part II applies to occupational pensions. Part III indicates that it applies to the provision of insurance services and enables the details to be set out in regulations. We agree that similar provision is required for Part II. We have received representations about the Bill's coverage of occupational pensions and the important issues that may be involved. We are considering this whole matter carefully including when occupational pension benefits of a disabled person might justifiably be less than those for a non-disabled person, in the context of both Part II and Part III, and will take account of the points that have been made by the noble Baroness in the debate today. It may well be that we need regulation-making powers to deal with the detail of such justifications along the lines I mentioned earlier. I cannot support this amendment but we shall consider this matter further and I shall come back to the House on the point at Report. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness the assurance she seeks.
    7.15 p.m.
    Baroness Turner of Camden: I am obliged to the Minister for his response to the three amendments. I am not at all satisfied with some of the points that he made—in particular in regard to the points that he made about the possibility of paying a different pension because pensions would be linked to pay. In most pension schemes it is accepted that a pension is linked to the pay that one receives. Of course, a final salary scheme is designed quite specifically to ensure that it is linked to the final pay. I do not see any problem about that and nor would most people concerned with disability or disabled persons in employment.
    We are concerned about a situation in which a person may be debarred altogether from participating in the occupational scheme that is available to other employees who are not disabled in the same employment. However, I note that the Minister is considering what has been said and is considering the submissions that have been made by organisations concerned with occupational pensions and with disabled people generally who are worried about whether or not they will have access to occupational pension schemes. Therefore, we shall await with interest to see what the Government propose to do on Report and whether they produce the kind of amendments which we believe will be necessary to protect the interests of disabled persons who will otherwise will not, in our view, be protected adequately and have adequate access to occupational schemes. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 23:
    Page 2, line 38, at end insert:
    ("( ) An employer shall not conduct or require a medical examination or make enquiries of an applicant for employment as to whether he is a disabled person or as to the nature or severity of any disability prior to an offer of employment unless—

    (a) to ascertain the ability of the applicant to perform job-related functions, or

    1706

    (b) to conduct equal opportunities monitoring, where this information is collected and maintained on separate forms and is treated as a confidential record to be used solely for monitoring purposes.").

    The noble Lord said: This amendment is designed to try to remove one of the glass ceilings which is placed in the way of people with disabilities. Indeed, it is one of the more subtle ways in which discrimination can be applied—that is, by requiring on a job application form the applicant to disclose whether or not he is disabled.
    The amendment provides two opt-outs. The first is in relation to physical requirements. For example, if the job involves lifting heavy objects, and so on. But, as we know, increasingly for most jobs you have to sit down and play with a computer. "Play" is probably the wrong word and I see that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, gave me rather a hard stare when I said that. Most jobs do not require specific physical activities. They merely require a person to be there, sit down and have an active mind. Indeed, the state of computer technology is such that you do not have to use a keyboard; you can speak into a microphone to operate a computer.
    We are trying to prevent one form of discrimination which takes place. Scope carried out a study of two people who had exactly the same qualifications, one of whom had cerebral palsy. The person with cerebral palsy had one-sixth of a chance of reaching the interview stage.
    Most types of discrimination are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the disability. I believe that most of the time, the discrimination stems from ignorance rather than malice. If people reach the interview stage, their personality takes over and their disabilities recede. If the Government are prepared to accept an amendment of this nature, they would create a situation in which employers would not be able to hide behind their ignorance and would not be denied the opportunity of engaging extremely valuable employees. That, on top of the benefits, would undoubtedly be there for the person who actually has the disability. I hope that the Government will find it in their heart to accept the amendment, or something very similar to it. I beg to move.
    Lord Swinfen: I support what the noble Lord is trying to do. However, as regards my own organisation, it is possible that what he proposes would cause chaos because we actually prefer to employ disabled people. Therefore, we would like to know, before interview, which applicants are disabled. Somehow one has to overcome that difficulty. It is possible that one would have to issue licences to exempt people from the provision. But, generally speaking, the noble Lord is quite right: one should advertise for people, see from the papers that they submit whether they are the type of people that one wants to employ and then interview them.
    Most of the time, the fact that the person is disabled will come to light in any event at the interview without the question being asked. But in the case of a body which specifically prefers to employ disabled people—for example, there are some organisations which rather like to employ blind telephonists because they are extremely good—we would be putting a barrier in its way. I believe

    1707
    that the noble Lord should look again at the matter and come back from the rather different direction that he has taken to achieve his objective.
    Lord Rix: From the same perspective as that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, I should like to say a few words about the difficulty of the proposed new subsection as regards the British Actors' Equity Association. Before they take part in a film or television programme, actors, especially if they are leading actors, have to acquire insurance. Therefore, they always have to undergo a medical examination before they are offered the job. If they do not pass that examination, they are not offered the job. Although I sympathise with the intention behind the proposed new subsection, I believe that it could, perhaps, cause some further difficulties in the already rather threadbare employment opportunities available for the artistic profession in the theatre.
    Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the principle of the amendment. I believe that it is very desirable, as I said earlier on the HIV issue, that people should not have to undergo compulsory testing if it is unrelated to their occupation. However, there are other instances that I could cite. For example, if one wishes to be an airline pilot or something like that, it is most important to have a medical test because the lives of everyone else will be placed in one's hands.
    However, I should like to see an amendment of the type which would cover the situation where a test was not specifically related to the employment in question. For example, I have in mind a case with which I dealt many years ago which concerned the health service. A man had been dismissed because of his health. However, when we were going through the appeal hearing it turned out—only because he never revealed the fact before—that he was a hepatitis carrier. He had been serving meals to very elderly, ill people and those coming into hospital for operations. Therefore he was totally unsuitable for that work. For such a job, it is necessary for him to be clear of all sorts of infections that could be passed on to patients.
    Therefore, there are instances where a test can be required. But I should like to see the principle that the noble Lord has put forward expanded to cover any unnecessary tests. I also accept the statement made by the noble Lord that if the person puts on his application form the fact that he is disabled—and I believe that I said this on Second Reading—he will not be interviewed, while the very same people would offer that person a job if they did not know he was disabled.
    Baroness Jay of Paddington: Like the noble Baroness who has just spoken, we on these Benches also support the principle behind the amendment, but are rather concerned about some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and other speakers. If it is possible, we would like to see an arrangement which would allow for there to be information which is relevant to employment without there being any implication, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, just said, that some irrelevant test may be regarded as a subtle form of discrimination. I do not know whether it is possible for the noble Lord to introduce another amendment, but the principle involved is certainly most important.
    Earl Russell: It is possible that I may be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to whom I listened with great care. Paragraph (a) of the amendment allows employers,
    "to ascertain the ability of the applicant to perform job related functions".
    In the occupation of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, understanding disabled people and being able to communicate and share things with them is surely a job-related function and, therefore, would fall within the terms of the amendment.
    I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The key question is: what is a job-related function? All the ambiguity in that respect is in a story that Lord Baden-Powell used to tell of a soldier turned down on an Army medical for having bad teeth. He came back from the medical complaining bitterly that one was expected not only to kill the enemy but also to eat him.
    Lord Inglewood: We have had a most interesting debate on the amendment from a number of different perspectives. I should like to make one point clear before I begin my response. The clause under review relates to people who are already disabled.
    I support the broad intention behind the amendment, which is clearly to prevent medical examinations being required, or questions being asked, where the information obtained might be used to discriminate unfairly against disabled people. I have serious concerns about how that would work in practice. I also do not believe that unnecessary rules and regulations should be imposed on employers. However, I doubt whether specific obligations of that sort are needed to achieve the objective.
    The effect of the amendment would be to make unlawful medical examinations, or inquiries, of an applicant for employment as to whether he is a disabled person or as to the nature or severity of any disability prior to an offer of employment unless to ascertain the ability of the applicant to perform job-related functions, or to conduct equal opportunities monitoring.
    To forbid medical examinations in the manner contemplated by the amendment would be an inappropriate interference, going well beyond the protection of disabled people. The restrictions on questioning are even more far reaching. Almost any inquiry could touch either directly or indirectly on possible effects of a disability, so, if the amendment were accepted, there may be few lines of questioning open to an employer when recruiting that would not carry the risk of a complaint of discrimination being brought against him. I do not accept for a moment that the only questions an employer should ever ask at an interview should be those directly related to essential job activities.
    Moreover, the amendment would often work to the detriment of an applicant with a disability. For example, a prospective employer would not be able to ask questions about whether an applicant needed special arrangements to attend an interview; about the travel arrangements if appointed; or about his ability to use ancillary facilities such as car-parks and rest rooms. Perhaps more seriously, in some industries, the amendment would prevent an employer operating compulsory medical examinations

    1709
    for employees doing work involving exposure to a health risk—the kind of point raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner. Moreover, not all tests and questions are for the employer's benefit. Some are necessary to consider how a person with a disability could best be accommodated in matters that might not be directly related to the job functions. The restrictions imposed by the amendment would not result in good employment practices.
    I see further difficulties with the confidentiality provision. The requirement might conflict with what is best to ensure that steps are taken to safeguard an employee's health and safety. It may be necessary to inform close colleagues who are working alongside a disabled person of the nature of the disability, for example, so that the employer could ensure that in an emergency special assistance can be provided for a disabled person, if that is necessary.
    There are adequate safeguards in the Bill for disabled people. A disabled employee or applicant would be able to pursue a complaint to an industrial tribunal if an employer unjustifiably used information from a medical examination to discriminate against him. That seems to be a most crucial point in the context of the current debate. In the light of the various points that I have made, I hope that the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his amendment.
    Lord Addington: I believe that many of the problems that were raised are dealt with, as my noble friend pointed out, by paragraph (a) of the amendment; namely, the words,
    "to perform job-related functions".
    I believe that the point is covered in many of the grounds already stated.
    The Minister gave a full and interesting reply. It is a matter about which we have great sentiment at this stage. Indeed, we actually believe that the idea is sound. However, whether or not the amendment proposed happens to be the right vehicle does not matter very much because we are only in Committee and can look at it again. I wish to read what the Minister has said, take the opinion of experts in this field and possibly return to this subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
    7.30 p.m.
    Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 25:
    Page 2, line 41, at end insert:
    ("() In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section (Discrimination: genetic predisposition), this section also applies to discrimination against a person who, at the time, is not disabled.").
    The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 25 I wish to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 67 and 130. In introducing a right for disabled people not to be discriminated against in employment and in access to goods and services the Bill will extend protection to many who have suffered greatly as a result of institutionalised discriminatory practices endemic in society. However, in putting right a wrong, care should be taken that measures
    1710
    proposed are inclusive rather than exclusive and do not themselves create the possibility of discriminatory practices.
    Recent developments in the understanding of the genetic base for a range of conditions means that it is increasingly possible to determine whether or not an individual will develop a disorder before he or she shows symptoms of the disorder; in other words, pre-symptomatic testing can increasingly inform healthy people that at some time in the future they will either become, or run the risk of becoming, disabled. The advent of such testing means that those at risk are able to make informed choices concerning major life events such as the decision whether or not to have children. It also creates the opportunity for those making decisions about those at risk to use the information in a way that disadvantages them unfairly.
    The Bill as it stands will make it possible for a healthy person whose genetic make-up means that he or she will one day have a disability to be treated in a way that would be illegal if he had begun to manifest symptoms. Indeed the wording of paragraph 7 to Schedule 1 to the Bill, whilst recognising the progressive nature of many conditions, and bringing them within the scope of the Bill, specifically excludes those who have not yet begun to show symptoms but who will do so because of their genetic make-up. This is blatantly discriminatory and is surely contrary to the intention of the legislation. Furthermore, it will also increase the numbers of those who find it more difficult to enter the labour market and make adequate provision for themselves and their dependants, with a consequent increase in the likelihood of other problems developing that will need intervention or support from statutory services. Such people are also highly likely to become dependent on benefits for financial support.
    If healthy people who are at risk from genetic conditions feel that they will be discriminated against if they put themselves forward for a diagnostic test which turns out to be positive, then they will be less likely to have the test. This could have severe consequences for their health and that of any dependants who may be born as a result. For example, about half a million people are thought to be at risk from—I shall have difficulty expressing this medical term—familial hypercholesterolaemia. However, only about 10 per cent. have availed themselves of specific diagnostic tests. If detected early enough, a dietary and exercise regime can be introduced that will result in the individual being able to lead a virtually normal life. Without this the individual will almost certainly experience early onset of severe heart disease with consequent severe incapacity and premature death, yet those detected frequently experience significant difficulty in getting work. Their occupational choices are curtailed and they either cannot get insurance or can only do so if they are able and willing to pay significantly raised premiums, or accept greatly reduced cover. It is clearly unreasonable that health decisions should be adversely influenced by people's fear of their possible consequences in other areas of life. If the Bill is to produce the hoped for improvement in the lives of those whose disability is due to a genetic cause, then the position of

    1711
    those in the pre-symptomatic state must be protected, otherwise all that will happen is that the problem will be brought forward and they will be worse not better off.
    Can the Minister clarify the Government's position and make clear that those who are in the pre-symptomatic phase cannot be treated any less favourably than they would be if their condition had advanced to the point whereby it had begun to show external manifestations? As an example, there is a family in Dumbartonshire who I understand are buying a house with an endowment mortgage. It is not clear whether the endowment insurance carries a loaded premium or not. The current total outgoings on the endowment mortgage are some £400 a month. As they were worried about the possibility of the payment of mortgage interest being changed in the income support regulations, they asked their building society to arrange a quotation for insurance cover to pay the mortgage in the event of sickness or unemployment. The monthly premium quoted was £104 which is beyond their capacity to pay. They are worried about the possibility of losing their house as they have adapted it to meet the needs of the husband and daughter who both have epidermolysis bullosa. There are few council houses in the area and none are already adapted. This is a problem that we ought to face in this Bill. I beg to move.
    Lord Addington: I rise to support this amendment to which my name is added. There are few certainties as regards inherited genetic conditions but the likelihood or the certainty of their being inherited should not be used as a means of discriminating against someone. An amendment of this kind is totally in character with the aim of this Bill of preventing discrimination. I hope that it receives the support of the Committee.
    Lord Ashley of Stoke: I wish to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I am delighted he did so because it is an extremely important amendment. A little while ago I attended a meeting of the all-party disablement group and I heard a bunch of experts speaking about the problems of those with genetic disorders. I found that discussion very disturbing because people with those disorders are not only facing the probability of developing a serious illness later in life but they are also facing serious discrimination.
    Knowing that the noble Lord himself is a great expert on all aspects of disability, I assumed that he and his colleagues would have made provision for these people. I read through the various debates on this matter and I found to my amazement that the Government are opposing these amendments. I cannot quite make out why they are opposing them. I have read their words but I am still looking for the meaning. Possibly when the noble Lord replies to the debate he will try to convince the Committee on this matter, but I can see no substantial reason why we should not make special provision for people with a genetic disorder.
    I think it is absolutely undeniable that some, although not all, employers, and some insurance companies, will discriminate against people with a genetic predisposition. From their own extremely narrow self-interest some of them are bound to do that, and these are the people who we must prepare ourselves for and for whom we must legislate. This amendment is of crucial importance. I think in the future there will be—
    Lord Vinson: Will the noble Lord give way?
    Lord Ashley of Stoke: Yes, by all means.
    Lord Vinson: In the case of epilepsy if, thanks to the advances of medical science, it was shown that someone was going to be prone to epileptic attack but had, fortunately, up to that point not had an epileptic attack, would it be regarded as discriminatory if the insurance company refused to insure that person, if it was aware of the condition, because the person might suffer his first epileptic attack while driving a motor car? Would the noble Lord regard that as discriminatory or non-discriminatory? I am afraid it is cases like that which are likely to arise. I would be grateful to hear the noble Lord's views on that.
    Lord Ashley of Stoke: I would certainly regard that as discriminatory. Epileptics have been discussing this issue, as the noble Lord probably knows, for some time. The question is whether the Minister will so regard it. Perhaps, having overheard the noble Lord's question to me, he will address himself to it.
    The problem is that when there is a predisposition people are not designated as disabled, but clearly they will be and they are faced with the problem of discrimination. I do not know what the Minister is muttering about, but if he wants to intervene he is more than welcome to do so. When employers and insurance companies discriminate against people on those grounds I believe that we have to take action in this House.
    I was about to say that in future the struggle will be between those who are at risk trying to avoid tests because they are worried that if the results of the tests are known they will suffer discrimination, and on the other hand employers and insurance companies demanding that there should be tests. That is the real problem. They would want the results of the tests to be considered for job evaluation and insurance purposes. Whatever the outcome, those people have no protection if the Minister sets his face against the amendment.
    I know that the Government have tried to justify their stand by saying that it is psychologically damaging to treat such people as disabled. I believe that it is more damaging, both psychologically and practically, to deny those people a job or insurance.
    As scientific knowledge advances, as it is very quickly, this will become a major problem throughout Britain and the world. Many more people will be able to have tests and many more of these problems will be discovered. Therefore, we need to establish a framework for the future. The Government say that this Bill is not the right place to do that. On the contrary, I believe that this is exactly the right place for such a provision because this Bill is concerned with discrimination. The noble Lord shakes his head. It is. The Bill is called the Disability Discrimination Bill. I never knew that one could split hairs like that. This Bill is concerned with discrimination against disabled people. This is an opportunity to make special provision for those people because they suffer criminal discrimination. They are very vulnerable people; they are waiting for an illness, which is a further blow. There is no excuse for the Government refusing them protection.
    Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment for the reasons that have been given so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke.
    I have one additional concern relating to the impact of discrimination in this field; namely, the area of parental genetic counselling in order to achieve the prospect of a healthy child for parents who have a genetic predisposition. It may sound rather far-fetched, but it is already the case that identifying the gene for cystic fibrosis and replacing it through in vitro fertilisation techniques has meant that healthy babies have been born to parents who might previously have been at risk of producing a child with that particular condition. We should resolutely turn our faces against anything which leads the parents of children who might be healthy to refrain from the kind of genetic counselling and testing which might lead them to produce another generation of more advantaged children.
    The paradox which is possible in the present situation is that where genetic counselling, genetic testing and identifying genetic markers is potentially one of the most exciting and liberating developments in medical science at the end of the 20th century, if it becomes the case that people feel that identifying those markers in their own personal situation will lead to discrimination, they will be less likely to take advantage of those extraordinary scientific advances which may help their own condition and in which medical science may be able to help future generations of children.
    It is sometimes argued that, theoretically, the whole population has the potential for some kind of genetic problem. The issue now is that we are in a situation where science has developed so far that we can talk about specific developments in genetic markers which means that it is not sensible to talk about the whole population being at risk. It is possible to identify people who are at risk. We are beginning to see the results of work now on Alzheimer's disease as well as on other diseases such as Huntington's chorea and cystic fibrosis. It seems to me that it would be very foolish if at this stage we exacerbated the potential paradox of allowing people who may be helped in this way to feel that they will be discriminated against. I support the amendment.
    7.45 p.m.
    Earl Russell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for introducing an amendment which is not only important but also likely to be a great deal more important in 20 years' time than it is now.
    In supporting the amendment, I must declare an interest. In doing so I should say that the issue of genetic counselling is perhaps slightly more complicated than the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, suggested. When my father was in his twenties, which is now about 100 years ago, he was earnestly advised by several doctors that because there was a history of mental illness in the family he should never allow himself to have children. I declare an interest in the view that it is a good thing that he did not take that advice.
    I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, that my grandfather was an epileptic. It never occurred to me for a moment that that was a reason why I should not have a
    1714
    driving licence. I believe that the correct reaction to the noble Lord's point is that if there is any risk of accident sufficient to appear to the authorities a good ground for denying a licence, then the person should not drive. However, if the person is medically fit for a licence, then we should accept that the basic principle of insurance is spreading the risk.
    Lord Inglewood: We have had an extremely interesting and very wide debate. At the risk of being slightly narrow minded, I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that we are debating Part 2 of the Bill which relates to employment matters.
    The debate echoed a number of points which were raised earlier. I should like to echo a point raised on a number of occasions by my noble friend Lord Mackay; namely, that this is a disability discrimination Bill. It is designed to cover people who would commonly be understood to be disabled. That is someone who has an impairment which has a long-term and substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. We think that these are the people everyone generally takes to be disabled. We have already included in the Bill the people who would be commonly understood to be disabled: people with severe disfigurements; people with a progressive condition which is in its early stages; and people with recurring substantial effects. However, we have to draw the line somewhere, and we must draw it where there is not and never has been a disability as it is commonly understood.
    The noble Lord argued that people with genetic predispositions suffer discrimination. However, a person with a genetic predisposition is not disabled and therefore that argument is not relevant to the Bill, although it may be relevant to other matters.
    I should like to touch on a point made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen in relation to house insurance premiums. I can tell him that the Government have powers in the Bill to prevent insurance companies discriminating unjustifiably against disabled people. Refusing to insure a disabled person or charging a higher premium than normal where there is no actuarial or other good reason for doing so will be prohibited. However, I have to tell my noble friend that the Government will not require insurance companies to charge lower premiums than the risk insured requires simply because the risk is based on the customer's disability. I am aware of no legislation in the world which would require insurance companies to do that.
    As the debate has shown, there are serious ethical questions surrounding the whole topic of genetic testing. The rapid advance in scientific understanding of our genetic structure opens up a number of possibilities. It seems likely that in the relatively near future it will be possible to identify genetic predispositions in all of us. Does that mean that all of us will be disabled and covered by the Bill? Of course not. It means that scientists will be able to see in advance what conditions we are most prone to should we have the good fortune to live to old age.
    I do not deny that the whole field of genetics needs to be looked at in its entirety. The Select Committee in another place is due to publish a report on the subject shortly. It would be a mistake to pre-empt that debate by accepting

    1715
    these amendments now. We believe that the effect would be counter-productive for people with genetic predispositions and it would serve to undermine the effectiveness of a Bill intended to protect people who have or have had a disability. It is for that reason—I hope that noble Lords understand it—that I must ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment in line with what I said.
    Lord Eatwell: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him to reconsider the proposition that he made about insurance. It is not true that no insurance companies in the world would consider the generality of insurance to be separate from the risk of individuals. For example, in Germany, motor insurance does not consider the specific characteristics of individual drivers. The standard fee is related to the size of vehicle; and that is all. The structure is quite different from that of insurance in the UK. As a result, insurance is more widely held. There is less evasion. The settlement of insurance claims is more rapid; and the cost per driver on average is less because the risk is more widely spread.
    It is an example by which insurance, by not discriminating between individuals, proves to be more efficient. The statement that the noble Lord made about the nature of insurance companies is not true.
    Lord Inglewood: Perhaps I may answer the point made by the noble Lord. We are at cross-purposes. The proposition that I made, and I stick by it, is that I am aware of no legislation in the world that requires insurance companies to make such provision. The noble Lord described a situation in Germany. I have no reason to suppose that what he says is not 100 per cent. accurate. We are talking about legislation, not the commercial practice of insurance companies.
    Baroness Jay of Paddington: At the risk of prolonging this interesting debate, perhaps I may say this. I believe the noble Lord has the point slightly wrong about the whole population being at genetic risk. Specific conditions have been identified in the Bill as being required to be on the face of the Bill as special cases. We debated whether HIV should be added to cancer and the other conditions which are described.
    We can all hope for the day when a genetic marker will tell us whether or not we shall be more intelligent, or will live to 104 years. However, we have already identified genetic markers about specific genetic disabilities which could be included in the Bill.
    Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Undoubtedly in her own right she is a great deal more knowledgeable on these matters than I am. However, the point to which I return is that in the Bill we are talking about when the disability manifests itself. That is the focus on which we have debated the matter.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We have been talking about when the disability manifests itself, or gives rise to discrimination. The Minister repeats a problem that we encountered at the beginning of the debate this afternoon. By focusing exclusively on disability, discrimination will be generated against which other people in similar circumstances will have no protection.
    Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In reply to the first amendments debated today, the Minister stated that it was not possible to accept the amendment because the Bill had to deal with matters of fact and not the perception in the minds of employers. It was stated that it was totally unreasonable to legislate on whether the perception of the employer was that the person suffered from a disability so that the employer did not wish to employ that individual.
    The amendment does not refer to a perception but to a specific act: asking for information which will be taken into account. There is no point in asking for the information unless it will be of value. Therefore perhaps I may press the Minister to state whether he considers it unlawful for employers to ask for such information. Will he state quite clearly whether there would be some point along that road at which such unlawfulness would become a risk? The Government state that there are categoric groups of people who can be discriminated against on grounds of their disability.
    In the circumstances debated, we refer to a disability in the future, if there is a genetic predisposition. It is a question of degree, and when. We have referred to illnesses which involve serious disability. The Minister cannot argue both ways. He cannot argue that we cannot legislate for perceptions and then refuse to accept an amendment which deals with a concrete and quite visible situation.
    Lord Addington: Having listened to the debate on the amendment, I believe that both sides are going a long way round the argument. We are referring to information which defines a strong likelihood of developing a certain type of condition. Does the Minister accept that a level of certainty about a condition can be reached where such a condition becomes a factor? That is all we are talking about. We can go round the houses about genetic testing and whether genetic science will change rapidly. We can only deal with the situation which exists at this point in time. Certain tests can take place now which can indicate that there is a strong possibility that in 30 years' time a condition will occur. Does the Minister accept that such an issue sits squarely with the provisions of the Bill?
    Earl Russell: The Minister argued that a genetic defect is not a disability. I have looked at the wording of Clause 1. As a point of law, one could not pronounce on the matter until it had been before a court. But I am not sure that the Minister is right.
    Clause 1 includes the words "physical or mental impairment". Our gene base is physical. If our gene base is impaired, surely within the meaning of the Act (and for once I use the phrase literally) one has a physical impairment.
    I then read the qualification,
    "which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".
    Parenthood is a normal activity. How far it is exactly to be described as a day-to-day activity, I am not entirely clear. However, I should have thought that within the meaning of the Act, arguing that case in court I might have had a sporting chance.

    1717
    I should have thought that the Minister might be wise to take a little further legal advice on the question. If the Bill is not the right place to make such provision, perhaps he will tell us what is.
    Lord Inglewood: We come back again to the point that I made. I understand exactly why noble Lords feel that the basis upon which the Bill is predicated may be wrong. However, it is the basis on which the Government bring the Bill forward; namely, that for this Bill to apply, there must be a disability in place. We have debated genetic screening and genetic predisposition to certain changes taking place in people at some time in the future. However, so far as involves the here and now, we come back to the point that I mentioned earlier: there is not a disability on which the Bill can bite.
    I wish now to move to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We are talking about day-to-day activities now. That factor relates to the point that he made and to the point that I make. I am no geneticist. I do not wish to go down that road. If the genetic condition which the person may have does not have an impact on his day-to-day activities now, it will be outside the scope of Clause 1 of the Bill.
    Perhaps I may conclude by referring to some remarks which the noble Earl made in a previous contribution: we very much like you the way you are.
    Lord Swinfen: Before I make up my mind what to do about the amendment, my noble friend Lord Inglewood advised the Committee that a Select Committee in another place was considering genetic predisposition. It would be extremely useful to the Committee for the Select Committee to report before we finish with the Bill. If he is aware of it, can my noble friend give any indication as to when the committee is likely to complete its work and to report, so that those of us who are interested in the subject will have an opportunity of reading the report?
    Lord Inglewood: The best reply I can give to my noble friend's question is: some time in the autumn.
    Lord Swinfen: I thank my noble friend for that, but it is not helpful. I appreciate that the matter is outside his control. If there is a possibility of asking, through the usual channels, whether an interim report could be produced, I am sure that everyone who has taken part in the debate would find it welcome and useful.
    The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was useful. She said that it might be unlawful for employers to ask whether someone had a genetic predisposition to any disabling condition. I was not sure that we received a satisfactory answer from my noble friend. He has probably not had time to think of it. The whole question of genetics and genetic predisposition is moving so fast that, like me, he will not have had time to catch up with the latest situation. However, I understand that with one of the disabling illnesses to which people can be genetically predisposed—Huntington's Chorea—there is 99 per cent. certainty of a test accurately showing whether or not a person is likely to have the disease. As my noble friend probably knows, it is a hideous disease which produces both a physical and a mental disability which will probably come out in one's mid-forties,
    1718
    sometimes earlier, sometimes later. By that time, the next generation have probably already been born. We do not wish to put people in the position of refusing to have tests to ensure that they do not produce other people who are likely to suffer from the hideous disabling disease.
    The matter of insurance is important. In some respects, I know that the subject terrifies the insurance market. Most genetically predisposed diseases will come on slowly and gradually and there is warning. Very few come on with no warning whatever, so I am sure that provision can be made in some way or another.
    It is getting late; I did not intend to divide the Committee on the matter and I thank all those who have taken part. However, I warn my noble friend that I do not believe that I can let the matter drop. I am liable to come back either with the same amendment or a revised one at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 3 agreed to.
    Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, may I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.50 p.m.
    Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
    House resumed.

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
8.3 p.m.
Report received.

Public Offers of Securities Regulations 1995
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Public Offers of Securities Regulations be approved. In moving the regulations I also wish to speak to the Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order 1995. Both measures were laid before the House on 10th May.
The two measures are part of a package of regulations which modernises United Kingdom law on public offers of securities and simplifies the law governing the issue of investment advertisements. The package offers a number of benefits. It makes clear what information must be disclosed in a prospectus, it removes some types of offer from prospectus law altogether and it makes it easier and cheaper for United Kingdom issuers to offer securities or gain admission to official listing on stock exchanges in other member states.
The overall effect of the measures is the following: first, to bring United Kingdom legislation on public offers of securities in line with the Prospectus Directive; secondly, to revise, extend and consolidate exemptions from controls imposed on the issue of investment advertisements by Section 57 of the Financial Services Act.
First, let me deal with the alignment with the Prospectus Directive which will change the present position in five ways. First, for offers to the public of listed securities falling within the scope of the Prospectus Directive, the person offering the securities must publish a prospectus rather than listing particulars. The key benefit from that will be that prospectuses which have received Stock Exchange approval will be able to be used in other member states, both for public offers under the mutual recognition provisions of the Prospectus Directive and for official listing under the equivalent provisions of the Listing Particulars Directive. The change will also mean that when the person offering the securities is not the issuer, the offeror will become responsible for the prospectus alongside the issuer.
The second major change will be to make offers to the public of unlisted securities subject to Part II of the regulations and the contents requirements of Schedule 1. That will mean that issuers and their advisers will know precisely what information they must provide in a prospectus.
Thirdly, Part IV of the Financial Services Act will be amended to allow a prospectus for an offer of unlisted securities to be drawn up in accordance with the listing rules of the Stock Exchange and submitted to the exchange for approval. That will enable unlisted securities to benefit from the mutual recognition provisions of the Prospectus Directive and the Listing Particulars Directive.
Fourthly, the regulations will ensure that prospectuses prepared in connection with a public offer in another member state will, if approved by the competent authorities in that state, be recognised in the United Kingdom.
Finally, the regulations will ensure that those offers of securities currently covered by Part III of the Companies Act which fall outside the scope of the directive will be subject to Section 57 of the Financial Services Act. That requires investment advertisements either to be published by a person authorised under the Financial Services Act to carry on investment business, or to be approved by such a person before publication.
I turn now to exemptions from Section 57. This second part of the package will consolidate and extend the exemptions from Section 57 of the Financial Services Act made under Section 58(3) of the Act. It will also make some minor amendments to those provisions necessary to take account of the repeal of Part V of the Financial Services Act by the Public Offers of Securities Regulations. In addition, Article 14 of this order introduces a new exemption from the Section 57 approval procedure in three separate but related cases. The first and second of these, relating to prospectuses issued in accordance with Part II of the Public Offers of Securities Regulations and certain advertisements announcing the availability of such prospectuses, will simply carry forward into the new regime the existing exemptions for prospectuses issued under Part III of the Companies Act and for advertisements concerning prospectuses covered by Part V of the Financial Services Act.
The effect of the third exemption, relating to documents required for admission to trading on markets operated by exchanges in member states, is to exempt
1720
from the Section 57 approval requirement admission documents required for the new Alternative Investment Market in cases where there is no associated offer of the securities to the public.
Taken together, the package of regulations secures a number of benefits. It modernises and clarifies the existing law and ensures that the UK has a body of coherent and comprehensible legislation governing public offers of securities. It enhances investor protection by imposing a general duty on those offering unlisted securities to disclose all material information; it is deregulatory in removing certain types of offer from the requirements of prospectus law; and finally it enables United Kingdom issuers of securities to take advantage of the mutual recognition provisions of the Prospectus and Listing Particulars Directives. We believe these regulations have the support of United Kingdom industry, the City and the stock markets. I commend the orders to your Lordships and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for introducing these regulations with such clarity. I wish to address myself to the two particular documents in order, and deal first with the Public Offers of Securities Regulations 1995, which in particular establishes the responsibilities of those who would offer unlisted securities to the public. As such, as the noble Lord pointed out, these regulations are designed to ensure that, among other things, a potential purchaser of unlisted securities, other than a number of specific exceptions, receives all the relevant commercial intelligence known to the issuer and required for the prospective purchaser to make an informed commercial judgment as to the value of the securities.
I should like to illustrate, if I may, the characteristics of the relevant commercial intelligence set out in the regulations, and then to reflect upon them. Consider, for example, Regulation 9. It says:
"a prospectus shall … contain all such information as investors would reasonably require, and reasonably expect to find there, for the purpose of making an informed assessment of the assets and liabilities, financial position, profits and losses and prospects of the issuer of the securities …"
Regulation 10 says that where:
"there is a significant change affecting any matter contained in the prospectus"
or
"a significant new matter arises the inclusion of information in respect of which would have been so required if it had arisen when the prospectus was prepared"
the offerer shall publish a supplementary prospectus.
Regulation 11 says that there are some exceptions to this that the Treasury may authorise when the Treasury feels that the omission from the prospectus or a supplementary prospectus of some information is "contrary to the public interest".
Then we are told in Regulation 14 that if these regulations have not been followed and the prospectus does not contain the information which investors might reasonably be expected to be given, then the person or persons responsible for a prospectus or supplementary

1721
prospectus shall be required to pay compensation to any person who has acquired the securities to which the prospectus relates, and suffers a loss in respect of them. The person who fails to comply with Regulation 10—that is the one about all the extra information—shall be liable to pay compensation to any person who has acquired any of the securities in question and suffered a loss in respect of them.
This is entirely desirable. It is quite appropriate that those who issue prospectuses should be expected to issue all the information to prospective purchasers, and if extra information arises they should provide that too. But it is impossible to read these regulations without reflecting on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in the sale of the remaining shares in National Power and PowerGen. While it would be inappropriate to debate that matter this evening, I believe it is incumbent upon the Minister to explain to the House why the Government believe that these regulations are appropriate and yet do not maintain such standards themselves. Or, if he believes that such standards are maintained by Her Majesty's Government, why in the case of the National Power and PowerGen issues do the Government claim Crown immunity with respect to compensation to those who have suffered major losses as a result of the failure of Her Majesty's Government disclose information to which they had prior access?
I turn now to the Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order 1995. As the Minister pointed out, it is vital for the successful and honest operation of the securities market that advertisements relating to investments should comply with required standards. I am therefore particularly disturbed by some of the exemptions granted in this order. For example, would the Minister explain to the House why investment advertisements issued for the purpose of promoting or encouraging industrial or commercial activity or enterprise are exempt? While the order makes clear that the body corporate that issues such an advertisement should have no direct or indirect pecuniary interest, I can see no reason why such an advertisement should not be seriously misleading to the public and a proper subject for the Act. And I do not see that the attachment of a health warning to an advertisement is sufficient to protect the public. And of course this order does not apply to an advertisement that applies to the issuing of a prospectus, which brings us neatly in a circle to the questions I have already raised about prospectuses.
Finally, in my view the explanatory notes which are attached to these measures are entirely inadequate, and are designed to obscure rather than to inform. It is entirely wrong that Parliament should be asked to consider such important documents without proper explanation being offered by the Government of their full implications. I hope that the Minister can give the House an assurance that in future the Treasury will be less irresponsible.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject the allegations that the Treasury has been irresponsible in these matters. These matters have been discussed in considerable detail
1722
with all relevant bodies and, as I made clear in my concluding remarks, they have had general support from United Kingdom industry, from the City, from the stock markets and indeed from all those concerned.
Perhaps I may deal very briefly with some of the points made by the noble Lord about the regulations and particularly about his allegation that we did not comply with the regulations ourselves. I utterly reject the allegation that we did not operate appropriate standards when it came to the sale of shares in PowerGen and National Power. As the noble Lord will be aware, this was the subject of a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury only last Friday. As the noble Lord will also be aware, it is the subject of a Question which is to be asked by, I believe, his noble friend Lord Haskel on Thursday of this week. I will address that matter on that occasion.
As my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary made quite clear in his Statement, the Treasury will take the work forward and respond in substance to the Stock Exchange in due course. The Treasury will examine the allegations that have been made. He also went on to say that since the exchange of letters there has been a great deal of misinformed, inaccurate and hysterical comment. He then went on to clarify those particular issues. It would not be right, as I think the noble Lord made clear, for me on this occasion to elaborate or to respond in detail to these points, because they were all dealt with by my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary on that occasion.
As regards the noble Lord's queries about the list of specific exemptions in the second set of regulations, those relating to the Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order 1995, if I may, I would prefer to respond to those in writing with appropriate speed. I hope that those explanations, brief though they are, are satisfactory to the noble Lord and I hope that—I did not hear him say so—since these regulations have been welcomed by practically everyone else and, so far as I know by the Party to which the noble Lord belongs, on this occasion he will welcome these particular regulations.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I should clarify the point I made at the end of my remarks about the explanatory notes. I did not suggest that the Government had not consulted with relevant parties concerning these regulations. I suggested that the explanations which are attached to the measures are inadequate for Parliament to have the opportunity to consider their full import. I really believe that if we are to give proper consideration to complex financial regulations it is incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government, and particularly upon the Treasury, to offer clearer, more extensive and certainly more informative explanatory notes prior to their consideration. Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord that, broadly, these regulations are desirable, subject to the questions that I have asked. I am grateful that the noble Lord will write to me concerning the issue of exemptions. There, I rest my case.
Lord Henley: Before the noble Lord rests his case, perhaps I may make just a couple of points about the explanatory notes. In my experience of orders—and I

1723
have moved a certain number in my time—the notes to these are fairly full and detailed. I appreciate the point that the noble Lord makes that these are particularly complicated sets of regulations.
Having said that in my view the explanatory notes are lengthy and quite detailed—compared with past regulations, as the noble Lord will see, at well over a page, they are quite long—I will pass the comments on to those who are concerned with these matters. I am sure that they will take note of the noble Lord's point. However, I am sure that someone of the noble Lord's eminence will have had little problem in understanding them. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Financial Services Act 1986 (Investment Advertisements) (Exemptions) (No. 2) Order 1995
8.20 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.21 to 8.50 p.m.]

Disability Discrimination Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 4 [Meaning of "discrimination"]:
Lord Wise Lord Wise had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) For the purposes of this Part, references to an employer who discriminates against a disabled person shall include references to an employer who—

(a) treats a person who has a physical or mental impairment that does not have a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities, as having a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities; and

(b) treats a person who does not have a physical or mental impairment as having a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities.").

The noble Lord said: It is unfortunate that this amendment was not grouped with the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I could not contact her this morning to discuss it. I was unsure whether or not I could speak to it as it had not been grouped. However, both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, have raised issues on this amendment which primarily seeks to ensure that a further group of disabled people are protected by the measures in the Bill. At this late hour I do not wish to reiterate many of the arguments that have been put forward. I am sure
1724
that it will be a great pleasure to your Lordships to hear that I do not intend to move the amendment; rather I will read very carefully what has been said and perhaps come back to it at a later stage.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
On Question, Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Circumstances in which less favourable treatment is justified]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 19, leave out from ("if") to end of line 23 and insert ("he shows that one or more of the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) below are satisfied.").
The noble Baroness said: I am sure that your Lordships are waiting in anticipation to see whether I will follow the eloquent path so swiftly followed by the noble Lord, Lord Wise. Alas, I feel that we must visit—your Lordships may say revisit—this issue. This is an amendment about the test of reasonableness. The amendment is concerned about whether, when and under what circumstances it is legal to discriminate against someone with a disability.
We all accept that there will be occasions when it is legitimate for an employer to discriminate against a disabled person. Those circumstances are set out in Clause 5(4). The conditions are: that the disabled person is unsuitable for employment; that the disabled person is less suitable for the employment than another person and that other person is given the employment; that the nature of the person's disability significantly impedes the performance of his duties; or that, in the case of training, the nature of the disabled person's disability will significantly reduce the value of the training either to him or to the employer. Regulations also allow for additional circumstances to be prescribed.
It is regrettable but we all accept that no one sensibly presses that blind people should become van drivers or, perhaps more controversially, that someone with a history of recurring violent schizophrenia should become a teacher of special needs children. We do not ask for positive discrimination but equal rights. A disabled person should not be disqualified by virtue of a disability that is not substantially relevant to the job to be performed. It is important for the Government to understand that under the amendment it will still be open to the employer, as under the race and sex legislation, to choose the best person for the job, so long as in his judgment the employer is not improperly influenced by conditions of the disability, as with race or gender, when these are not relevant to the job under consideration.
So far so good. However, the employer is allowed to discriminate, not if one of the four conditions is objectively met, but if in his opinion one of those conditions is met. If it is not unreasonable for him to hold that opinion, even though he may be wrong to do so, he is allowed to discriminate; in other words, those four conditions are not a test of whether or not he may discriminate but a test of whether or not he considers that he may discriminate. It is not a test of the disabled person's suitability but a test of the employer's state of mind.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not here. We sparred on this issue a little earlier. What we have here is not a relatively objective test as to whether or not the disabled person can do the job, but a subjective test—the very thing that the Government went to great lengths to deplore on the first amendment—of whether or not the employer can hold such an opinion. Even though most people may not hold that opinion, it may still be within the realm of reasonableness. A disabled person's rights to fair treatment have been transmogrified into the employer's right to hold an opinion.
We are very uneasy about this. It would be very difficult for any disabled person to demonstrate to any tribunal that it was beyond the realms of reasonableness for the employer to hold the view that he did, even if the employer objectively was empirically wrong to do so. It is relatively straightforward for a tribunal to judge as an empirical matter whether or not the employer's behaviour is reasonable. What our amendment seeks to do is precisely that. It is much harder to do that if we leave the Bill unamended, because then the test is whether or not it is reasonable for the employer to hold the opinion that he holds. That is an inquiry into the state of mind of the employer—the very grounds on which the Government rejected the very first amendment today. As the Bill stands, one is asking industrial tribunals to adjudicate not on behaviour but on opinions, which is to follow a slippery slope.
In the brief that RADAR was kind enough to provide to me reference was made to the case of Hampson v. DES heard in 1989 in the Court of Appeal. That set out the ground rules for sex and race legislation. In that judgment, Lord Justice Balcombe said:
"It is not sufficient for the employer to establish that he considered his reasons adequate".
Quite so. However, under this Bill without the amendment it will be. I suggest that disabled people are as much entitled to protection in law as is provided for under sex and race legislation. Without the amendment, if the employer thinks his reasons are adequate they will not be so protected. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: The noble Baroness has moved one of the more important amendments that we are to discuss today. If we refer just to opinion we are not even talking about informed opinion. We are referring to prejudice and to somebody who in effect does not know what he is talking about. If this is to be taken into account, we may as well not have large chunks of this Bill, for the simple reason that someone can make a judgment without knowing anything about the matter and just proceed on. If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, or something very like it, they will do damage to many of the good points in the Bill.
The Government always tell us that economics dominate everything. The opinion of an employer affects the way that many disabled people perceive their worth in society.
Unless the Government are prepared to accept an amendment along these lines, they are effectively wasting a good deal of their time and ours in putting this Bill on the statute book.
Lord Inglewood: Following the exchange of views between my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, earlier today, it will come as no surprise if this particular amendment is not withdrawn.
Clause 5 deals with cases in which it is justifiable for an employer to treat a disabled person less favourably. To make a small point—some people might say that it is a pedantic point—the definition of discrimination is to treat a disabled person less favourably without justification. It is not in fact the case that, if actions fall within the scope of Clause 5 of the Bill, that, strictly speaking, can be described as discriminatory. In Clause 5(1) it is necessary that, in the employer's opinion, one or more of the conditions in subsection (4) are satisfied and that it is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for him to hold that opinion.
A number of points have been raised in relation to that matter. I should like to spend a moment making one or two comments on them. First, it is not in fact the case that the proposition that something is reasonable is not the same as the proposition that something is not unreasonable. Secondly, reference was made to the fact that employers might be able to do something "even though most people do not hold the opinion". The fact that most people do or do not hold a particular opinion has very little bearing in this regard. Finally, we have had some discussion about inquiries into states of mind. It was not made clear whose state of mind was involved. Reference was made to the judgment of Lord Justice Balcombe.
The key words in the Bill as drafted are:
"it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to hold that opinion".
The test of reasonableness here is an objective test. The judgment is not made exclusively from the perspective of any one person. If the matter goes to a tribunal and ultimately to the court, the assessment is made by the person sitting in judgment on whether it is reasonable for an employer in those particular circumstances to have acted in the manner that has been alleged. It is important that we are clear about that. It is not simply a subjective approach to the problem. It is an objective approach, bringing in a test of reasonableness which is a very well recognised test in English law.
The effect of the amendment is to ignore the fact that an employer is entitled to have legitimate opinions about whom he employs. It would make the conditions in subsection (4) become purely factual tests. It wholly ignores the important questions of judgment involved. To my knowledge there is not any wholly factual test of suitability for a particular job. It is certainly not a question of whether someone can do the main functions of a job. Suitability goes wider than that. Several applicants might meet such a test, but the employer still has to choose from them which is the most suitable. That must be a matter for the employer's judgment. This amendment removes the judgment from the employer and gives it to an industrial tribunal. A tribunal would have to decide whether applicant A, for example, was less suitable for the employment than applicant B.
The amendment also takes no account of the facts known to the employer at the time—if a disabled person performs badly at an interview (after any reasonable

1727
adjustment of course), under these amendments there would still be the "factual" question of whether he (or she) was "really" the most suitable candidate after all—which could be aired all over again before the tribunal. That would be quite wrong.
It is not a matter for a tribunal to make decisions of that sort. It is for the tribunal to decide whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances for an employer to believe that the individual was unsuitable. That is right. After all, we are dealing with the question of whether there was discrimination. We are not asking the tribunal to decide who was the most suitable candidate.
We must all recognise that it is important to create a proper balance between the concerns of disabled people and the legitimate interests of employers to make decisions in the best interests of their business. We shall certainly listen very carefully to the points that are made on this clause. But I cannot accept the suggestion contained in the amendment that tribunals are to pay no regard to the many legitimate issues of judgment faced by employers. There is ample protection for disabled people in the requirement that the employer's opinion must be reasonably held. I hope that that has given some reassurance to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wonder whether the Minister can be pressed a little further on comparisons with cases which are taken before tribunals on grounds of sex discrimination. It is my experience that the issue that is considered is the issue of the most suitable person to have been appointed to the job. Ultimately, the criteria necessary for consideration as a candidate have to be met by people who are put on a short list. But then further desirable or advantageous qualities which the individual candidates possess and bring to the job, which are not necessary but desirable, are considered in detail by a tribunal. A comparison is made particularly between those qualities which are the desirable qualities for the person making the appointment. Those are then assessed and it is necessary for the employer to demonstrate that there was justifiable choice between the candidate who got the job and the candidate who was unsuccessful.
I cannot see why a different line is being taken in the light of the response that has just been given on behalf of the Government when the issue is one of disability discrimination. Surely the case that needs to be put by the employer needs to be equally strong when the discrimination is on grounds of disability as, for example, when the discrimination occurred on grounds of sex.
Lord Inglewood: I hope that I can be helpful to the noble Baroness. She has raised a question which is of great significance. The starting point of the Bill has been made clear on a number of occasions. We do not consider that the way to deal with discrimination in regard to disability is the same way in which one deals with problems of sex or race. I said that as a back-drop to my further remarks.
So far as concerns this particular Bill, we are concerned to ensure that there is no discrimination against disabled people on the basis of their disability, if I may so shortly describe it. Therefore, it does not follow that if someone
1728
does not get the job there has been discrimination; neither does the inverse proposition apply, which is that there can only be no discrimination if that person does get the job.
Perhaps I may explain how the process works. It is necessary for an employer to assess the merits of the candidates, however many there may be, as they are. Having assessed those merits, it is then necessary for the employer to "add on" reasonable adjustment. We may come later to arguing exactly what that means, but here we are looking at the concept.
One then adds on, by virtue of the reasonable adjustment provisions, advantages to particular employees who may be disabled. Once one has done that, one has to compare the candidates against each other in the ordinary way, if there were no disability issues present at all. I hope that that describes how these particular procedures would work. That is the basis on which any tribunal, were one to be ultimately involved in the matter, would approach the problem.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I must press this matter further. In the Minister's answer he said that comparison must be made between the candidates to assess whether discrimination had or had not occurred. Yet the proposals in the Bill do not allow the same degree of examination of that issue to the point of who was appointed and who was not, and whether the judgment on appointment was based on unfair discrimination against someone with a disability. The guidelines would not be as stringent as in a case brought on grounds of sex or race. Surely that process must be the same. I fail to see how the Government can say that they are protecting against discrimination on grounds of disability, but only partially protecting. Surely the stringency should be the same whatever the issue which is the alleged discrimination.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness is obviously much more familiar with sex and race discrimination legislation than I am. I fear it is possible that I may have unwillingly and unwittingly slightly misled her. As regards these provisions, and as far as the test of whether or not discrimination has taken place in the context of an individual, it does not matter about the other people who might be interested in the particular job. Let us assume that we are talking about a job because it makes a description easier.
The issue relates to the individual concerned. If he or she is a disabled person as defined, there is a duty on the potential employer to follow the process of reasonable adjustment. That will vary from individual to individual depending on the nature of their particular disability. The general measure is described in Clause 6. Once that has occurred it is for the potential employer to determine whether or not the particular person fits the case. What the potential employer cannot do is to say that a particular individual is unsuitable because of certain aspects of his or her disability where reasonable adjustment would have ceased to be a problem for him. That is the way in which we approach it. If at a later stage some criticism is made of an employer and the matter goes to a tribunal, the argument will relate to that particular issue. As regards any one individual, the characteristics of anyone else who may have applied for the job will not be directly relevant.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That was a very helpful exchange. From what the Minister has said it seems to me that the problem is worse than I had assumed. The Minister seems to be saying, in response to my noble friend, that what the employer can do is to say that X is unsuitable because "reasonable cost" would not make him suitable even though the employer was misinformed because "reasonable cost" would have made him suitable.
If I understand the Minister correctly—we all accept that judgment is involved, and I do not believe that anyone challenges that—he has given any employer carte blanche to parade his prejudice and call it his judgment. I do not see how we can protect, as I am sure we wish to do, disabled people under this Bill in this way.
The Minister referred to the tribunal and said that it would decide not whether a person was the best candidate, but whether discrimination had occurred. As I am reminded, reasonableness is not simply a matter to be determined by a tribunal acting as an industrial jury. The phrase is that it is a "legal term of art" for which there is binding authority in unfair dismissal law requiring an interpretation allowing an extremely wide range of discretion to the employer. "Reasonable" is understood by industrial tribunals to mean something within a band of reasonableness. Only if that action is outside that band of reasonableness can it be characterised as not reasonable.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in the case of British Leyland v. Swift (1981) said:
"The correct test is: was it reasonable for the employers to dismiss him? If no reasonable employer would have dismissed him, then the dismissal was unfair. But if a reasonable employer might reasonably have dismissed him, then the dismissal was fair. It must be remembered that in all these cases there is a band of reasonableness within which one employer might reasonably take one view; another quite reasonably take a different view".
In other words, an employer's opinion can be said not to be reasonable only if no reasonable employer would have held that opinion. That is the problem we are up against. We have gone down the slippery slope into a subjective assessment of whether all reasonable employers would have acted in that way, and, if even one did, it would be acceptable under the Bill as framed.
We are dealing with what is in the employer's head, which is a subjective test. That is what we are asking that the rights of disabled people should depend upon. Having received some extra paper, I do not know whether the Minister wishes to comment. It would be helpful. It is important to push the Minister further to see what is his thinking before deciding what we do about the amendment, perhaps on Report.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness is trying to push me as far as she can. I fully understand that that is the name of the game. The first point the noble Baroness made was about an employer parading his prejudice. If an employer paraded his prejudice, however wide the bands of reasonableness might be, he would have left those bands behind him.
I return to one of the key features of the way in which the Bill has been drafted. It was a point to which I alluded in my earlier remarks. In simple terms it is that the tribunal
1730
will not usurp the employer's role. I tried to make that clear in my earlier remarks. The employer operates within a degree of flexibility. I concur with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in this context. They struck me as being helpful. They underpin the case that the Government are making. Individual employers, be they businessmen or whatever, will operate within a band which, according to their particular circumstances and approach, they will wish to adopt in conducting the affairs with which they are dealing. That is called judgment. It is called discretion.
Beyond certain limits, one enters territory which any ordinary person, be he a member of a tribunal, a High Court judge, or any other sensible person, would clearly say is unreasonable. What we believe is appropriate in the context of this Bill is, on the one hand, to help disabled people by ensuring that their disability is not held against them in a discriminatory manner, while at the same time ensuring that those people who are responsible for running the business, those people who are employing people, can still exercise that discretion which any reasonable judge of what they were doing would allow them to do. That is the crucial point which is at the core of the Government's approach. I hope that I have described it clearly and in a way which, if not accepted by the Benches opposite, is at least understood.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was disappointed in that reply. How can we ensure a disabled person's rights not to be discriminated against in the field of employment? If two employers are faced with an identical job situation and, let us say, with a person with the same degree of impairment, one could make one decision and the other could make a different decision. Everything the Minister has said suggests that in a situation with two identical job descriptions and two identical candidates in, let us say for the sake of argument, an identical field, one employer could make one decision and another could make a different decision, because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said, there is a band of reasonableness within which one employer might reasonably take one view; another might reasonably take a different view.
The difference between those two employers is not about anything that is objective, it is about their state of mind. It is their perceptions; it is their attitude. It is no good saying it is their judgment or discretion; it is attitude. If whether a person has a case or not depends upon the employer having that attitude, then we have gone down the slope I feared, which is the slippery slope of subjective judgment.
When it suits the Minister, because we are worried about perception, as in the first amendment, or, had we spent a little more time on it, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wise, the Government insist we are talking about objective disability. When it comes to discrimination, it suddenly becomes subjective discrimination, because it is all about judgment and the test of reasonableness.
The Government cannot have it both ways, otherwise disabled people will lose out on the test of disability and the test of discrimination. The Government will have set it up in that way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) the employer has taken appropriate expert advice as a basis of his opinion; and").
The noble Baroness said: To some extent the amendment follows on the previous discussion. It purpose is to ensure that the employer's opinion about the extent of disability is not merely trivial or based on prejudice; perhaps rejecting a disabled person because his appearance is not deemed suitable for the employment in question. The effect of the amendment would be that an employer would have to seek expert advice on the suitability of the disabled person to carry out the essential duties of the employment.
Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 the funding councils for both further and higher education are required to have regard to the needs of students with learning difficulties and disabilities. In order accurately to assess those needs and to make appropriate provision, the funding councils are required to seek expert advice. The amendment would require potential employers to seek appropriate advice in order to arrive at an accurate and informed assessment as to whether a person's disability would be likely to prevent him or her from being able to carry out the duties associated with the prospective employment.
The organisations which specialise in assisting the disabled can provide numerous examples which appear to indicate that what is proposed in the amendment is necessary. Perhaps I may quote an example that I have been given by one of those organisations. Within the past year a partially sighted employee was dismissed from his employment with the National Car Parks organisation because he was unable to carry out his duties with the small screen provided with the computer in the office. Had the employer been obliged to seek expert advice, he would have discovered that the employee could have done the work quite well with a larger screen and, moreover, that the cost of providing the screen could have been borne under the access-to-work scheme.
If we are to take non-discrimination seriously we must ensure that such cases do not happen and that people who could quite well carry out jobs are not kept out of them through ignorance or prejudice. Earlier today we had a great deal of discussion about the organisations to be available to give advice and I hope that we shall not now revisit that discussion. However, it appears that, as regards students, expert advice is available for funding councils under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 and therefore it ought to be available to give advice to employers to the kind of circumstances to which I have referred.
I hope, in particular in the light of our recent discussion, that this time around the Government will be prepared to lend a favourable ear to what we have been saying. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I support the amendment for the simple reason that it removes many of my objections to the part of the Bill that we discussed in the previous amendment. Surely, informed opinion is to be preferred
1732
over uninformed opinion. If an employer is making a decision on the grounds that he knows what he is talking about, as opposed to what he perceives from an uninformed point of view, he is more likely to make a reasonable decision.
A provision such as this should be included in the Bill. We should ignore the idea of acting on prejudice. If we remove the possibility of uninformed prejudice, we shall remove many of the situations in which discrimination is taking place. I hope that the Government will take the proposal on board. If not, they will be creating more situations in which the courts and tribunals must sit. Requiring people to take on board knowledge will help on all sides.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find this amendment rather worrying as it seems almost to indicate that we wish to discriminate positively in favour of disabled people. I do not think that disabled people would want that. This is meant to be a Bill to avoid discrimination, but it should not impose very considerable burdens, and I consider that to have to take advice from an "appropriate expert" would be extremely costly.
In our last debate it was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that employers would have different views. I can tell the noble Baroness that experts too have different views, and half a dozen experts would have half a dozen different views. Therefore, that presents a problem.
I have sat on an industrial tribunal for 20 years. Every aspect of every case is considered extremely carefully. In 20 years, I believe that there has been only one case on which there was disagreement among the three members of the tribunal. Usually as the facts emerge, it becomes quite clear cut, one way or the other.
Baroness Lockwood: I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, regards this as a positive discrimination aspect of the Bill. It merely seeks to provide advice to employers before they take certain decisions which might lead them to an industrial tribunal. In that event, the tribunal would have to decide and give advice.
When we discussed the matter earlier, one problem that was referred to was the fact that if there is no central body to assist individuals, there could be many individual cases going to different tribunals and the different tribunals may make different judgments.
If there were someone or a team of people who were centrally based who could give advice on what is regarded as "reasonable", then the number of cases to go before tribunals would be reduced. But assuming that cases go before tribunals and that, because of the vagueness of the clause, appeals are taken from the tribunals to an appeal court, then you would begin to have a legal code on the interpretation of the legislation.
In that case, it would be extremely helpful for advisers to be available to advise on what was the authoritative interpretation. Inevitably, in the early stages, mistakes will be made. But we want to minimise those, to have what would be a national code on the interpretation of the Act. The proposal made by the amendment would be a great help in that respect.
Lord Rix: Would it not be possible for the amendment to be amended so that it reads that:
"the employer has taken appropriate expert advice from the National Disability Council",
whatever that may end up as being? Surely that is the body to be put in place to give advice on all such cases.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps we should consider the situation from the point of view of the employer. He has difficult decisions to make when dealing with disability and the employment of disabled people.
As the Bill is currently drafted, the interpretation is that it is down to the employer, in his reasonable opinion, to make a judgment. We must be concerned with a situation where the employer, not taking any advice from anybody, says, "I think this is reasonable". He engages in a course of action; he does not employ the disabled person because he thinks that it is reasonable not to do so; he is then taken to an industrial tribunal. That tribunal then says, "We do not think that what you did was reasonable". Therefore, the tribunal finds against him.
It seems to me that it would be useful for the employer to be able to offer in his defence that he had taken expert advice. That is the way that I would read what is proposed by the amendment. If an employer is faced with a claim of discrimination, it would be a good defence to be able to say that he had taken expert advice regarding the action that he took. I see it as a support for the employer rather than the other way round.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to take up the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. I quite agree with him. I think that it would be very desirable for the employer to take such advice. However, I believe that the proposed amendment is placing an obligation on the employer.
Baroness O'Cathain: I should like to support the remarks just made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. It seems to me that if we put such a provision into the Bill we would have a situation where, again, we would be loading additional costs on the employer. After all, an employer who runs a business and is used to employing staff must take a reasonable view of employment in every operation, unless he is a real cowboy employer. If he does so, surely, based on his experience and expertise, and his judgment, he is credited with being able to make such a decision. If the matter goes to an industrial tribunal, I am quite convinced that a reasonable employer would obtain expert advice at that stage to ascertain whether or not he had made the wrong decision. However, to say to an employer that he must take expert advice at every stage in such situations would be to put much onus on him as regards extra costs because expert advice does not come cheap.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am less concerned with the poor employer, as the noble Baroness put it, than I am with the poor disabled person who may suffer such discrimination. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to respond. I give way.
Baroness O'Cathain: The last thing that I would like the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to think is that I do not consider disabled people. I am involved in the proceedings solely because I believe that the Bill will enable disabled people to have an able-bodied existence in every way throughout life—for example, in employment, in access to goods and services, and so on.
I sincerely hope that what I said will not be taken to mean that I do not take such matters into account. That is my starting point. However, I am also aware that if employers are overloaded with costs at every turn, their competitiveness will be so eroded that they will not have the ability to employ anyone, let alone disabled people, because that business will not be a success.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: If I may say so, it is a very old story to say that the provision would overload employers with excessive costs and interfere with competition. Indeed, we have been through it many times in both this and the other place. But, in point of fact, that is not possible under the Bill because it specifically says that there must be no unreasonable burdens placed on the employer. Therefore, the noble Baroness can rest a while and not worry about the poor employers because the legislation will prevent any excessive burdens being imposed upon them.
It puzzled me to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, arguing against expert advice for employers. To me, that is a very strange kind of thesis. I do not see how the proposal can be classified as discrimination because employers need expert advice; indeed, it is certainly something which would be wholly beneficial for them. All we are asking is that employers do take "appropriate expert advice". What is wrong with that?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I believe that it would be excellent for advice to be available to employers, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, suggested. However, as I see it, the amendment would place an obligation upon the employer to get such advice. That is the difference.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The amendment seeks to place an obligation on employers because some employers need such advice. I have in mind those who are prepared to discriminate and who will not take such advice. That is why we want to impose an obligation upon them. They are the kind of people who will say, "No one will tell me how to run my business. If I want to discriminate, I will do so". It is because there are such employers that we seek, as reasonable people, to put the reasonable obligation upon all of them to obtain such advice. That is all.
Lord Vinson: Will the noble Lord be kind enough to tell me how many people he has employed in his life and how many problems regarding the difficulty of trying to come to a fair judgment he personally has had experience of?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I can tell the noble Lord that I was a shop steward for many years—
Lord Vinson: That is not the same!
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I will answer the question in a moment. I learnt that there are some employers one has to talk to with a strong voice. I do not apologise for not having been an employer but I can tell the noble Lord that

1735
I have had eight years of experience in industry working closely with workers of all kinds and negotiating closely with employers as a shop steward, so I think I know what am talking about.
Lord Vinson: Thank you very much for making that point and thank you for making it clear that you have not actually employed anybody nor gone through the difficulties that that involves. Thank you.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I am glad to respond to the point because it does not in any way vitiate the points I am making simply because I am not an employer. I think that was one of the cheapest debating points I ever heard in either Chamber. It is of no relevance. I should like to ask the noble Lord—
Lord Lucas: May we return to the Bill please?
Baroness Seear: I would have thought that it was not at all unreasonable that the Government should pay for this expert advice. In the old days one used to get any advice from the factory inspectors. Sometimes it was good and sometimes it was not, but at least one got it for nothing. If the Government want to implement this measure, I see no reason why they should not lay on the available expert advice, if they can find it. I must say I am a bit bothered as to where all these experts are going to come from. To picture the small employer with about five employees—these are the people you will get trouble from—finding the right expert advice and paying for it seems to me to be living in cloud cuckoo land. We want something of this kind to be done, but I am bound to say that I do not think the measure in the form in which it appears here will work. But I do think that at least the Government might take responsibility for the cost of providing advice and should tell us where these experts are to be found. We are inclined in this Chamber to speak as if there were a whole lot of independent experts floating around.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There will be!
Baroness Seear: Yes, and three-quarters of them will not be worth the money one pays for them. That is one of the big difficulties. I think the objective behind this issue is right, but we need to think it through a great deal more carefully than it has been thought through up till now.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I speak as someone who has made many appointments and been an employer since 1977; and I speak as someone who has been taken before an industrial tribunal and cross-questioned on two cases of alleged discrimination. I was found guilty in one of them, although I was not present when either of the appointments was made. Those appointments involved staff who were already in our employment and they concerned promotion, which is a matter which has not been raised so far in our debate. I would say that the matter of what constitutes appropriate advice must be a matter of judgment.
Drawing on that experience, what concerns me is that there was a period of time when a bald assertion used to be made by people appointing head teachers, for example, that a woman head teacher was unable to exert the disciplinary control necessary for a school which contained boys, either a co-educational school or a boys' school. That assertion was made. However, it was
1736
possible to obtain expert advice that that assertion was nonsense. It was also asserted that it would be impossible for teachers with a fairly severe physical handicap to be able to teach children in a classroom. Expert advice demonstrates that it is possible, all other things being equal, for teachers with quite serious physical handicaps to be good and satisfactory teachers. I am not arguing for automatic appointment in those circumstances.
What worries me about the debate to which I have just listened is that most people who discriminate—in my experience which stretches over many years—do so through ignorance rather than through prejudice. The problem with discrimination through ignorance is, by its nature, that those who are ignorant do not know they are ignorant.
Therefore, the issue is to require people to check what is possible. There are many voluntary organisations which can offer evidence that it is possible for somebody who is blind to be a hotel receptionist, for example. People should also be required to check whether it is possible and reasonable to make minor adaptations to equipment.
It may be that the amendment will not be pushed to a vote tonight. However, I feel that those who believe that there is an army of people who are knowledgeable, well read and up to date in what is possible, or that there is a mass of people out there just waiting to be prejudiced are both wrong. The problem is that we have grown up in a society—and I have spent 55 years in such a society— where the "do they take sugar?" approach permeates our whole attitude. Therefore, we have to require employers who are minded to say that a particular person could not do a particular job because they cannot see, are not physically mobile, cannot hear, or for whatever reason, to check those bald prejudices at the beginning. It is in their interests, but not only in their interests. It is also in the interests of people who are trying to break out of the vicious trap that they have been pushed into.
Lord Carter: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I should say that I am qualified to satisfy noble Lords opposite. I am an employer and I have employed disabled people.
I am not sure whether the Committee is aware that there is a substantial growth area in disability awareness training. If Members of the Committee opposite are worried about the lack of experts who can advise employers about problems relating to disability, large numbers of people are available. They are disabled people.
Lord Rix: I am sorry to intervene again. I must also declare an interest. I have been an employer for 49 years.
I suggested earlier that the national disability council might well be the arm to which the amendment could be referred. Unfortunately, as it is presently constituted under Clause 23(4) of Part IV,
"The power conferred by subsection (3) does not include power to confer on the Council any functions with respect to the investigation of any complaint which may be the subject of proceedings under this Act".
I hope that that is something that we shall consider when the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, are moved on Thursday.

1737
If that point in relation to the national disability council could be considered closely that would satisfy Amendment No. 28 in regard to the appropriate expert advice. That advice could come from the national disability council itself.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: We have had a worthwhile, sparky and useful debate on this subject. It seems to be held in some parts of the Chamber that there is a shortage of experts on this topic in the outside world. There is certainly no shortage of experts in this Chamber this evening.
The effect of the amendment would be that an employer would have compulsorily to seek expert advice every time he had to make a judgment about how to deal with a disabled person for a reason which related to the disability.
Perhaps I can begin by referring to a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. In Clause 7 of the Bill, there is a threshold below which Part II of the Bill will not apply. As currently drafted, that threshold is 20 employees. Therefore, the types of case with which the noble Baroness was concerned would probably fall outside the scope of what we are discussing now, certainly in a legal if not in a practical sense.
We do not differ in believing that employers ought to seek help and assistance, if they need to do so, when making a decision about whether less favourable treatment is justified. The duty under the clause is unlikely to be fulfilled in many cases unless the employer is either knowledgeable or seeks advice from a knowledgeable source on disability. However, where we differ is about the need to make it compulsory to seek appropriate advice before he can make the decision.
There are many factors involved in coming to a final decision about, for example, taking on an employee. An employer may or may not need to seek advice about any particular factor during that process. However, a large employer with wide experience of employing disabled people might not need to seek advice because he may already have that knowledge or it may be available in-house. It is not clear though whether that would satisfy having taken "appropriate" expert advice. What does "appropriate" mean in this context? To go back to where I began, who is an "expert"? When all is said and done, one is at perfect liberty to take advice from whomsoever one wishes.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, raised the question regarding the National Disability Council. I have not been able to check the provisions of the Bill. However, I believe that I am right in saying that the council will not investigate complaints. But it could offer advice and no doubt if it were asked it might have some views. Perhaps I may be forgiven for promoting my own profession. It is always possible to seek expert advice from a lawyer if one cannot obtain it from elsewhere.
With regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, free advice is normally worth what one pays for it. One has to be a little careful about that.
Baroness Seear: The factory inspectors on the whole gave quite good advice for nothing.
Lord Inglewood: However, there will be much helpful advice available from the Employment Service and placement and counselling teams. No doubt many other bodies will be able and willing to provide effective advice. I refer to voluntary bodies and citizens advice bureaux about which we spoke earlier. It is not for the Government to restrict employers' ability to seek their own appropriate advice, nor indeed to fund all the advice that an employer may feel he needs or wants.
It is clear that there will be many cases, perhaps a majority, in which an employer could fulfil his duty without the need for any advice. In a case where the employer may need advice there are a number of options open to him. The Government believe that the decision as to whether or not advice is needed must remain with the employer, as must the decision as to where he obtains that advice, if he needs it. That seems to us sensible.
As noble Lords will see when we debate Clause 26 later, the code of practice will give guidance on the ways in which an employer can fulfil his duties and will be subject to wide consultations. I hope that that will reassure Members of the Committee. Contrary to what has been suggested, the Bill requires that an employer's opinion must be reasonably held. I do not wish to go back over the debate on the previous amendment. In cases where there is a genuine uncertainty about the effects of a particular disability, tribunals will ask what steps an employer took to examine that issue. As my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said, on occasions there will be an evidential need to show that advice has been taken to establish the position of the employer. On the other side of the coin—it was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley—the people who most need the advice will not take it. One can take as much advice as one wishes; but one will not act properly on it. That will not advance the case of the disabled person one jot. We believe that the approach outlined is the right way to deal with the problem, and not to impose an unnecessary and burdensome procedural requirement of this kind.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on two further points. The noble Baroness Lady Turner cited a case relating to someone working for National Car Parks. I do not know the details of the case, but it seems to me that on the basis of what she described the circumstances would be discriminatory and the provisions of Clause 3(2) (d) of the Bill would come into effect. There would be a duty in those circumstances for an employer actually to carry out reasonable adjustment.
I wish to touch briefly on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, about a code. Guidance will be provided on these matters. But it inevitably will be the case that where a new legal order comes into being, it will take time for a code to develop. That is inevitable. Unfortunately, no doubt over time there will be decisions which go to industrial tribunals; and tribunals—and beyond them possibly the courts—will make judgments which will then build up the code. However, that will take place over time. One cannot instantly accomplish that bearing in mind the nature of the judicial process.

1739
I hope that Members of the Committee will feel reassured by what I said about the practical help and guidance which will be available to employers of disabled people. I do not believe that we should place unnecessary requirements on employers. It is on that basis that I invite the Committee to reject the amendment, if it is put to the vote, or the proposer to withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before my noble friend responds to the Minister and decides what to do, I should like to ask the Minister a question. I was surprised by something he said and I may have misunderstood it or there may be some aspect which I did not understand. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, he suggested that there was a body, the National Disability Council, which could help. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, asked whether that body could give advice to individuals, employers and organisations and be the expert body. As I recall, the Minister said that it could do so but it would not have the power to investigate complaints. He gave the impression that the body could give advice to employers and organisations but not investigate complaints. Can the Minister tell me where in Clause 23 or Schedule 3 that power can be found?
Lord Inglewood: In my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I said that I had not turned up the relevant provisions of the Bill before I made my comments. Institutionally, the body cannot give advice, but the point I wished to make to him was that if someone were casting around, with nowhere else to go, they might find they could be helped by contacting that body. It would not be able to give expert advice but might help as a longshot on where a person might find it.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, as far as I read Part IV of the Bill, it seems to lay down that the National Disability Council can only give advice to the Secretary of State. It seems to me to be onerous for a person seeking employment to have to go to the Secretary of State to get matters clarified.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is the point I hope the Minister will address. I can see no powers under Part IV, Clause 23 or the relevant schedule that would allow any direct giving of advice by the National Disability Council to anyone other than the Secretary of State, except through the mechanism, say, of the code, at the request of the Secretary of State.
Lord Inglewood: The noble Baroness is quite right; she cannot see that provision in the Bill and I must have seen the wrong wording. The answer is that the NDC cannot advise on employment matters although it will be involved in issuing codes of practice to businesses on the provision of goods and services. I should not have tried to think on my feet.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Given that the Minister accepts that there is a need to give advice, and that in response to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, he accepted that the National Disability Council might be an appropriate body to give such advice, can we express the following hope? It is that when we revisit the subject in Committee when we reach the National
1740
Disability Council, the Minister will make it clear, as he has done, that he would welcome the council having that additional function.
Lord Inglewood: In my comments, I made it quite clear that the Department of Employment is in a position to give advice. That seems to cover the noble Baroness's point.
Earl Russell: I listened carefully to the Minister's reply. As a Liberal, I can understand the case that he made against compulsion, but there is still a problem. I have not heard an answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, that those who are ignorant do not know that they are ignorant. I wonder whether there is a case for reconsidering the wording of Clause 5(1). Perhaps the words which constitute a red rag to some of us on this side of the Committee are the words "in his opinion". I understand what the Minister said, that that is subject to a test of reasonableness. But an employer reading it in a hurry—one is always in a hurry when one has a lot to do—may see it as simply entitling him to think what he thinks. Would it not be better to have a phrase suggesting that the employer must have good cause for believing that one of the conditions in subsection (4) is satisfied? That would give a rather plainer signal to the employer that there is a burden of proof which he must shoulder.
Lord Inglewood: I have a feeling that we are going back to what we were debating three or four weeks ago in the context of the Jobseekers Bill. As I understand the way the Bill has been constructed, the change to which the noble Earl referred would not add anything to what is in the Bill. We are always willing to contemplate the detail of the drafting and we will put our minds to the detailed drafting of the clause. There is nothing that is incapable of improvement. However, I do not believe that the form of words which the noble Earl proposes as an amendment would in any way alter the substance.
Earl Russell: I admit that the change I proposed was cosmetic, but the effect of a cosmetic change may occasionally be interesting.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend replies to that, the court can decide whether there is good cause much more easily than whether someone holds a correct opinion. Opinion is nebulous where good cause is not.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: It is extremely important that we establish beyond any shadow of doubt that ignorance will not be a defence and that somebody saying they had never known anybody who had a serious or difficult disability managing to work in a particular job or particular set of circumstances could not be considered to have good cause. Therefore the onus is on the employers to take advice if they are about sweepingly to use prejudice to rule out of consideration all the suitable people who happen to have disabilities.
Lord Inglewood: I think I can most easily respond to that by simply saying that ignorance is not an excuse. The whole point here is that the person concerned has to act in a reasonable manner. I talked earlier about the band of reasonableness which the noble Baroness, Lady

1741
Hollis, has referred to, quoting, I think, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Ignorance is way beyond the band that "reasonableness" encompasses.
Referring to the point made by noble friend Lord Swinfen, I really do not think that applies. Our courts are very experienced and are used to dealing with matters such as these. They can come to these conclusions perfectly satisfactorily on the basis of the wording that is contained in Clause 5.
Baroness Turner of Camden: We have had an extremely interesting debate on what I thought was a very simple amendment. I want to make the point very strongly that in drafting this amendment, we had not in mind positive discrimination. We wanted to ensure that decisions, when they were made by employers, were made on the basis of experienced opinion rather than on the basis of prejudice. I think, as has become apparent during the debate, a number of noble Lords on all sides of the Committee believe that many employers are prone to prejudice in regard to the appointment of disabled people.
I myself for a long while was in charge of staff, though not specifically as an employer, and I always did my very best to abide by the quota system that we then had. Sometimes it was a bit difficult because not all disabled people were willing to register under the quota system; but I, along with many others in the employing situation, did my best to ensure that disabled people did have a fair chance to obtain employment. It is quite true that many employers exist who will give disabled people a chance of reasonable employment.
The problem about legislation is always that you have to legislate for the worst possible people. The reason for legislation is to maintain standards. If all employers were reasonable employers, decent employers and fair-minded employers, we would not need legislation of any kind—just a few injunctions from the Government. We need legislation because there are bad employers, ignorant employers and employers who will probably not abide by legislation unless it has some force behind it. Because of that we wanted to have something written into the Bill which would make it necessary for employers not to rely simply on prejudice or on what they thought to be the situation with regard to the possibilities of the disabled person being able to conform with the requirements of the job, but that they would have to take skilled and expert advice in order to do so. I believe, as my noble friend Lord Carter has said, that there will be plenty of such advice available.
I believe that it is necessary to have some measure of compulsion; otherwise I really cannot see the legislation working in the way the Government say they want it to work. As to the point raised about the National Disability Council, my noble friend Lady Hollis has dealt with that point adequately, although I would point out, as I understand it, that the council will have a relatively small budget: something like £250,000. So it is not going to have very much money available in order to provide the kind of expert advice and assistance that is envisaged in the original amendment.
1742
Obviously, I shall not press the amendment to a vote at this hour of the night, but I am not very happy about the way in which the Government have responded. I note that there will be a code of practice. I note what the Minister has to say about the case that I quoted, and that a clause in the Bill would have covered the situation in regard to that particular employee. Nevertheless, we ought to look again at the situation with a view to perhaps coming back with something redrafted on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert:
("( ) the disabled person is unable to satisfy an important requirement or qualification relating to the employment; or
( ) the disabled person is less able to satisfy an important qualification or requirement relating to the employment than another person and that other person is given the employment;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 30 to 33, 35 and 36. These amendments all cover much the same kind of ground and have much the same kind of objective. They are concerned with the whole issue of suitability.
The purpose of this amendment is to replace the somewhat open-ended defence as to whether a disabled applicant is suitable with the more job-related criterion as to whether the disabled person is the best person for the job in terms of the job's important qualifications or requirements.
A defence related to whether the employer reasonably believed that a disabled person was or was not suitable could risk allowing an employer to shift the blame for discrimination to the prejudice of customers or to other employees. To allow such a defence is likely to drive a coach and horses through the legislation, and perhaps even bring the law into disrepute. An employer who attempted to defend refusing to appoint a black man to a sales position because the customers would not like it, would clearly get short shrift, and very rightly so because such less favourable treatment would clearly not be lawful. But what about an employer who refuses to appoint a disabled person to a sales post because it might disturb the customers? The employer might well argue that this meant that the disabled worker was less suitable than a successful candidate who was not disabled.
The employer might unfortunately be able to demonstrate that his customers would prefer to be served by someone who was not disabled. What will happen if the employer defends his decision on the grounds that the disabled person made other employees feel uncomfortable? Surely this cuts across the grain of legislation intended to prevent discrimination.
The proposed wording attempts to preserve the merit principle and would not interfere with the right of employers to choose the best person for the job, based on qualifications and requirements laid down.
Similar considerations inform the other amendments which are grouped with this one. Again, we are concerned that there should be appointment on merit, but that people should not be debarred simply because they are disabled and some other kind of excuse be used, stating for example that for some other reason they would be unsuitable. All the amendments in this group cover much the same sort of situation.
The amendment that refers to essential duties, again, refers to duties that are essential to the job. The intention is not to allow a situation in which an employer could discriminate against a disabled employee for not being able to perform what could be regarded as a peripheral function of the job rather than the core requirement. I believe that all the amendments are self-explanatory. They cover the whole issue of whether or not it is reasonable to allow the employer to rely on suitability in the broad terms stated in the Bill, rather than on ensuring that individuals are assessed on their ability to do the job involved and on the merits of the individual in each particular case. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I wonder if it has occurred to the noble Baroness that the amendments she proposes are contrary to the interests of disabled people. I deal first with Amendment No. 29 which puts the burden of proof on the disabled person to satisfy what is described as
"an important qualification or requirement relating to the employment".
As I read the clause, which is quite complicated, the burden is on the employer. It is not fair to shift the burden of proof to the disabled person as Amendment No. 29 does.
I refer to Amendments Nos. 30 to 32. Those amendments could not be made to the Bill if Amendment No. 29 were to be accepted. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness agrees with me. Those amendments are alternative to Amendment No. 29. I believe that those amendments give the employer better reasons than they give to the disabled person. Referring to Amendment No. 33, quite frankly it is unnecessary and adds nothing to the meaning or effect of the subsection to which it relates. Therefore, I would be astonished if the Government felt able to support any of these amendments.
Baroness Lockwood: The amendments may not be well drafted. I will not argue about that. But the principle behind the amendments is an important one. I should have thought that they would be acceptable to the Government. The Government said in their consultation document that appointments should be made on the basis of the merits of the person to do the job. The principles that my noble friend has elaborated are precisely those; in other words, the person who applies for the job, whether or not he is disabled, should have the necessary qualifications to do it. Maybe the wording of Amendment No. 29 is unfortunate in that it seems to place a responsibility on the applicant, but surely all applicants for a job have to set out their qualifications to do the job. It is on that basis that they would be appointed. Their disability would be taken into account only if it meant that they could not perform the functions of the particular job.
Lord Renton: If the noble Baroness will kindly look at paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection she will find that they do exactly what she hopes and believes they should do.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, for introducing this large number of amendments in a generalised manner. They all relate to the same point. I hope that the Committee will agree that the appropriate way to respond is to try to deal with them on that basis. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton who has raised a number of points which I would otherwise have raised. I agree that he would be right to be astonished if the Government accepted these amendments. The Government are not inclined to do so.
The purpose of this group of amendments appears to be to restrict the conditions set out in Clause 5(4) on which less favourable treatment may be justified. It must be remembered that we start from the proposition that the Bill does not make it unlawful to treat a disabled person less favourably than someone else for reasons wholly unconnected with the disability. We all recognise that no matter who the individual—disabled or non-disabled—may be, there will be circumstances where it is entirely appropriate to treat him or her less favourably than others, for example where that individual cannot do a particular job. However, in the case of a disabled person one cannot get away from the fact that it may be the disability which, even after reasonable adjustment, makes him unable to do the job. It would be unreasonable to say that, no matter what the effects of a person's disability, the employer will not lawfully be allowed to take them into account and that if he does so, he will be treated as having discriminated against the disabled person.
Discrimination under the Bill arises only where a disabled person receives less favourable treatment for a reason related to the disability. Clause 5 is concerned with defining the limited circumstances in which employers can be justified in such treatment. I believe that it is important that the employer should be able to make the judgment as to whether an applicant is less or more "suitable" without unnecessary restrictions on the factors that he can take into account. That would be very likely to include whether the individual was unable to satisfy an important requirement or qualification or perform the essential duties of the job or was less able to do so than another applicant.
Simply relying on the concept of "important qualification or requirement" or "the ability to perform essential duties" removes much reasonable discretion from the employer. For example, it is not entirely clear what the noble Baroness has in mind in suggesting the words "important requirement". I presume that they are intended to cover factors such as specific experience. However, that is a vague term which is not defined. It risks causing uncertainty both for employers and disabled people as to what can or cannot be taken into account. There is also a risk that employers would be unable to select the best person for the job if, for example, the disabled person had the "important qualifications and requirements" in that narrow sense but was still less suitable, or even entirely unsuitable, for some other

1745
reasons—for example, by not having some less important qualification relating to a duty which nevertheless could not be readily transferred to another person.
The proposals in the Bill recognise that, where matters for which an employer is responsible place a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage because of the effects of the disability and it is reasonable for the employer to make an adjustment, he should do so. That is made clear on the face of the Bill in Clause 6(3) and might include, for example, allocating some of the disabled person's duties to another person if that is reasonable for the employer in all the circumstances.
I agree with the noble Baroness that the issue of the performance of unimportant or non-essential duties needs to be addressed. However, the provision to do so already exists in the Bill. An employer has a duty to make reasonable adjustment. If an employee cannot perform certain duties and they are unimportant or non-essential duties, it may well be reasonable not to require him (or her) to do them and they can be reassigned, or in some cases dropped altogether, in line with a reasonable adjustment provision.
However, there may be cases in which it would not be reasonable in all the circumstances for an employer to reallocate even relatively minor non-essential duties. Generally, somebody has to carry out those duties. They do not become irrelevant because an employer is going to employ a disabled person. In those situations it is important that we allow employers the scope to make the decisions which best meet their business needs. It is not an unfettered scope. An employer will need to bear in mind that he may be called upon to satisfy an industrial tribunal that his decision was reasonable in all the circumstances.
In today's competitive environment, we should not in any way restrict employers in recruiting the most suitable person for the job, after taking account of any reasonable adjustment. It is important for the employer and the individual that there is no compulsion on employers to employ unsuitable or less suitable disabled people. To suggest otherwise would be unreasonable. I am sure that disabled people genuinely do not want jobs that they cannot do. This Chamber does not want to force employers to employ people who cannot do their jobs or who cannot do their jobs as well as others, even when all reasonable steps have been taken to minimise the effect of any disability. Disabled people want a level playing field. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve.
We should not restrict employers in making decisions which only they can make in any particular situation. Employers must be free to choose the most suitable person for the job, while making any adjustments that are reasonable. There is sufficient scope in the Bill to allow disabled people to challenge employers if they believe that they have been unjustifiably discriminated against. I ask the Committee to reject the amendments on those simple grounds.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I spoke to this group of amendments in a generalised way because I felt that they covered much the same ground. As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, they were in fact alternatives.
1746
With regard to the points that he made, at present the burden of proof is on the person who is seeking a job. If you are looking for a job, you go along and present yourself with your qualifications and experience. The amendment would mean that the disabled person would simply present himself or herself and say that they could not do the job and would not be bothered whether or not there would be some quite subjective view held by the employer as to suitability simply because of their disability.
We agree absolutely with the Minister that we want people to be appointed for work that they can do. There is no point at all in trying to force disabled people into jobs that they are simply unable to do. I say again to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who thought that my amendment was not to the advantage of disabled people, that the reason why I tabled these amendments was because I was advised to do so by organisations which have a great deal of experience of looking after disabled people, like RADAR and the RNIB. I am sure that they know what they are talking about when they say that disabled people are concerned about provisions in the Bill which would give the impression that maybe the employer could make subjective and uninformed decisions about their ability to do the job for which they applied.
It is not my intention at this late hour to press the issue to a vote, but this is an important question. We may very well return to it at Report stage when we see what the Minister has to say. I hate the term—
10.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. We must remove the misunderstanding which is in her mind as regards the burden of proof. In the opening words of Clause 5 which we are now discussing, the noble Baroness will see,
"For the purposes of section 4, an employer is justified in treating a disabled person less favourably than he treats, or would treat, others".
That makes it quite clear. Subsection (2) makes it even clearer by using the words,
"Where a duty is imposed on an employer by or under section 6".
There is no doubt whatever that the burden of proof in these circumstances would have to be on the employer. The noble Baroness's amendment shifts that burden to the disabled person.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My understanding is that if an individual felt himself or herself to be disadvantaged and took the case to a tribunal, then the onus of proof would be on the person who brought the case. That would be the disabled person, would it not?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: This is a very important point which must be clearly established. It makes a very big difference at an industrial tribunal as to which side bears the onus of proof and even in terms of how the case is presented; who has to open and who has to respond. It is very important that we know the answer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is a situation where it would be helpful to have the Minister's guidance on this matter.
Lord Renton: May I help? Most certainly, when a person takes a case to an industrial tribunal the burden at first is on the plaintiff—that is to say, the person who has made the complaint. But as soon as that person refers to Clause 5 the burden of proof shifts to the employer.
Lord Inglewood: I am very grateful for counsel's opinion!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: But is that within the bounds of reasonableness?
Baroness Turner of Camden: I shall read Hansard with even greater interest than usual tomorrow morning. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 33 not moved.]
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("would") and insert ("(in the case of an applicant for employment) would at the time he took up employment").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment designed to clarify the drafting. Clause 5 deals with circumstances in which less favourable treatment of disabled people by an employer is justified. For such treatment to be justified, an employer has to be satisfied of certain conditions, one of which is that,
"the nature of the disabled person's disability significantly impedes, or would significantly impede, the performance of any of his duties".
There are two possible interpretations of that. The first is that an employer can take a reasonable view of the capacities of an existing employee, or of an applicant for employment, in order to make a decision relating to that person at that time. That is entirely acceptable and sensible.
The other interpretation is that an employer would be justified in taking a view about the future capacities of an employee, or applicant, in order to treat him less favourably, on the grounds that the person's disability might at some point render him incapable of undertaking the job or, indeed, a job to which he might be promoted. That is unacceptable. Indeed, it seems to make a nonsense of the Bill. The whole point is to keep disabled people in employment, doing jobs that they can do at the time. It would be wrong, especially in the case of those with progressive conditions, to allow discrimination on the basis of necessarily uncertain future prognostications. After all, at some point in the future we are all likely to be incapable of doing some jobs.
The amendment changes the drafting regarding the condition in question to read as follows:
"the nature of the disabled person's disability significantly impedes, or in the case of an applicant for employment would significantly impede the performance of any of his duties".
I hope that that is what is meant and that that version will make it clear. The amendment is supported by the Multiple Sclerosis Society and other organisations dealing with various disabilities. I beg to move.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: I have been listening to the debate for the whole of the afternoon, and it seems to me that there is one aspect of this matter which is missing. On the previous amendment we debated on whom the onus of proof should lie; whether it should be on the disabled
1748
person or the employer. When faced by a disabled person and deciding whether he can do the job, the employer is in a quandary. Although he might go to the council and obtain legal advice, what I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said was that he would start with an assessment.
I am chairman of the Queen Elizabeth Foundation which is a training college for disabled people. We always start with assessment. Having assessed what we believe the disabled person is capable of, we train that person in some expertise and he ends up with qualifications. At the end of the day those disabled people obtain jobs. Even in the recession, 50 per cent. of our people are obtaining jobs.
I note that the object of the Bill is to drum reluctant employers into employing disabled people, but there are many employers who would be willing to employ disabled people if it were not for the uncertainties that exist. The uncertainties which surround the employment of disabled people are caused partly by the stringent regulations which apply to the able-bodied.
It is possible to employ someone, as I did, who happens to go sick from a variety of diseases. For four years, that person went sick for six months. He would return for the statutory three months and then go sick for a further six months. One could not get the doctors to say that he was unfit for work, and one could not get rid of him because what he did was always within the law. The only way of getting rid of that passenger within a small business, which required everyone to be active, was to reorganise the business in order to abolish his job and make him redundant. Such things cause anxieties in the minds of employers.
I have always taken the view that the Bill will do little good because employers will negotiate their way around the regulations if they do not wish to employ disabled people. There is a positive element, which one should examine, which would have been much more productive. For years the Government have run an extremely good scheme called the sheltered employment scheme. It means that when people take on disabled employees they are not employed by the company but by a middle agent. Therefore, if the employees fail to live up to their fitness or whatever they can be passed back to the original employer with no problem.
That scheme has had a marvellous effect because it has enabled employers to take on disabled people who then often come off the register. I wish that the Government would put more money into this scheme because it gets people out of the stocks and into employment and they become taxpayers instead of a burden on the Exchequer. It is an extremely rewarding business. The argument goes around and around but one must understand the problems on the other side of the equation.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I would not like the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, to believe that I am anti-employer. Some of my best friends are—dot, dot, dot! The essence of the attitude of some of us to the Bill is that most employers are good but some discriminate partially out of ignorance and others partially out of malevolence. It is a small minority but legislation is required to deal with them.

1749
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, misunderstands the purpose of the Bill and certainly misunderstands disabled people generally. He gave an example of an employee going sick as being typical. According to excellent research relating to absenteeism, disabled people have a better record than able-bodied people. His example was by no means typical and most employers recognise that.
We are concerned with the employers who will not play the game and who require legislation to keep them in order. That is the point of the Bill.
Lord Rix: Am I not right in stressing the fact that the Bill involves not only employment but the right of access for disabled people to goods, facilities and services, that it is unlawful to discriminate against disabled people and so forth? This part of the Bill is about employment, but the Bill itself is on a larger scale and that should be remembered when commenting on the various amendments.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I agree that disabled people have a better record as regards absenteeism, but I do not agree that employers do not have fears when it comes to employing someone with a disability.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps I may raise an issue which troubled me when we discussed the legislation preventing, inhibiting and dealing with discrimination on the grounds of sex or race, and it troubles me now. There is the danger that a patronising view will creep across all debates on the issue; that somehow it is about being good to the people who are in danger of being discriminated against.
Frankly, I believe that we should look at the issue in a totally different way. If the person who is best able to do the job is disabled, of a minority ethnic group or a woman, we as a country cannot afford the luxury of losing that skill and having someone less competent doing the job. The issue needs to be set out in that way. I continue to stress my opinion that in the context of that philosophy we are in danger of treating those with disabilities less fairly than those who are discriminated against because they happen to be female or black. This legislation should not be treated as doing good, although moral arguments are important. It should be dealt with on the basis that we cannot afford to waste the talents of so many people.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, we have had many interesting discussions on the Bill but they may not be relevant to this particular part of the Bill. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I concentrate my comments on the amendment in question.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, pointed out, the effect of this amendment would be that an employer would not be able to take into account the significant effect of the disability on a disabled person's performance of his duties if that effect would occur some time in the future.
1750
We all recognise that if we are serious about tackling discrimination against disabled people we must not stop merely at prohibiting less favourable treatment. We must also require employers to take reasonable steps to help disabled people overcome any limitations imposed by their physical or mental impairments. Having done that, however, we must still recognise that some disabled people will, nonetheless, be unable or less able to do a particular job. In those cases, regrettably, we must allow that less favourable treatment is entirely justifiable.
There will be circumstances in which an employer may quite reasonably treat a disabled person less favourably because of an expected deterioration in ability to carry out his duties. In the case of an applicant, I do not consider it right that an employer should always have to take on the disabled person—and have to go through all the administrative arrangements in taking on that disabled person—only to have a perfectly valid reason a short while later for discharging that disabled person or transferring him to another job.
Where the disabled person is an applicant for employment, it is certainly our intention that a significant expected deterioration in performance should be addressed as an issue of "suitability" under Clause 5(4). But that will not necessarily be the case for an existing employee. Let us not forget that the amendment is not restricted to applicants for jobs. It covers a wider ground. The grounds of justification in paragraph (c) could apply; for example, in the case of a decision on what kinds of work to give to a person whose disability is expected to worsen.
I have listened carefully to the points that the noble Baroness has made. I must make it clear that I am not persuaded by this amendment. I recognise the concerns about progressive conditions or disabilities which are likely to worsen, but the answer cannot be to ignore the reality of the situation. How, then, will an employer know how to treat someone lawfully who may not be able to do the job for very long; or someone who may need different adjustments over time; or someone whose productivity declines although the employer is prepared to keep him on? These are the sort of issues on which we expect to be able to give guidance in a code of practice. They are not easy issues and the answers will differ from case to case, so we will not be able to make the position clear for everyone in every circumstance. But we will be consulting employers' organisations and disability organisations and we will hope to go some way to meeting the concerns that underlie the amendment.
I hope that that will provide some encouragement to the noble Baroness and that bearing that in mind, she may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thank the Minister for his reply which will be looked at carefully. We shall see what happens at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 35 to 37 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Duty of employer to make adjustments]:
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) providing dedicated parking facilities;
( ) providing assistance for him to move from his parked vehicle to his place of work.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is straightforward and uncomplicated. The amendment adds two very important aspects to enable severely disabled people to be able to work. Having a dedicated parking place, should it be necessary, and assistance for the disabled person to get from his vehicle to his place of work may be the only assistance that he needs.
Being the founder and president of the Spinal Injuries Association, I know that our members are people who have broken their necks and backs through accident or who have suffered injury to the spinal cord through illness and are paralysed and use wheelchairs. Many of our members are young and may cover a very wide span of professions; for example, teachers, university lecturers, doctors, computer operators, accountants, administrators and so on. Once in the building, such people could carry on with their work. It would be the best thing for them and by far the most economical for the country. We should remember that they are taxpayers.
Many employers are fearful of severe disability, but once they realise what a person can achieve, their attitudes change. To include the amendment in the list of examples is very important, otherwise the need will not be highlighted, which is vital to some disabled employees if they are to be able to take up employment. If a disabled person, using a wheelchair, cannot get into a building, that is an excuse for him to be rejected for employment. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): As we are talking about access and facilities, perhaps I may just say how much I appreciate the extra space in the Chamber today. Surely it is an excellent example of reasonable accommodation, at reasonable cost, when we are dealing with a Bill which is entirely to do with disability. Indeed—
Lord Carter: I apologise for interrupting, but would the noble Baroness also expect that such "reasonable" space will remain available for other Bills, or only those concerning disability?
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): That would depend on the proportion of disabled Peers to non-disabled Peers. I also think that if, perhaps, there were a bunch of amendments regarding the disabled, one would have to do what is reasonable. I shall not commit myself further than that, as I did not have notice of the question. It certainly takes me back 25 years to the "mobile bench of four" when all four of us sat together for the proceedings on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act.
I support the amendment. As I believe my noble friend said, it is not mandatory; it would only put the options of such provisions in the minds of employers as regards doing something which may be needed. I believe that it is important to include such examples because, otherwise, having seen the other list of things,
1752
employers may say, "These people are asking for yet more provision", whereas, as my noble friend said, it may be the only help that such people need.
Lord Addington: I should like to support the amendment for the simple reason that it is probably the best and clearest amendment that has been tabled today. We know exactly why it has been put forward and exactly what it would achieve. A person who is confined to a wheelchair is, effectively, only disabled while he has to travel somewhere that is not designed for wheelchair use. The provision would remove the problem of disability. If only all the problems which arise under the Bill could be solved so easily!
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I support the amendment very strongly. Not only is it the clearest that we have seen, but we have also had the best speeches so far in tonight's debates. If the amendment is accepted, it would mean that severely disabled people would be able to use their talents and fulfil their potentialities. That is the great raison d'être of the amendment. I very warmly support it.
Baroness O'Cathain: I should point out that not every place of employment actually has parking facilities. I am just wondering whether the noble Baroness would like to take the matter away and have another look at it. For example, there could be opportunities for disabled people to work with computers in, say, a fashion boutique in the middle of Regent Street, or somewhere, where there would be no parking facilities.
Perhaps there is some way of dealing with the situation whereby there would be the ability to transfer someone from a car which has transported him to a place, without necessarily providing parking facilities. To narrow the provision down in the way suggested might actually cause something of a problem. I am just trying to help.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend Lady O'Cathain is quite right but at the same time this is purely a list of examples and therefore it would not necessarily be able to be applied to every premises. However, I support the general idea. While I am on my feet and as the mobile Bench has been mentioned, I should just point out, if I may, that Members of the mobile Bench do not just speak on Bills dealing specifically with disability; they speak on many other subjects. There are many other Bills which look as though they have nothing to do with disability but which have a great effect on disabled people. If some alteration to the Chamber could be made for better accommodation of our mobile Members, that would be a good idea.
Lord Inglewood: Let me say right at the beginning that I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind this amendment, as indeed I think everyone who has spoken on this amendment in the Chamber this evening has. However, the amendment, as drafted, can be interpreted as being wide-ranging. For example, where an employer has existing car parking facilities for his employees it might well be reasonable, depending on the circumstances, that he should, under the duty in Clause 6, have to allocate a dedicated car parking place

1753
to a disabled employee who finds it very difficult or impossible to use public transport. However, I do not think—this is the point that my noble friend Lady O'Cathain raised—that an employer who does not have any car parking places should be required to consider having to provide a dedicated car parking place for a disabled employee.
Although I can see that there would be circumstances when it might be a reasonable adjustment to help a disabled person from a parked vehicle, I am much less clear about the scope of the second example. What sort of steps is it intended the employer may have to take in providing assistance for a disabled employee to move from his parked vehicle to his place of work? Does this mean that an employer has to make arrangements to meet a disabled employee who parks his car two miles away and then provide assistance for him? More fundamentally, I suspect that a person who needs this kind of assistance may have very serious mobility problems which could also require other forms of assistance, making this a minor aspect and therefore not a good example to single out.
I am not persuaded that this amendment should be accepted. Subsection (3) after all only sets out examples of illustrative steps. We must resist the temptation to add an ever-increasing list of examples. That would distort the Bill and could be seriously counter-productive if it seemed to imply the list was intended to be largely exhaustive. We believe these matters are better addressed in the code of practice and I can assure the noble Baronesses that we have taken note of their concerns.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Before the noble Baroness tells the Committee what she wishes to do with this amendment, I wish to make two points to the Minister. First, I think he has failed to give due weight to the argument that was made by both noble Baronesses that what they were doing by adding these two additional examples to a list was introducing into, if you like, the mental framework of the employer yet another way in which, at reasonable cost and at reasonable expense, he could overcome what would otherwise be insuperable barriers to employing disabled people. In so far as it adds a different dimension to what may or may not be a hurdle to their employment, that surely should be welcomed.
Secondly, when the Minister gave what I would call his destructive analysis of why this amendment might not be right and said that the parking might be two miles away and how unreasonable that could be, I have to say that every example here is subject to the same sort of criticism, if one wished to make it. That applies to the adaptation of premises, to modifying equipment, how expensive that equipment will be, or how many rooms, floors or buildings away it will be situated. We do not mention that; we do not need to. We are talking about a sensible response to the framework of the Bill. I would have thought that the substantive point being made—I think the Minister ought to take this on board—is that I suspect if the Government had thought of these two examples themselves they would have included them in the Bill in the first place. But because they have not
1754
been suggested by the Government Benches but rather by the Cross-Benches, and the Government did not think of them, they are resisting them at this point. I think at this stage the Government could say this is a helpful further illustration of a way in which an employer can overcome what would otherwise be an insuperable barrier for disabled people.
Baroness O'Cathain: I hate to prolong this debate, but I hope I can make an additional point. Frankly, looking at this Bill, the more examples one includes, the more people will think, "Oh my goodness!", and ask themselves whether it is worth being an employer. There is an element of that.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I thank all Members of the Committee who have supported the amendment. I point out to the Minister that it sets out a list of suggestions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, putting the idea into the mind of the employer. These are reasons for turning someone away without even being given the opportunity to be interviewed. It is only a suggestion that an employer "may", not "shall", do this. I feel very strongly about this issue because I know so many excellent and skilled individuals who have broken their necks. All they need is a helping hand to get them in to their place of employment.
I have no intention of dividing the Committee tonight, but I shall certainly bring the matter back at the next stage. I hope that the Minister will think about the matter. Perhaps he will speak to one or two people who are in that position. I can bring them along and introduce them to him.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) Where an employer has made an adjustment listed in subsection (3) to enable a disabled person to take up or retain employment with him that adjustment shall be one of the terms and conditions of employment to which the employee is entitled by virtue of his contract of employment.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to try to ensure that reasonable adjustments made to enable disabled persons to undertake employment are protected by the acquired rights directive. This is a probing amendment put down in order to obtain from the Government a commitment that disabled workers, especially in the public sector, will not lose adjustments that enable them to retain employment should their employer be taken over or should the service provided be subjected to compulsory competitive tendering.
As the Committee will know, the EU acquired rights directive is given effect in UK law by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. The intention of the directive and the regulations is to ensure that any workers whose employer changes as the result of a transfer of the ownership of the business retain their acquired employment rights: their contracts of employment remain and they retain the right

1755
to claim unfair dismissal or redundancy compensation just as if they had been employed for the qualifying periods fixed by law. In addition, any dismissal that is directly related to the transfer is automatically regarded as unfair. However, importantly, the new employer is in exactly the same position as the old employer with regard to any changes in terms and conditions. There is therefore no guarantee that terms and conditions will remain unchanged. Similarly, an employer may implement dismissals for economic, technical or organisational reasons.
It thus seems to us that vulnerable people like disabled employees need extra security written into legislation. We believe that there is a degree of uncertainty as to whether, for example, adjustments made to enable a disabled person to retain employment would need to be continued by the new employer.
Moreover, should the new employer have fewer than 20 employees he or she will not be required to make any adjustment at all, as we have already heard. Therefore, if the new employer is significantly smaller than the original one the disabled person could be at a significant disadvantage.
The matter could be put beyond doubt by ensuring that this amendment or something like it is included in the Bill. I await the Government's response with interest. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: I intervene on this amendment to ask a question of my noble friend the Minister. If an employer removes the reasonable adjustments that have been put in place to enable a disabled employee to undertake his work, would that be construed as constructive dismissal?
Lord Inglewood: I hope my noble friend will forgive me. I did not hear the crucial part of my noble friend's question as to what it was that might be construed as constructive dismissal.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend was consulting at the time. I intervene only to ask whether, where reasonable adjustments have been put in place by an employer to enable a disabled employee to undertake his work properly and the employer then removed those adjustments for one reason or another, thus making it difficult or impossible for the disabled employee to undertake his work satisfactorily, that could be construed as constructive dismissal.
Lord Inglewood: It is important that we are clear about the nature of the rights of a disabled employee. Those rights owe their origin to statute and depend upon a relationship between the employee and the employer. The fact that they are not contractual with any particular employer means that if the identity of that employer changed the statutory rights as defined in the Bill do not necessarily alter.
The effect of this amendment would be that any adjustment made by an employer for a disabled employee so that he could take up or retain his employment, and which was listed in Clause 6(3), would become a term of his employment contract. As I understand from what the noble Baroness said, the intention underlying the
1756
amendment appears to be to give a disabled employee a contractual right to the continuation of a measure once taken.
An employer is placed by Clause 6(1) under a duty to make an adjustment if a disabled person would otherwise be placed at a substantial disadvantage by certain arrangements made by the employer, or by a physical feature of premises, and that adjustment would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. If in such circumstances the employer does not make an adjustment, he will be regarded as having treated the disabled person less favourably for the purposes of Part II, subject to any justification, and the disabled person will have a right to make a complaint to an industrial tribunal. That right is not diminished once the employer has made the reasonable adjustment. If the employer took away the adjustment leaving the disabled person at a substantial disadvantage once again, that person would again have the right to complain to a tribunal.
I believe that that covers much of the point raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I draw his attention to Clause 3(2((d) which states:
"It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled person by dismissing him, or subjecting him to any other detriment".
The amendment would give a further right to a disabled person under the terms of his contract to any such adjustment which has actually been carried out.
There seems to be no reason for this. There is no such dual right in other anti-discrimination legislation, and it could work rather oddly. Imagine a case where any one of a number of reasonable adjustments would remove the relevant disadvantage as well. The disabled person would have no right to specify which one of those adjustments be made. But under the amendment, once the employer had made one of those adjustments the disabled person would have a contractual right to the continuation of that specific adjustment (if it were of a type listed in subsection (3)), even if the employer later wished to substitute it for a different but at least equally effective adjustment. The amendment would also appear to preserve an employee's right to an adjustment even if he ceases to need it, for example because he recovers from the disability.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. If there is a transfer of business, the continuation of adjustment must depend on whether that adjustment is reasonable for the new employer; and if a business is transferred as a whole it seems unlikely that the issues of reasonableness could alter.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of the number of employees falling to fewer than 20. The Government's intention is that small employers should not be covered by the Bill. They would not wish them to be brought in by this or any other route. However, we shall encourage them to follow the code of practice to which we have already referred.
It is not entirely clear why the noble Baroness has chosen to give this special treatment only to steps comprised in the examples set out in subsection (3). If those examples of steps were deemed to be terms of the employment contract once they were made, employers and disabled people may regard this as a signal that those examples have a different status from or a higher status

1757
than other adjustments that employers may make. We believe it would prove confusing all round and I cannot support the amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may probe that reply a little further. It sounded extremely encouraging a lot of the way through, but one has to examine what is not there. There were two crucial sentences I wanted to ask the Minister about. One concerns where the employer changes. I take the point about the rights deriving from the statute, but the Minister's phrase was that the rights do not necessarily alter. That is a long way short of a commitment. Could the Minister change the word order and say that the rights necessarily do not alter? That would be a different and much more encouraging statement.
The other point deals with the employer who has, if I may so put it, gone on a diet. That is, he has changed from being a large employer to being a small employer within the meaning of the Bill. The Minister said that the Government would encourage that employer to go on maintaining the rights or adjustments that the disabled person enjoyed. Can the Minister say how the Government would encourage them?
Lord Inglewood: If we take the hypothetical case where the firm or employer in question goes on a diet, the employee's rights do not change because they are defined by statute as being attached to employers above a certain threshold. If the employer reduces his workforce below that threshold, the effects of the rights that the employee has may vary. As I explained, if the size of the employer drops from above 20 to below 20, then the provisions of Part II will not bite, to the extent that there will be nothing which an employer can bring to an industrial tribunal. If then hypothetically the size of the employer increased, he would be brought back within the scope of the terms of Part II. The employee's right is always subject to the proviso that the employer must be over the size threshold as specified in the Act. I hope that that answers both of the noble Earl's points.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may raise a point with him arising from what he said. He stated that an employee's rights do not change. I am talking about an employer over the size of 20. Is the Minister saying that since the employee's rights do not change, the right that I seek to enshrine in legislation in the amendment is there anyway? For example, if an employer is taken over by another employer and certain adjustments are made for the employee, those adjustments are taken away by the new employer. The employee had a right to those adjustments but if they are taken away and he cannot continue to do the job as a result of the transfer, he can go to a tribunal with the probable prospect of winning his case. Is that what the Minister is saying?
Lord Inglewood: As I understand it, the answer to the noble Baroness's question is, yes. The only possible proviso that I might enter is that, depending on the nature of the employer, the form of adjustment that was reasonable in those circumstances might change. That is a point that I made in my earlier remarks. As concerns the basic proposition, the answer is clearly, yes.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am grateful to have that remark on record. In the circumstances, I shall look carefully at Hansard tomorrow because it may well be that what the noble Lord said to us tonight to some extent satisfies the arguments that have been made; that is, except when we consider small employers, which is another question altogether to which we must address ourselves later in Committee. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations setting out funding arrangements which will assist employers in whole or in part in taking any steps to comply with subsection (1)").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with the issue of costs. I said at Second Reading that I would be pursuing this matter in Committee. In order to comply with the Bill there is likely to be a substantial cost on employers, and I should like to reiterate the point that we cannot really afford to lose our competitiveness. However, that point was dealt with at Second Reading.
Up to now, in the Access to Work programme the Department of Employment has allocated funds so that those who were disabled have in effect an amount of money with which to go to an employer and say, "If you put a ramp here, I have this grant from the Department of Employment." It is estimated that some 10,000 people have been helped in this way in the year 1994–95, at a cost of £14.6 million—an average of about £1500 per person.
The Government have obviously reconsidered this proposal to charge employers 50 per cent. of the cost of an individual's Access to Work grant. In doing this, they have created something encouragingly close to credit for individual employability, and currently this can definitely help a disabled person to get work. The Government are now reviewing Access to Work, and the purpose of this amendment is to seek an undertaking that in some form support for individual employability, to use a horrible word, will remain. It may be even more important when businesses inevitably have other costs to meet in respect of disability as a result of this Bill.
The Government's £14.6 million expenditure on Access to Work represents a small but symbolic commitment that the cost of this important piece of legislation will be absorbed in a balanced way, because there is a feeling that this amount is going to be reduced. I should like to have some reassurance from the Minister on this point. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I have an amendment down, Amendment No. 44, which is grouped with this amendment and says much the same thing. I do not wish to repeat the arguments put by the noble Baroness, but I should like to raise a point on Access to Work. A member of my family receives the personal reader's allowance and for a long time now I have had the job of filling in the necessary forms.
The new scheme is immensely more bureaucratic than the one it replaces. Under the old scheme which was administered by the RNIB there was one form which had

1759
to be filled in every 13 weeks. You had to state the bank account once; of course a blind person needed a sighted person to fill in the form for him; and that was it. But now there is a form to be filled in every week, so instead of one form there are now 13. There may be forms for one month perhaps, but at the moment it is immensely bureaucratic and a cheque has to be produced with each form, which means 13 cheques instead of one. Of course I can understand that there may be people who would like this allowance more frequently than once a quarter, but I would just make the point that this is a good scheme. It is a good start, but I think that the new organisation, having taken over from the RNIB, seems to be much more bureaucratic, with many more forms to be filled in. This must be taking up a lot of time of the administrators.
Baroness Seear: I should like to support this amendment, to which my name is added. As I have said before and shall say again, I believe that if we want a decent society we must be prepared to pay for it and not to encourage other people to pay for it. If we want these regulations brought in and help given to disabled people to enable them to get employment, I do not really see that the costs should be laid on the employer. I think the costs should be borne by all of us, the taxpayers, which would relieve the burden on the employers so as to encourage them and make it easy for them to give employment to disabled people. I think the burden should be less heavy on the employer and `more heavy on the taxpayer, unpopular though that remark always is.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I should like to support the views expressed by the noble Baroness who moved this amendment, and also to support my noble friend over his amendment. I fully agree that it is nonsense to force employers to pay 50 per cent. of the grant. Without any undue boasting on behalf of the all-party group, we saw David Hunt, then the Minister, and pressed him very strongly on this point. We said that he would damage the splendid Access to Work system if he persisted in imposing the 50 per cent. charge on employers. I believe the all-party group had some success in persuading David Hunt. In fact, he later acknowledged that he had been influenced by the representations of the group. We were delighted when he removed that charge from employers, as it was a damaging idea on the part of the Government at that time. David Hunt deserves credit for withdrawing the proposal.
I welcome the amendment. We have to face the fact that the employment aspect of the Bill simply could not be operated without the Access to Work programme. The employers know that. The work of the CBI, and of Susan Scott-Parker of the Employers Forum on Disability, has been very important in encouraging a positive public attitude.
'The Access to Work programme is one of the most important tools in winning co-operation between the state and employers and disabled people. The CBI and the employers' forum want this Bill to be a success. They also, quite reasonably, want assurances that there will be no changes in the funding for Access to Work this year, nor in subsequent years.
1760
Equally strong in their support for the Access to Work scheme are the disability organisations. Perhaps I may very briefly quote the British Deaf Association, which stated:
"Access to Work has been an extremely important scheme for deaf people, opening up employment opportunities by enabling them for the first time to get Government resourced communication support for interviews and in the workplace".
Previously, employers would not pay for interpreters at interviews. They saw the burden and the cost, and could not recognise the value. Without interpreters, deaf people simply could not get jobs. All the legislation in the world could not alone resolve the problem. The Access to Work provision needs to be continued and expanded. I am delighted to support the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I, too, support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I believe I heard her aright in that she said that the cost of suitable adaptions might be in the region of £1,500 for each disabled person. My understanding is that the average cost will probably not be more than £200.
The important point is that we should enable disabled people to be employed and at the same time not put an additional burden on employers, and not make the goods that we sell overseas more expensive and less competitive in the world market.
Baroness O'Cathain: For clarification, the figure of 1,500 was the average for last year (1994–95). The noble Lord says that it could be £200. It was £1,500. The total cost of Access to Work was £14.6 million, and about 10,000 people were helped.
Lord Monson: This is surely not only a worthwhile amendment, but a vital one. Clause 6(3) imposes very considerable financial burdens upon employers. Those financial burdens are what distinguish this anti-discrimination legislation from all previous examples of anti-discrimination legislation.
The noble Baroness made reference to modest grants for capital expenditure. But what about current expenditure? For example, subsections (3) (f) and (3) (d) require an employer to give disabled employees time off for rehabilitation, assessment and treatment, and also for training—presumably, on full pay. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong in that assumption. Why should the employer have to pay? Surely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, the taxpayer should foot the bill for this particular form of current expenditure.
Earl Russell: I, too, should like to add my support to this amendment. This is part of a long-running argument that has been going on since the passing of the Statutory Sick Pay Act 1991 as to who should pay for social costs on business. I think that this is one issue that the CBI has got right. The normal cost of employing labour is properly that of the employer. It is the cost of doing the job. But where one sets business social rather than economic objectives we should put our money where our mouth is and help business to do what we ask it to do. That seems to me to be equitable, sensible and in our economic interests.
When one considers the question of benefit, no doubt industry will benefit from employing able disabled people whom it otherwise could not have employed. But the main

1761
beneficiary of more rights for the disabled will be the taxpayer. The taxpayer will no longer have to support people who will be working and themselves paying tax. Since the taxpayer will be getting the chief benefit it makes sense for the taxpayer to pay for it.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for introducing the amendment and for the various comments that have been made. In particular, I should reflect on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I am grateful to him for drawing those points to my attention. When I first saw the amendments I expected that they were intended to probe our intentions for the Access to Work programme. Clearly, that was right. I am grateful for some of the good things that have been said about that programme. It is always gratifying to have good comments made about things that one has introduced. We feel that the programme has had a good first year, and it is gratifying to hear that view confirmed by others.
There has been a debate about costs and expenditure. My understanding is that the average cost of Access to Work grant is £1,700, which can be related to the £1,500 mentioned by the noble Baroness. It is worth recalling in this context that one is talking about seriously disabled people. The figure of £200 mentioned by my noble friend Lord Swinfen arises from the fact that the compliance cost assessment for the Bill has put the average cost of adjustments at that figure. In the context of cost, it is interesting to look at the United States. In 50 per cent. of cases there the cost of making the adjustment is 50 dollars or less, and only 1 per cent. of the total expenditure incurred amounts to more than 5,000 dollars. It is important to place the matter in context.
I hear what noble Lords say about who should foot the bill. However, what one is talking about is the establishment by statute of an obligation on society at large. In general, it is not the case that where individuals or firms have statutory obligations the taxpayer pays for all of them. Put in those terms, that would be a startling development. I was interested in the proposition of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He said that the effect of this would be that more tax would be collected and therefore the taxpayer should be supported. The effect of more tax being collected from people who would not otherwise pay it is that the tax that others have to pay will go down. I suspect that it all comes out in the wash if that is the way to look at it, which personally I rather doubt.
I understand the probing intent behind the amendments and I should like to register some concerns about them. As drafted, the Bill provides for regulations to be made to cover the matters set out in Clause 6(7) to clarify what the duty to make an adjustment means for employers and when it does or does not arise. Subsection (8) provides that regulations on what is reasonable may in particular refer to the cost of making adjustments.
However, we have no immediate intention of using these powers to make such regulations. We believe that the concept of "reasonable" will ensure that employers are not faced with an undue cost burden in making adjustments, but wish nonetheless to have regulation-making powers available in case that should prove not to be the case. The amendments, however,
1762
would add to these powers a requirement to make regulations as to circumstances in which government funding could be obtained. This compulsion is at odds with our general approach to other powers in the clause. Amendment No. 44 seems, moreover, to imply a continuing commitment by government to fund certain costs relating to the employer's duty of reasonable adjustment. Amendment No. 40 goes further still and requires government to provide funding to assist employers with their duty. I cannot accept that.
However, let me address the concerns which underlie the amendment. We made it very clear that, after the first year of operation the Access to Work programme, including financial aspects, would be reviewed. That year has now elapsed and we are, therefore, as we undertook to do last year, embarking on a review of the programme. The review will clearly need to take due account of its proposals to require employers to make reasonable adjustment to working conditions or the workplace.
In addition, any funding available to the employer from Access to Work or from any other source would be taken into account in deciding whether something was reasonable. The Committee will appreciate, however, that I cannot commit the Government to open-ended funding of all, nor necessarily any, of the reasonable adjustments that employers will be required to undertake because of the new right. I cannot therefore accept the amendment. Nor do I think it right to pre-empt the review by speculating how adjustments whose costs are not reasonable in the terms of the Bill should be addressed.
I recognise that this may not be the answer for which my noble friend hoped. But I hope that she will accept the assurances that I have given and withdraw the amendment.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I could take up one point made by the Minister. He said that it was not normal to create statutory obligations and then for the taxpayer to pay for them. With respect, I am not quite sure that he is right about that. For example, there is a statutory obligation to call the police after an accident. The police are a charge on public funds. So there the state is paying for it. There may be a statutory obligation in time of war to enlist in the Armed Forces. They are a charge on the Crown. The Minister may wish to distinguish the cases. I do not believe that he will find it quite so easy to do as he may think.
Lord Inglewood: I hear what the noble Earl says, but I still believe that the distinction that I made, when taken overall, is a valid point.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the amendment, perhaps I may take up a couple of points that the Minister made when referring to Access to Work, which I thought were slightly ominous. He said that the review of the scheme had been completed, which we understand. We are not asking him to let us know the outcome of that review. But could he help us by saying if the review includes the question of whether or not the scheme should continue at all? Does the review look again

1763
at the possibility of employer contribution? Also, is there some suggestion, perhaps, that the scheme might be cash limited?
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking me a series of quite detailed points about the review. I am not yet in a position to give him an appropriate reply.
We shall also maintain the present arrangements for Access to Work, at least until the review has been completed and the final shape of the new legislation is clear. In practice, should any changes to Access to Work he necessary because of the Bill, we shall probably aim to introduce them to coincide with the coming into force of the new rights. We shall also, of course, continue to operate the full range of other existing services for disabled people.
As regards funding, there has been concern that the Government were in some way prejudging the result of the review, in that published plans show a reduction from last year's expenditure. Last year the Government found additional money to launch the programme. It does not make sense to change the original planning assumptions behind the programme in advance of the review's conclusion. The budget for this year is, therefore, less than last year's. It does not, however, mean that we are currently expecting to introduce an employer contribution during the year. We shall keep expenditure on the programme under a very close watch and, if necessary, consider what steps need to be taken. It is too early in the financial year for me to speculate on what might be necessary. As I said, the review will look at the funding implications to ensure that the budgets reflect the future shape of the programme.
I hope that the noble Lord will find that explanation helpful.
Lord Monson: The Minister did not answer my point about current expenditure as distinct from capital expenditure. Does he agree that, if employers were obliged to give disabled employees an average of two hours a week off on full pay for rehabilitation treatment, training and so on, at average salaries, this would cost the employers between £550 and £600 a year per disabled employee in perpetuity?
It is not a great incentive to employ such people, if the money comes entirely out of their own pocket. Does he agree that that is rather unfair and that something ought to be done about it?
Lord Inglewood: The whole afternoon we have debated this Bill, which introduces the concept that under certain circumstances—those circumstances being where the employer has more than 20 employees—it is appropriate for such an employer to introduce what we have described as "reasonable adjustments" in order to help disabled people.
As regards that, we believe that it is appropriate—as I understand it, it has been accepted on all sides—that if this is something which is in the public interest, those people affected by it will have to help to contribute to the cost.
1764
As regards many of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, they will be offset against tax. That is a substantial reduction in the net effect on the persons concerned of these obligations to which they will be subject.
Baroness O'Cathain: My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am not exactly ecstatic about his response to my amendment. I thank everyone who has taken part in this debate. I wish to make a point about the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, concerning training. I would not have gone so far as to look for Government subvention for the training of disabled people because that is a normal cost of business. Employers spend a great deal of money on training for the able bodied and the disabled. I believe that not to be a problem.
But I am worried about access to work. I was quite pleased to hear what my noble friend said as regards the reassurance for the continuation of access to work. However, he made the point that because this Bill has been introduced, the Government cannot accept open-ended funding. But my noble friend is asking business to accept that.
Going back to the point which I made at Second Reading, we have had a very tough time in business. To get into a situation now where there could be very serious cost implications arising from this Bill which would affect our competitiveness, that is not really the best way to go about it. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who supported me on this by saying that, as we all accept, this Bill is a very good thing, and that the cost should be paid by everybody and not necessarily by employers.
I have listened to what my noble friend the Minister has said and I shall read it avidly. I cannot say that I shall not come back to this matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 5, line 7, at end insert:
("( ) as to circumstances in which arrangements for telecommunications provision are to be taken to have the effect mentioned in that subsection;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the new clause in Amendment No. 140. This is an attempt to improve the provision for telecommunications and to amend the Telecommunications Act 1984. Deaf people currently have important problems relative to this Bill.
I want to deal first with the situation of many of them in the future because there is a potential disaster looming for them. There are 7.5 million deaf and hard of hearing people in Britain, which is far more than most people realise. The reason that we are not all conscious of the prevalence of deafness is the achievement of hearing aids. Although they can be imperfect and sometimes infuriating, nevertheless they have enabled very many hard of hearing people—not all—to lead normal lives, and in particular, to have jobs for which their capabilities suit them.
That normal life and those jobs incredibly are now threatened and that is a vital issue for this Bill. Telephone technology is shooting ahead and it will not be long before the mobile phone is the normal phone. What is worrying is that in the future the majority of mobile phones in Britain will be using digital technology. In addition, according to Iain Valiance of BT, the digital, cordless office is coming ever closer.
The implications of digital phones are horrendous for millions of hearing aid users who now manage very well, thanks to BT's efforts to help them to do so. The devastating fact is that cordless, digital telephones cause interference to hearing aids and deaf people using those hearing aids could be prevented from hearing any speech in offices buzzing with these phones. The implications are enormous for millions of deaf people. They can in fact be driven from offices in the future.
I know that manufacturers are trying to overcome the problem by designing telephones to use the smallest radio signal to minimise interference. There is some dispute about the seriousness of the issue, but it has the potential to disrupt the benefits of hearing aids, and that is unacceptable in offices. I should welcome an assurance from the Minister, if he can give it, that in regulations employers will be prevented from using digital cordless telephones which interfere with hearing aids.
A further major problem will arise when we have offices using only digital cordless telephones. That is coming very quickly. Not only do they cause interference, they cannot be used by hearing aid users. It is staggering what so-called modem technology and progress can do. What will happen to their jobs when they cannot use office telephones? They will be cut off from the outside world. Everyone knows that a telephone is crucial for a decent job.
The Bill, which will then be an Act, will be quoted by the deaf jobseeker in the future, and in response employers will say, as regrettably William Hague the Minister has already said to me, "It would clearly be unreasonable to hold up the introduction of a new generation of technology and deny its benefits to all customers by the provisions of this Bill".
I can see the Minister's problem, but in my view it would be equally unreasonable to allow millions of hearing aid users to be pushed out of employment. So this is a no-win situation. The Minister cannot have it all his own way for technical progress, but equally we cannot have it all our own way for stopping progress for deaf people. So there must be some kind of discussion, and give and take. A solution must be found.
Tightening the Telecommunications Act 1984 with these amendments could prevent some of those problems. The amendments specify that newly manufactured apparatus be compatible with hearing aids designed for telephone use. It is not easy to resolve the problem. Unfortunately, there is this fundamental incompatibility between the present hearing aids and new telephone technology. Both sides will have to compromise. Pressures from the strong anti-discrimination requirements of the Bill, and subsequent regulations, coupled with amendments to the
1766
Telecommunications Act 1984 are the only forces that will ease the problem and prevent major discrimination against hard-of-hearing people.
I am sorry to go on at length at this time of night, but these are fundamental issues which affect millions of people. The issue upon which I have focused will probably surface in the next decade, but we must tackle it now, in the early days, if we are to be successful. More immediately, there are other important telecommunications issues which can be resolved with reasonable attitudes.
Hearing aid users can use modern technology telephones so long as they have what is called an inductive coupling done. That is a small, cheap device which sends out electromagnetic signals that can be picked up by a hearing aid with a T switch. There are several telephones on the market with inductive couplers to be bought or rented at relatively modest prices. If deafness is more severe, extra amplification is needed. Amplifying phones are also available.
Two aspects of the issue are covered in the amendments. The first is that the employer should provide for a hearing aid user a telephone with a coupler, and amplifier, if necessary. The other issue is that we should recognise that couplers cost only 50 pence each.
We should follow the example of the United States, which requires every telephone on the market to have a coupler. That is a small price to pay; 50 pence is a minimal cost. Deaf people could then use all contemporary telephones and they would not have the effort and worry of searching for a usable telephone. That situation would be achieved by requiring telephones to be hearing-aid compatible as specified in the new clause.
I apologise for having spoken at a little length at this hour. However, I wish to make two further points. Those deaf people who have been most damaged by their inability to use the telephone—and I ought to know—are those who are totally deaf or profoundly deaf. At one time, they could use telephones only with the help of another person. Now, thanks to the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and, above all, to British Telecom, every deaf person is able through Type Talk and the Relay System to talk to anyone anywhere who has a telephone.
British Telecom has been magnificently generous with its time, commitment and money in making the Relay System work. I pay warm tribute to it. However, it is a regulatory requirement which runs out in 1997. It is essential that the requirement is continued and extended to include all those operating in the telecommunications market. The new clause provides for that.
Previously, deaf people have suffered greatly from their inability to use the telephone. This Bill, with these amendments, has the power to prevent future discrimination against deaf and hard-of-hearing people. I hope that they will benefit, as will millions of other

1767
people, from the amendments and the Bill. Again, I apologise for the length of my contribution and I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment. I do not need to say anything about it because the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has moved it so well. I should declare an interest as a user of a National Health Service hearing aid.
Lord Inglewood: We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for tabling his amendments in this regard. He is a well-known authority on these problems. We are living in a world of increasing technological change, which provides difficulties which in this context must be overcome. I make the obvious point that the technological change can apply both to the telecommunications system and to hearing aids.
The effect of Amendment No. 41 is to enable regulations to be made prescribing the circumstances in which telecommunications arrangements made by or on behalf of an employer may give rise to a duty of reasonable adjustment. In other words, the regulations may stipulate when arrangements of this kind are to be taken to put the disabled employee at a substantial disadvantage as compared with people who are not disabled.
Clause 6(1) is intentionally drafted in general terms which we believe employers will understand. "Arrangements" is widely defined and will cover a wide range of working conditions, including what I might describe as the telecommunications environment in which the person works. I understand the noble Lord's concern that the duty on employers to make a reasonable adjustment should cover adjustments such as preventing new (digital) telephones from interfering with hearing aids and making adjustments to a telephone, or providing a telephone which is compatible for use with a hearing aid. Of course, they are subject to scientific and technological change.
I can assure the noble Lord that the duty of reasonable adjustment already covers such areas. Furthermore, the regulation-making power in subsection (7) (a) already includes the enabling power that this amendment seeks. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider arid withdraw his amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 140. I must confess to a number of difficulties with the new clause. Subsection (2) would provide for new licences to run telecommunications systems to include a requirement to establish or contribute to a telecommunications relay service, to which the noble Lord referred, for the use of people with hearing or speech impairments. This power already exists under the broadly-drafted provisions of the Telecommunications Act 1984 at Section 7(5) (a). As Members of the Committee are probably aware, Oftel has recently consulted on this issue and will be considering carefully all of the responses. I am sure such well-respected groups such as the Telecommunications Action Group and many others will have responded.
1768
This measure seeks to impose by legislation what we believe can better be achieved by agreement. Oftel is considering arrangements for relay services. It would be much more sensible to await the results of the consultations and its discussions with operators.
Subsection (3) seeks to amend the Telecommunications Act 1984 to require that:
"newly manufactured apparatus be designed to provide for effective use with hearing aids that are designed to be compatible with telephones".
I cannot accept the burden that this would put on the manufacturing process.
I am sure that we all agree that there are some cases, and telephones are a good example, where a minor alteration at the design stage can save much time and money if, later on, the product has to be adapted or perhaps can negate the need for an adaptation at all. I do not believe, however, that measures in this area are really suited to an anti-discrimination Bill.
The new clause takes no account of the technical feasibility of ensuring that newly manufactured apparatus is compatible with hearing aids which may change in characteristic over time. At present, the only method of improving the performance of commonly-available hearing aids when used with telephones is, as the noble Lord explained, inductive coupling. This works well with traditional analogue fixed-wire phones and a number of models already prove it.
However, this method may not work with handsets using other technologies. Members of the Committee may be aware that there is, at present, such a problem with digital fixed-wire phones. This clause would effectively stop the sale of such handsets and the exploitation of the new technologies involved. Digital technology is flexible and might well give the customer an opportunity to adjust the incoming signal so as to maximise its audibility. When such developments may prove possible it would be foolhardy to inhibit research and development in that area.
The provisions of subsection (3) of the new clause would have a detrimental effect on UK manufacturers, on the growth of the competitive market and on consumers generally. There would be an immediate problem with European competition law in making manufacturers of any product conform to a higher standard which does not apply on the Continent. This could create barriers to trade, contrary to the internal market. I believe that would be unacceptable.
I can reassure the Committee that manufacturers and designers who supply their services directly to the public will be covered by the Government's Bill as service providers. However, it is right, I believe, not to extend legislation of this sort into the design and manufacturing process. It is not the business of government to regulate the design and manufacture decisions of British industry and this could only be achieved at a cost to its competitiveness. It is far better to trust to the market. As retailers and traders begin to get the message about how encouraging their disabled customers makes good business sense, so will the demand for goods which are compatible with the needs of disabled people increase.

1769
I have set out my objections to Amendments Nos. 41 and 140, but I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord in relation to those matters and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: First, I thank the Minister for his very full and comprehensive explanation, which I greatly appreciated. I appreciated in particular what he said on Amendment No. 41. I was disappointed by his reply in relation to Amendment No. 140 but I hope that we have begun a dialogue which can continue in the months ahead. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 5, line 11, at end insert:
("(cc) as to steps which it is always reasonable for an employer to have to take;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. We have been giving careful consideration to the regulation-making powers that are already available in Clause 6. The existing powers in Clause 6(7) (c) and (d) enable regulations to prescribe steps which are or are not reasonable for an employer to have to take in specific circumstances. However, they do not confer power to say that it is never (or always) reasonable to have to take a particular step.
Amendment No. 42 would allow regulations to prescribe a step which it is always reasonable for an employer to have to take. Amendment No. 43 would allow regulations to prescribe a step which it is never reasonable for an employer to have to take. Amendment No. 45 would enable regulations in either case to determine the issue of reasonableness by reference to the cost of taking the step concerned.
The Government have made clear from the outset that, while there is no upper financial limit to the duty on the employer to make a reasonable adjustment, should the need arise, Ministers would be prepared to consider setting a financial cap.
The additional effect of Amendment No. 45 is to enable the different approach of setting a general financial limit; for example, by providing that it is never reasonable to have to take a step which would cost more than a specified sum. Provision will also be possible under Amendments Nos. 42 and 45 for matters which will always be reasonable, including reference to the cost involved, although, here too, we have no current plans to make such regulations.
The amendments are necessary to ensure that the duty to make a reasonable adjustment can remain in general terms but that, should the need arise, burdens on employers—and this point was raised earlier during the debate—can be limited or certain adjustments can clearly be prescribed as always or never being reasonable. We have also emphasised on many occasions that no regulations will be made without prior consultation. I commend 'the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 13, at end insert:
("(dd) as to steps which it is never reasonable for an employer to have to take;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood: moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 5, line 16, leave out ("or (d)") and insert (", (cc), (d) or (dd)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Gladwin of Clee Lord Gladwin of Clee moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations made under section 33, 34 or 35 of the Police Act 1964 shall not discriminate against disabled persons, except in the circumstances described in section 5 of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to extend coverage of Part II of the Bill. At present, the Police Service is excluded from the legislation. On Third Reading in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, Mr. Paice, when referring to the White Paper, said:
"The statement in the White Paper is clear. It specifically said in paragraph 3.9 that the new right
'will cover the public and private sectors, although the Government is considering certain narrowly-defined exceptions for positions with unusually demanding all-round requirements for fitness and stamina'".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/95; col. 898.]
I hardly think that the whole of the Police Service is a "narrowly defined" exception.
There seems to have been no consultation whatsoever, so far as I can detect, with the Police Service about its exclusion. Was the Police Service actually sent the consultative document last year? I ask that question because I can find no response in the Red Book from any of the police authorities or the Police Federation. Indeed, I have talked to at least one chief constable and to the Association of Chief Police Officers and they knew nothing about the exclusion, but would probably not be opposed to the Police Service being included.
The Police Federation was, similarly, unaware of its exclusion but now strongly favours constables being included. Of course, the issue was not debated at all in the other place. The only reference to the civilian Police Service appears in col. 895 of Hansard on 28th March. On that occasion, the Minister was introducing amendments at the tail-end of the Third Reading debate to exclude the Armed Forces, fire fighters, prison officers and Ministry of Defence police from Part II of the Bill. The Minister said:
"Hon. Members … may wonder why there is no mention of ordinary police officers.
The answer is that they clearly fall outside the Bill's provisions in any case, and mentioning them would simply cause confusion. They are not covered by part II of the Bill because they do not have contracts of service and, as they are not crown servants"
although I am quoting from Commons Hansard, the grammar at this point seems to go wrong—
"nor are they caught by the special provisions of clause 35".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/95; col. 895.]
Of course police forces have fairly stringent medical tests for recruits to the service and no one is saying that a force will be required to recruit or to retain disabled people who, because of their impairments, do not have the physical or mental abilities required for the job. This

1771
amendment will ensure that disabled people whose impairments will not stop them from performing the tasks of a police constable, and who apply for or seek to retain employment with the police service, will not face discrimination on the grounds of their disabilities.
What about police officers who become disabled during their careers? I wish to quote from a message I received from the Police Federation today because it is concerned about this aspect of the situation. The message states:
"Our main concern is with officers who, either through accident or illness, contract disabilities during their service. They can be medically discharged against their will, on the grounds that they are unable to perform the full range of police duties …
At present, an officer subject to medical discharge may appeal, but only on the grounds that the decision of the medical officer is mistaken, or on procedural points. With a disabled officer, the question is not whether he suffers from the disability, but whether it is reasonable to end his police career because of it. Too often, that decision is taken because the police force has not been prepared to consider retaining a disabled officer, or will not make provision for his employment to continue, e.g. in the case of a disabled person who needs to be in a wheelchair. At the very least, there should be an opportunity for the decision of the chief officer to discharge a police officer to be tested against national standards".
Why should the police be totally excluded from this piece of anti-discrimination legislation, particularly when they are specifically included in the sex and race discrimination Acts? Excluding the Armed Forces is understandable but the blanket exclusion of the whole of the civilian police service, the Ministry of Defence police—and I am not sure what has happened to the British transport police—and all prison officers is a mistake. I hope that the Minister will say that his department is prepared to look again at these blanket exclusions. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish to support the amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Gladwin. I think we are suggesting here—although we may want to come back to this more broadly—that the police may be in the same situation, for example, as the prison service, although not the same situation as the Armed Forces and possibly not the same as the fire brigade, in that a large part of the service requires physical mobility and physical fitness as an essential part of the job. However, there are other aspects of the service where these are not relevant to the job. I have talked to a Member of this Chamber who has senior experience of policing and I was briefed about some of the jobs that a disabled police officer may well be able to undertake including reception work at the counter, lost property work, information technology work and the like, where a lack of physical mobility or lack—if I may put it this way—of fighting fitness is not relevant. They are not out on the streets.
This is a particular issue both for the police and for prison officers because they are both services in which—if I may put it this way—physical impairment as well as, very often, severe stress may follow from being in situations associated with riots, armed raids and the like. Both services are anxious that officers who incur an
1772
impairment as a result of, or during the course of their active service, should have the opportunity, where appropriate, to remain in the service in appropriate jobs.
As it now stands, there is a broad assumption that somehow every member of the police force and every prison officer has to be able to patrol the streets and put on their helmets and their shields. That is not the case.
The difficulty is that aspects of both services are increasingly being civilianised. Therefore, many of the traditional jobs that a disabled police officer might have been able to do within the police service are no longer available because they are being privatised and transferred to civilian life and away from the police service. It is therefore even more important that where jobs remain which can be filled by someone who remains in active service but for whom physical mobility and full physical fitness is not required, disabled officers should have access to those jobs and should not find themselves discriminated against in a blanket fashion as is now the case.
We do not argue the case for the Armed Forces. We accept that someone working in the medical services in the Armed Forces may, in the last resort, need to fight. That is not the case with police officers or the prison service. We believe that it would help the morale of those men and women enormously if they knew that if they were to suffer stress or injury in the course of their service nonetheless there remains a future for them in that service. I hope that the Minister can respond positively to the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Committee may be aware that members of the police force have always been excluded from the existing legislation which covers the employment of disabled people—namely, the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 and the quota scheme which is provided for in it. They are excluded because they are not employees as defined in that Bill: they are office holders. On the same basis, members of the police force are not covered by the employment provisions of this Bill.
It has been argued that the Bill provides employers with adequate assurances that they need only employ disabled people who are suitable for the job. Why then not cover the police? The public must be able to feel confident in those employed in jobs which impact on their security and safety and which have unusually demanding all-round requirements for fitness and stamina. We believe that there are exceptional circumstances which make it not in the public interest for refusal of employment or other treatment relating to disability to be subject to complaint to an industrial tribunal. Decisions on who to employ in such jobs must be left to those who have that responsibility.
Anyone who meets the entry criteria for the police service will be considered for appointment in the office of constable. However, the police are entitled to expect the highest standards of mental and physical fitness, and it would not be in the public interest that their judgment in these matters should be second-guessed by industrial tribunals.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, mentioned counter duty. No doubt for much of the time counter duty is reasonably safe, ordinary and calm. However, there are

1773
occasions when that interface with the public can become extremely difficult. That does not happen only on television. It happens in reality. On Saturday night I imagine that the counters in certain police stations in some of our city centres are places where a certain amount of physical fitness and robustness may well be necessary.
For the reasons I mentioned, including that example, one must look at the police force as a whole. Police officers have an especially demanding job. The demands on them are considerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, does not seek to bring the police within the employment provisions of the Bill. Instead, he seeks to ensure that the police regulations meet the requirements of Part II of the Bill. That would simply shift the problem sideways, by opening up the prospect of challenge to the regulations by judicial review. Those regulations set out clear and justifiable conditions for appointment to the police force, but it is to Parliament that the Home Secretary must be accountable in choosing what those requirements should be, in his judgment of what the public interest requires. The noble Lord's amendment could also have the effect of requiring a wide range of reasonable adjustments to be provided for in the regulations. The Government simply could not accept that it would be appropriate to impose an obligation of that kind on the police force.
I understand some of the points that the noble Lord made, especially about police officers who are injured in the course of their service. However, decisions about continuing to employ such officers and how they could be employed should be treated in the same way as the original decisions as to who to employ and who to take on as a police officer. Those decisions should be left to the senior police officers who have that responsibility placed on them. I do not believe that it would be in the public interest to bring the police force within the scope of the Bill, either directly or indirectly via the course to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, refers in his amendment.
Lord Carter: That is an extremely interesting answer. Perhaps the Minister will help me on this point. Does he agree that in America the situation is no less violent or difficult to police than in this country? In America they have disabled policemen. I have seen them working in wheelchairs. Will the noble Lord explain what seems so impossible? The situation can be handled well in America.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure about the American situation. I do not know whether or not they handle it well. However, in this country the situation is different. Certainly the police force in this country is markedly different from that in America. While it is interesting to look at what others do, I do not believe that we should necessarily follow them.
In our view it is not sensible to impose the same obligations on the police force as we impose on other employers, for the reasons that I mentioned: that the police force is a force of men and women who require high standards of mental and physical fitness. It is difficult to see how one could run a police force in which
1774
one has to make exceptions or alterations—whatever it may be—for certain people who do not match those criteria.
No one knows at what point in time a police officer who appears to have a job well away from what I may call the front line may be called upon to do a front line activity. That is the bottom line. I speak with a little experience. My late father was a police officer as were two of my uncles.
Lord Monkswell: I had intended to raise the case of Douglas Bader who was a legless air ace. However, I shall not do so.
One of the issues that we need to recognise is that legislation works best when it enshrines good practice. I believe that that would be generally accepted. One of the matters about which I am not sure from what the Minister said, is whether it is a requirement when a policeman becomes disabled that he be discharged; or are policemen and women who become disabled during their service career retained in employment as police officers in the discretion of their chief constables? We need to inquire about the practice in different police forces and whether employment of disabled people as police officers is currently in operation. How does the system work?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There are two aspects to the issue. One relates to recruitment. I should have thought that my argument on recruitment is pretty well unanswerable. I believe that the public would rightly expect Parliament to retain that position.
With regard to those police officers who may become disabled during the course of their duty, or indeed because they find themselves with a disability arising from an illness of some kind, or through one of the various conditions about which we have spoken earlier, I believe that in general it should rightly be left to the chief constable to decide the nature of the disability, the rank and expertise of the officer and what can be done to help him to stay in the force if that seems the sensible way forward. To impose obligations along those lines on the force would be quite wrong.
However, I shall ask my colleagues in the Home Office—they know more about the police service than I do—what the position is in order to satisfy the curiosity that the noble Lord raised in me.
Midnight
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wish to pick up one phrase. The Minister said "impose obligations", but no one suggests that my noble friend's amendment should be taken out of the context of reasonable costs, suitability and all the other qualifications. It merely proposes that where, in a police constable's or police officer's view, the chief constable is not behaving reasonably in allowing that person to remain in the service, he should have the same rights as anyone else.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have tried to explain that the police force has a different role to play. All police officers can be called upon to undertake all kinds of responsibilities, especially at moments where the police are under pressure such as in riots. It ought to be left to the chief constable to make those decisions. There

1775
is also the small matter that police officers move from job to job in the course of their career advancement. That must play a part in the considerations.
I return to the point that the police force is in a special circumstance a little like the Armed Forces of the Crown. I believe that it would be wrong to bring them within the compass of the Bill, either directly or indirectly.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: I am grateful to the Minister and other Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I apologise if the wording of the amendment is flawed, but I sought to persuade the Minister and the Government to do something which they patently did not do in the other place. That is, to explain why this enormous service is excluded. When it comes to firemen, the Bill distinguishes between firefighters and people who serve in the fire service. There is reference to their contracts of employment. I do not see why we cannot make the same distinction in the civilian police service, in the Ministry of Defence police service and British Transport Police. The Minister made no reference to my question about the position of the British Transport Police under this legislation.
To pick up the point about my noble friend's curiosity, I understand the Minister's use of the word, but it is not curiosity as regards serving police officers. The answer to my noble friend is that it depends which police service one is with and the nature of the disability. It depends on how one got the disability; if it arises from some fairly high profile accident like a shooting or a car chase, the chances are that the officer will be kept on and found employment. It will certainly not be in the front line, but he will be accommodated. But if you contract a disease and become disabled, as the Minister said—as with the problems talked about today—the chances are that you will lose your job.
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I find deeply disappointing. Clearly, at this time of the morning we shall not divide the Committee; but there should have been consultation with the representatives of the police forces, police authorities, the chief police officer and the Police Federation. It seems that the service is totally excluded, not as regards recruitment but regarding the position of the police officer who is disabled in employment. I fail to understand why he should not have the same rights as are extended across the rest of the nation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) Where an employer incurs any costs specifically in order to comply with this section then for all the purposes of the Income and Corporation Taxes Acts those costs shall be treated as revenue expenses of the taxable period in which they are incurred, deductible in computing his profits or gains of that period and liable to income tax or corporation tax as the case may be.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment to determine whether contemporaneous tax relief will be available for the extra costs which employers will have to incur to adapt their premises to fulfil obligations in the Bill.
The fear is that for tax purposes the expenditure might not be treated as deductible revenue expenditure nor as expenditure qualifying for capital allowance. It might thus fall into the trap of unrelieved expenditure which I am told is commonly known by tax officials as "nothing". It is equally important that the tax relief should be contemporaneous and not spread over future years when it would be eroded by inflation. It would not be reasonable to expect employers to absorb costs which were then taxed in an unduly penalising way. I hope the Minister can give me some comfort over this, and I beg to move.
Lord Carter: Just on a point of drafting, presumably there must be some expenditure of a capital nature. The last but one line of the amendment talks about the profits or gains of that period—that is, capital gains. If you are talking about revenue expenditure, that means all expenditure, whether it be in the normal accounting sense either accounting or capital: everything is to be treated as revenue; but towards the end of the amendment it talks about profits or gains and of course gains refer to capital.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. The amendment needs to be looked at again in terms of drafting, because in my explanation I referred to both revenue expenditure and capital expenditure.
Lord Inglewood: I hope I can be helpful to my noble friend, although I fear I cannot agree to the incorporation of Amendment No. 48 into the Bill. Changes to tax law are not appropriate to this Bill. They are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The relevant forum for consideration of such matters would be the Finance Bill.
However, the noble Baroness will be pleased to learn that I am informed that many of the reasonable adjustments likely to be made by employers under Clause 6 of the Bill will qualify for allowances or for deductions under the normal rules of taxation. For example, the day-to-day running costs of a business are written off for tax purposes when they are incurred. This is the point I was trying to make to the noble Lord, Lord Monson. These expenses would include salaries and wages, rent and rates, maintenance and similar costs. In so far as any expenditure under Clause 6 is a day-to-day cost of running the business, that expenditure could therefore be written off immediately for tax purposes. So, for example, a firm that employs a reader for a visually impaired employee could write off the cost of employing the reader for tax purposes.
I understand that capital expenditure on machinery and plant qualifies for capital allowances at the rate of 25 per cent. a year on a reducing balance, which allows 90 per cent. of the cost to be written off for tax within eight years. Such expenditure under Clause 6, including specially adapted lifts or toilets, specialist furniture or computer equipment, would qualify for machinery and plant capital allowances. Additionally, expenditure on the fabric of an industrial building or structure, or a qualifying hotel, which in effect most hotels are, would qualify for industrial buildings allowances of 4 per cent. a year for 25 years.

1777
In other words, it seems that employers would qualify for some form of allowance or deductions for much of the expenditure under Clause 6. Therefore, in the circumstances, I hope the noble Baroness will be able to feel reassured and will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister. But I have just one problem, which is that normal capital expenditure in a business is used (shall we say?) over nine years. For example, new plant or new machinery would be utilised over that period, and the writing-down occurs over that period. But if you are going to have an adjustment to premises which is a one-off expenditure in order to employ a disabled person, that is not necessarily something that is going to be utilised over nine years. Certainly it is to be hoped the person is still going to be in employment over that nine years, or whatever; but it is a one-off cost which is not undertaken as part of the normal running of the business. My object was, if it were at all possible, to have that written off in the year in which it was incurred. If that could be done, it would be most helpful. Perhaps I may ask the Minister for his view on that, or perhaps he will look at it and come back in due course.
Lord Inglewood: Unfortunately, I am not the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so I am hardly in a position to give the noble Baroness the kind of reply she is looking for. However, I understand the point she is making and I shall certainly reflect on it.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert:
("( ) Before issuing any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate, including appropriate organisations representative of employers and appropriate organisations representative of disabled persons.").
The noble Baroness said: This is coming back to the consultation issue. It is again an employment one, so I think the amendment is correct. The first one should actually have brought in access as well. This says:
".… the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate, including appropriate organisations representative of employers and appropriate organisations representative of disabled persons."
I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I spoke earlier about our commitments to consult widely about material issued under this Bill, be it guidance or codes of practice. Proposals for regulations will be treated no differently; they, too, will be subject to full and open consultation. In the light of this and earlier reassurances, I hope that the Committee will accept that this amendment is unnecessary. I therefore ask my noble friend if she will consider withdrawing it, bearing in mind the assurances that I have given.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank my noble friend the Minister. He is under no illusion; I should like to have this provision on the face of the Bill. I was not given that reassurance last time round. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Deductions from employer's contributions
.—(1) Regulations may make provision for any employer, who employs a person who is a qualifying employee, to make deductions from the employer's contributions payments in accordance with the regulations and in prescribed circumstances.
(2) In this section "qualifying employee" means a disabled person under section 1 of this Act.
(3) In this section "prescribed circumstances" shall include the recruitment and retention of a qualifying employee.").
The noble Lord said: I am not sure that we can deal with this amendment as briskly as we did the last one. However, I shall attempt to be brief.
As Members of the Committee will realise, this amendment puts forward a proposal to extend the employers' national insurance contributions holiday in the Jobseekers Bill to employers recruiting or keeping a disabled employee.
As all who are in the Chamber know—since we all worked on the Bill—the Jobseekers Bill provides for a one-year national insurance contributions holiday for employers recruiting a long-term unemployed person. That Bill defines a qualifying employee as someone who has been signing on for jobseeker's allowance for at least two years. This amendment would enable anyone defined as a disabled person under the provisions of the Bill to be a qualifying employee for their employer to receive a contributions holiday.
During the passage of the Jobseekers Bill, amendments were tabled to extend the definition of a qualifying employee to include a disabled person. I believe that I myself moved those amendments. The proposal was rejected by the Minister on the grounds that the main target group was the long-term unemployed. However, on Report, the Minister stated that he would not rule out extending the definition further in some way if it became clear that there was value in doing so—(Hansard, 16/5/95; col. 542.)
We feel that the disability Bill is an ideal opportunity to raise the matter again, particularly in view of the arguments for limiting disabled people's employment rights because of the additional costs faced by employers—an argument that was advanced. If an NIC holiday is considered to be sufficient incentive for employers to recruit a long-term unemployed person, it is unlikely that it will be any less of an incentive for employers to recruit a disabled person.
To take the average earnings for all occupations, to an employer a year's NIC holiday could be worth £1,217 on female earnings, or £1,657 on male earnings. Those figures are based on the New Earnings Survey and not on contracted-out contributions.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Minister can feel that this amendment would provide a useful incentive to employers to recruit disabled employees. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This new clause seeks powers similar to those that were sought during the passage of the Jobseekers Bill in respect of the national insurance holiday. It also appears to aim to provide a financial incentive to employers who take on any disabled person, even those who have not been away from the labour market.
As I said during the passage of the Jobseekers Bill, the national insurance holiday is aimed at helping back into work people who have been capable of work but have not been able to find it. This is where we consider that the need is greatest, and where we feel we must target the resources we have at our disposal, in particular at the group who have been unemployed for two years or more. That does not apply with the same force to disabled people who have not been unemployed for long periods. Of course, disabled people who have been registered unemployed for two years will qualify for the national insurance holiday.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned, during the course of the Jobseekers Bill I pointed out that the powers are widely drawn and that they would enable us to include other groups, including disabled people, if we believed that to be appropriate. As I said, we shall carefully monitor and evaluate the success of the scheme. We do not rule out extending it further in some way if it becomes clear that there is value in doing so. But for now, as I believe I said at the time, we need to introduce the scheme within the cost constraints that apply. That means focusing help essentially on the long-term unemployed.
That argument is the same as the one I have used about the Bill in general. We want to ensure that this is concentrated on the people whom we have set out to help: the disabled. The particular scheme in the Jobseekers Bill has been devised and budgeted for on the basis of helping one particular group of the unemployed, namely, the long-term unemployed. I can do no better than repeat what I said in the course of the Committee and Report stages of the Jobseekers Bill. We want to preserve that concentration. We will monitor the situation. If we want to bring in any other group, not just the disabled, I believe that we have the powers under the Jobseekers Bill to do it. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Carter: I think that the Minister's answer can be described as the very faintest glimmer of hope rather than the complete extinction of it. In the light of his answer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.51 not moved.]
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No.52:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Discrimination against disabled persons in partnerships
.—(1) It is unlawful for a firm to discriminate against a disabled person who is eligible to become a partner in that firm—

(a) in the arrangements it makes for the purpose of determining who should be offered the position of partner in the firm;

(b) in the terms on which a partnership in the firm is offered to that person; or

(c) by refusing to offer, or deliberately not offering, a partnership to that person.

(2) Subsection (1) shall apply in relation to persons proposing to form themselves into a partnership as it applies in relation to a firm.
(3) It is unlawful for a firm to discriminate against a disabled person who is a partner in that firm—

(a) by the way it affords him access to any benefits, facilities or services; or

(b) by expelling him from that partnership, or subjecting him to any other detriment.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a firm discriminates against a disabled person if—

(a) for a reason which relates to the disabled person's disability, it treats him less favourably than it treats, or would treat, others who do not have the disability in question; and

(b) the firm cannot show that the treatment in question is justified under subsection (5).

(5) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a firm is justified in treating a disabled person less favourably than it treats, or would treat, others who do not have the disability in question only if—

(i) it has reached a decision that one or more of the conditions mentioned in subsection (6) are satisfied; and

(ii) it is reasonable for that decision to have been reached.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above the conditions are that—

(a) the disabled person is unsuitable for the position;

(b) the disabled person is less suitable for the position than another person and that other person is given the position, or

(c) the nature of the disabled person's disability significantly impedes, or would significantly impede, the performance of any of the duties of the position.

(7) Where—

(a) any arrangements made by or on behalf of a firm, or

(b) any physical feature of premises occupied by a firm,

place a disabled person who is a partner in that firm, or a disabled person who is eligible to become a partner in that firm and has applied to become a partner or could reasonably be expected to be considered for a position as a partner, at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with persons who are not disabled, it is the duty of the firm to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for it to have to take in order to prevent the arrangements or feature having that effect.
(8) Where a duty is imposed on a firm by or under subsection (7) above, treatment of a disabled person may be justified in accordance with subsection (5) above only if—

(a) the firm has complied with the duty, or

(b) where it has not complied with the duty it would be reasonable for it to have reached the decision that even if it had done so, the treatment would still have been justified.

(9) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 28, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled.
(10) Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a firm to treat a disabled person more favourably than it treats, or would treat, others who do not have the disability in question.
(11) Subsections (7) and (8) above impose duties only for the purpose of determining whether a firm has discriminated against a disabled person; and accordingly a breach of any such duty is not actionable as such.
(12) Regulations under this section may—

1781

(a) make provision as to the meaning of "arrangements" for the purposes of this section;

(b) make provision as to other circumstances in which a firm is to be taken to be justified in treating a disabled person less favourably than it treats, or would treat, other persons who do not have the disability in question; and

(c) make provision as to—

(i) circumstances in which arrangements are, or a physical feature is, for the purposes of subsection (7) to be taken to have the effect mentioned in that subsection, and

(ii) circumstances in which the provisions of regulations made under section 6(7), (8) and (9) are to be taken as applying to a firm in relation to a position as a partner in that firm as, under those provisions, they apply to employers.").

The noble Baroness said: Partnerships in employment are not covered in the Bill as it stands, as I mentioned at Second Reading. A shorter amendment with the same aims was moved and withdrawn in another place in Standing Committee E on 28th February. This amendment is much longer. It has taken into account some of the worries expressed in the other place and brings it into line with provisions in the Bill relating to employment.
Both the Sex Discrimination Act and Race Relations Act include a right not to be discriminated against in relation to a partnership. The latter Act limits the right to firms of more than five people. However, the Law Society and BMA are currently appealing to the Government to remove the restriction for race. They say that if discrimination is wrong on the ground of sex they can see no reason for not saying that it is also wrong on ground of race. Racial discrimination is either right or wrong, and the size of partnership should be immaterial. Surely, the same is true of disability.
The main groups affected are members of professions which typically operate on a partnership basis: architects, accountants, solicitors, GPs and so forth. I was amazed to learn that some firms had more than 100 partners. In those cases to become a partner is a form of promotion. In instances of discrimination on the ground of disability the career development of the disabled person will be blocked. Surely, that is wrong. It should be remembered that normally somebody applies for a partnership once he or she has been working in a firm for some time and has proved himself or herself in the job. When there is a partnership opening, if the individual is capable of doing the job of a fee-earner in a professional practice there can be no additional criteria to prevent the person from taking the next logical career step. Many firms provide for the retirement of partners through cross life insurance cover. It may be difficult for some disabled people to obtain that, and perhaps it is an area where reasonable adjustments may need to be made. Apart from that, there appears to be no good reason for excluding partnerships from the Bill. I hope to receive an encouraging reply from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: I believe it to be a fact that over the years a number of our leading lawyers have been blind. When the noble Baroness moved the amendment it occurred to me that there was one international firm of
1782
accountants which had 630 partners, some of whom were in this country and others in America. It would be odd if a disabled person was somehow barred in this country but could be employed by the same firm in America under the terms of the ADA. I would be interested to know the reason why the Government felt that they should be excluded.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: First, let me make clear that the Bill will cover partnerships in their capacity as employers, in the same way as any other employer who has more than 20 employees. Partnerships will also be covered by the access to goods and services provisions of the Bill. The noble Baroness's amendment asks for partnerships to be considered in a third category, that is, the partners themselves.
As the noble Baroness said, in many cases partners are recruited from among the employees of the partnership. In such a situation, becoming a partner is indeed a form of promotion. In that context a person will have already been covered by the disability provisions as an employee of the firm. Indeed, I suspect that, for partnerships, there is no job advertisement or application but that it is a case of a summons to go to see the senior managing partner and being invited to consider becoming a partner. But I have no great experience of these matters. I suspect, however, that that is how it is done. I hope that that kind of career progression—where, as the noble Baroness said, any disabled person has clearly been provided for and allowances have been made in whatever shape or form necessary as for an employee—would mean that at any next stage any misapprehensions or concerns among the partners about the individual's suitability would already have been resolved and the reasonable adjustments would have been made.
A partnership is a business relationship in which the partners invest often considerable resources and share the consequent profit or loss. Partners bind themselves together by an agreement. They are usually personally liable for all the debts of the partnership and an act by one partner will normally bind all the others. It is also a close relationship of trust and confidence and is quite different from the relationship between an employer and an employee.
The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness seeks to deal with the relationship between a partner or prospective partner on the one hand and "the firm" on the other. But as every partner is part of the firm, that division is not a true one. A number of issues stem from the new clause, which we need to consider very carefully. For example, there is the important issue of "reasonable adjustment". This amendment places a duty of reasonable adjustment on "the firm". I wonder whether that is the right approach. It would mean, for example, that a disabled partner has a duty placed on himself for his own benefit, because "the firm" is not a realistic description of a partnership. If one is a partner in a firm, one is not employed by the firm. That is where the pension point mentioned earlier comes in.
Since partners put their own resources into a firm, it is not clear how the question of the cost of adjustment should be dealt with, and in particular to what extent it

1783
would be reasonable for the disabled person to seek a contribution from the other partner or partners to meet the cost of the necessary adjustments.
We are not aware of unfair discrimination against disabled people being an issue in the context of partnerships. I am not yet convinced by the noble Baroness's arguments that the inclusion of partners in this part of the Bill is necessary. I should need to be convinced both that this is an area where there is unfair discrimination against disabled people and that legislating to prevent it is the best way forward. Clearly, even if I were convinced, I should have to consider very carefully how to proceed in the light of the points that I mentioned about partnerships being quite different from the employee/employer relationship, which is the meat, so to speak, of the rest of the Bill.
I appreciate that this is a serious issue. But I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment. I should be interested to hear, either at the next stage or during the course of the next few days, anything from her as to whether there is a problem and its nature, to see whether I can help her.
Lord Carter: There are two points that occurred to me as the Minister was speaking. It is now common in the large professional practices to have salaried partners. There are just a few equity partners and a lot of salaried partners. I do not expect the Minister to answer me now, but I think that the Government will have to reflect on whether they are employees or partners in the way that he defined.
Also, there is the case of the John Lewis Partnership, which was drawn to my attention by my noble friend Lady Hollis. Every member who works in that firm is a partner. Are they also excluded from the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should have to look rather more carefully at the John Lewis Partnership before I could answer that question. The noble Lord raised the issue of salaried partners. In some ways I can see why he did so, but it did, perhaps, add to the point that I made; namely, that this is a rather more difficult field than that of the simple employer and employee relationship. I cannot really answer the question about salaried partners off the top of my head; how they are regarded and whether they would come inside the scope of the Bill as it stands. I shall have to take advice about that and about the nature of the John Lewis Partnership. I believe that I know what I mean by partnerships and what the noble Baroness means by that. I shall reflect on those points, check up and perhaps write to the noble Lord about the particular instances that he has raised with me.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may seek a little clarification from the Minister. He seemed to say that in the mechanism of going from an employee of a firm
1784
through promotion to partnership, the Act would apply because it would be discrimination in terms of promotion. I suspect that that is not what he intended to say, but that is the impression that I gained. In that case the promotion side would be covered, but all that would be left would be discrimination once a person had become a partner. I suspect that the Minister will clarify the situation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: In view of the time of night I believe that I was reading pretty carefully from my notes on the subject, so I am sure that I did not say what the noble Lord appears to have heard me say. I believe I said, if I may paraphrase it, that in many cases a person becomes a partner, having previously been an employee. If the person is disabled in the context of this Bill, then accommodation will have been made, if necessary, to have him as an employee. Therefore, any misapprehensions or difficulties which might occur in other circumstances ought not to occur here. In other words, the other partners will be well aware of that person's ability to do the job, and given whatever changes have to be made in the office, if any, they will not be a problem. That is what I was getting at rather than the point that the noble Lord was making and as regards which he seems to have misheard me.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I am not sure that I share the Minister's confidence that I know anything about partnerships, particularly after this debate. As regards the last point about a partner who was an employee previously and therefore the accommodation would have been made, that may be all right. It would be a very great help if something on partnerships was in the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his support. He made some interesting points. I thank the Minister for his full reply and for his offer to exchange information before the next stage. I shall find out a little more about the whole position. We all probably need to find out more. I hope to discuss the matter with him before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved I accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Children (Scotland) Bill
Reported from the Committee of the Whole House in the Moses Room with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past midnight.

Official Report of the Committee on the Children (Scotland) Bill
Third Sitting
Tuesday, 13 June, 1995
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Clause 70 [Exclusion orders]:
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie) moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 57, line 7, after ("child") insert (", irrespective of whether the child is for the time being residing in the family home").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 162 seeks to ensure that the sheriff should have power to make an exclusion order whether or not the child is at that time residing in the family home. It could, for example, be the case that a child of a non-abusing parent had gone to live with relatives or friends to make sure that the child was safe. It should therefore be possible for the local authority to seek the exclusion of the abuser so that the child and the non-abusing parent can return to the family home. The amendment is a useful addition and I hope it will receive the Committee's support.
Amendment No. 163 is an associated amendment, which recognises that the child may already have been removed from the family home by, for example, a non-abusing parent to protect the child. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 57, line 9, leave out ("removing") and insert ("the removal of).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 164 to 166:
Page 57, line 9, at end insert ("; and"
( ) that, if an order is made, there will be a person specified in the application who is capable of taking responsibility for the provision of appropriate care for the child and any other member of the family who requires such care and who is, or will be, residing in the family home (in this section and sections 71 to 74 of this Act referred to as an "appropriate person").").
Page 57, line 10, leave out ("No order shall be made") and insert ("No application under subsection (1) above for an exclusion order shall be finally determined").
Page 57, line 15, at end insert:
("(3A) Where, on an application under subsection (1) above, the sheriff—

(a) is satisfied as mentioned in that subsection; but

(b) the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) above for the final determination of the application are not fulfilled,

he may grant an interim order, which shall have effect as an exclusion order pending a hearing by the sheriff under subsection (3B) below held within such period as may be specified in rules made by virtue of section 74(2)(bb) of this Act.
(3B) The sheriff shall conduct a hearing under this subsection to
CWH 120
consider an application under subsection (1) above and an order granted on that application under subsection (3A) above within such period as may be specified in rules made by virtue of section 74(2)(bb) of this Act, and, if satisfied at that hearing as mentioned in subsection (1) above, he may, before finally determining the application, confirm or vary the interim order, or any term or condition on which it was granted, or may recall such order.
(3C) Where the conditions mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) above have been fulfilled, the sheriff may, before finally determining the application, grant an interim order.
(3D) An order under subsection (3B) or (3C) above shall have effect as an exclusion order pending the final determination of the application.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 168 and 169:
Page 57, line 42, leave out subsection (7).
Page 58, line 3, leave out from ("order"") to end of line 4 and insert ("includes an interim order granted under subsection (3A) above and such an order confirmed or varied under subsection (3B) above and an interim order granted under subsection (3C) above; except that in subsection (3) above and in section 73 of this Act, it does not include an interim order granted under subsection (3A) above;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 70, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may ask a question about the definition of "family home" at the top of page 58 of the Bill. It has been my experience in reading previous legislation that the word "curtilage" is often used to cover the surrounding areas. I am just wondering whether between now and the Report stage my noble and learned Friend would consider the possibility of adding that word. That is my only point.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: It certainly is the case that often the word "curtilage" is included and I shall certainly have a look at that. If we were to go one step further forward into Clause 71 and have regard to the things that might be done in terms of such an exclusion order, other than simply entering the house, I suspect it would be possible so to frame the interdict or exclusion that it was an exclusion from more than just the inside of the dwelling house itself and might, for example, include a specified area in the vicinity of the home. It might be, for example, as I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate, that one would want not only to exclude that individual—that named person—from the garden but possibly from the whole street or indeed even the village.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to have had the opportunity to ask the question.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 [Effect of, and orders etc. ancillary to, exclusion order]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 58, line 20, after ("authority") insert ("or Children's Reporter").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 171, 172, 174, 178, 180 and 182. Apart from

CWH 121
Amendment No. 171, these amendments insert the words "or children's reporter" after the word "authority" referring to local authority. It has been pointed out that that should be "principal reporter" rather than children's reporter. I accept that the amendment is to that extent defective. The amendments are put down in the hope that the Government will accept the principle that by bringing the principal reporter into play so to speak, there will be another dimension quite apart from the local authority interest. Of course, the reporter is the person who is most likely to have most knowledge of the background to any of the proceedings taking place in respect of exclusion orders.
Amendment No. 171 relates to the question of the removal of items from the home. It demonstrates the difficulties in the application of provisions relating to the removal of necessary items from the home and is an attempt to broaden and to give flexibility to the removal of, for example, joiner's tools or plumber's tools or whatever they might be, or indeed a lawyer's books, and provides that the person concerned may come back to get them out of the house—although they may not have been removed in the first place. I trust that the Government, if not accepting the amendment, will at least look at the principle behind it. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Again, this is another case where I wonder whether the Government should have included the principal reporter. I had been quite concerned about that myself: I feel he is such an important person.
On Amendment No. 171, it comes to my mind that, supposing the person you wanted to exclude had a hire purchase agreement for, say, a gas cooker, it would be disastrous if that gas cooker were removed because the family concerned would have nothing to cook with. That is where I am rather grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, for having tabled these amendments, because they relate to matters which came to my mind.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am a little puzzled by the amendment because, when I read it, I understood the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, to mean that it would enable a chap who was being excluded to take, say, his plumber's tools or whatever with him, or to come and get such tools, but that does not look to me like the effect of it. It looks to me as if his wife, if she did not like him, could refuse him permission to get his tools. I am just a little puzzled and I wonder whether it is possible for the noble Lord to clarify the position.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I must say that, looking at the wording of the exclusion order with respect to Amendment No. 171, I have a slight difficulty with it myself. But the principle is there and it may very well be that the wife could stop the person removing any other items from the house. The phrase "or other applicant" is rather loose, but the amendment was tabled to ascertain the Government's reaction to it. It may be that the Government take the view that it is not very intelligible, but I hope that it is. The other "other applicant" could be the person who is being excluded, of course, but then that is almost a contradiction in terms. I accept that the amendment is not too happily phrased,
CWH 122
but it has been tabled to raise the issue and to obtain a response from the Government.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: While in many respects this amendment is effectively, consequential upon a change that was proposed in Amendment No. 159 which has already been debated, it nevertheless raises an issue of greater substance than is usually the case in consequential amendments.
At the time of the discussion on Amendment No. 159, I indicated our firm view that it would not be appropriate to extend the powers of the reporters because their responsibilities lie totally in the area of children's hearings. Their focus is very much on measures of supervision for the child. To extend the reporter's duty as proposed would be to risk a serious dilution of that focus.
Since the Committee has already agreed that it would not be appropriate to allow the reporter to apply for an exclusion order, it would seem to follow that he should not have a part to play in any of the subsequent proceedings relating to ancillary orders, interdicts, warrants, or powers of arrest. Accordingly, in our view, Amendments Nos. 170, 172, 174, 178, 180 and 182 would not be appropriate.
Amendment No. 171 deserves, possibly, a separate mention. The removal of subsection (2) and, indeed, most of subsection (3) would make what remained of the clause unworkable, since the ejection of the named person and the prevention of his re-entry without permission would no longer be possible. As the noble Lord will appreciate from that explanation, the whole purpose of exclusion orders is thus defeated.
There was some consideration also in the discussion about the matter of the tools of the named person who might be excluded. That matter could be dealt with by the existing provisions of Clause 71(3)(c)(ii) because while that relates to the granting of an interdict, it also allows for a particular exception. It states:
"grant an interdict of any relevant item specified in the interdict from the home, except by virtue of a subsequent order of the sheriff.
If the tools of a trade, a doctor's black bag or a lawyer's books (or whatever it might be) remained in the house, they could be expressly excluded from the terms of any interdict. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he can withdraw the amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. As usual, I shall read with interest what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 58, line 33, leave out ("any spouse or partner of the named person") and insert ("an appropriate person").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 164 introduced a new requirement; namely that there should be a person specified in the application for an exclusion order:

CWH 123
"who is capable of taking responsibility for the provision of appropriate care for the child and any other member of the family who requires such care and who is, or will be, residing in the family home".
Although in most situations that person will be the spouse or the partner of the abuser, that will not necessarily always be the case. The term "appropriate person" was therefore introduced in recognition of that possibility.
This group of amendments—Amendments Nos. 175, 176, 181, 183, 184, 185, 188, 189 and 190, are grouped with Amendment No. 173—makes consequential changes to the exclusion order terminology. I beg to move.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: There is just one matter; having removed the specification of
"any spouse or partner of the named person"
and substituted the words "an appropriate person", may I ask whether the phrase "an appropriate person" will be defined, or are we leaving open the definition depending on the particular circumstances of particular households? It is a matter of information because the new provisions create greater confusion whereas the original terms of the Bill were fairly precise. The phrase "an appropriate person" is very worrying. It may be somewhere in the Bill already—if it is, then I apologise for not having seen it—but I do not see it in Clause 84. Perhaps the Minister could give that point some consideration.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The terminology has been adopted deliberately because the make-up of households is potentially almost infinitely variable. It might be, for example, in the ordinary case—that is the way the original drafting proceeded—that the likelihood would be that it would be a spouse or a partner of the named person who was being excluded who would remain in the house with the child. What is not appreciated is that in some cases an appropriate person might be the grandmother—that is the most obvious one to select. But even though she might be a fairly obvious and predictable individual to be the appropriate person to resume or take on the care of the child in such circumstances, it is virtually impossible to predict a finite list. In those circumstances "an appropriate person" is the best terminology to apply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 173A:
Page 58, line 38, leave out from ("person") to first ("of") in line 39.
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 173A seeks to limit the extent to which an interdict related to the granting of an exclusion order might affect people other than the named persons. As drafted at present, Clause 71(3)(e) would allow any other person to be named in the interdict and prohibited from taking any step mentioned in the interdict in relation to the child. This would appear to go beyond the reasons for the making of the original order. If there were grounds for any other person to be prohibited through an interdict in this way there would be strong reasons for
CWH 124
suggesting that the person should equally be subject to an exclusion order. The amendment takes "any other person" out of paragraph (e) thus making clear that any interdict granted under its terms should relate only to the person named in the exclusion order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 175 and 176.
Page 59, line 14, after ("concerned") insert ("or an appropriate person").
Page 59, line 15, after ("member") insert ("or person").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 173 I spoke to Amendments Nos. 175 and 176. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 [Powers of arrest etc. in relation to exclusion order]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 59, line 22, leave out from ("may") to ("attach") in line 23 and insert (", whether or not on an application such as is mentioned in subsection (1A) below,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is moved with some reluctance in response to concerns that were raised in another place. The amendments replace the Latin phrase ex proprio motu in Clause 72 with an equivalent form of words in English. The purpose of this provision, namely to empower a sheriff to attach a power of arrest to an interdict whether or not the local authority has made such an application, ought to be clearer. I am bound to say that I think ex proprio motu is a perfectly adequate way of putting it but as that seems to have caused some disagreement in another place we have replaced a worthwhile short Latin phrase with extended English terminology. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I am unable to call Amendment No. 178.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 59, line 24, at end insert:
("(1A) A local authority may at any time while an exclusion order has effect apply for such attachment of a power of arrest as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 61, line 3, after ("family") insert (", or an appropriate person,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 183 to 185:
Page 61, line 22, leave from beginning to first ("the") in line 23 and insert ("an appropriate person who will reside in, or who remains in residence in,").
Page 61, line 24, leave out ("that spouse or partner") and insert ("the appropriate person").
Page 61, line 27, leave out ("spouse or partner") and insert ("person").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 173 I spoke to these three amendments. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 61, line 31, leave out subsection (14).
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 186, I speak also to Amendment No. 191. These amendments are consequential on our decision to replace the word "partner" in Clause 72 (13) with "appropriate person". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Duration, variation and recall of exclusion order]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 61, line 34, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly short amendment. However, it is of some importance and it is raised to discuss the issue of what happens after six months. Clause 73 reads at the moment that after the end of a six months period the exclusion order shall cease, except under the conditions specified in Clause 73 (2) where other steps have been taken to make the exclusion order cease before the expiry of six months.
If we are looking for flexibility in these matters in relation to the welfare of the child, which has been discussed at length—and the amendment, although short, raises the issue—what will happen to the child and indeed to the excluded alleged abuser at the end of six months? I am the first to protect the liberty of the subject but it looks as if subsection (1) may be a very restricting subsection. It may be better to build into subsection (1) some qualification that the court can continue the exclusion order beyond six months on cause shown by whoever the person may be. That proposal does not appear to be covered by Clause 73(3) but, if it is, no doubt the noble and learned Lord the Minister will tell me that I am wrong. I know that the clause says over the page,
"vary or recall an exclusion order",
and so on, but I am not quite satisfied that this is not a "bring the guillotine down" on an exclusion order at the end of six months and, whatever the circumstances may be, the alleged abuser is back home with there being no power to stop him. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Minister has any views on that point. Can he say what Clause 73 really means and what the effect of it will be in the area of exclusion orders. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I should remind the Committee that if amendment No. 187 is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 188.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I understand the noble Lord's concern and indeed his very proper wish to ensure maximum protection for children in these difficult circumstances. On the other hand, I have very real concerns, which I consider to be equally proper, over introducing open-ended exclusion orders which would run indefinitely until otherwise buried or recalled. That would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment.
I agree with the noble Lord's construction of Clause 73 (3) that, while variation or recall is permitted, it would not allow for an indefinite extension beyond the six months period of the order.
Having reflected on this very carefully, we have considered that it would be quite inappropriate for public intervention of this type to continue without focus and, indeed, without regulation of property rights. As the noble Lord will recall, it was in the context of the emergency protection of children that such exclusion orders were first proposed for inclusion within our law. It was argued—as noble Lords will recollect—that this was a much better way in circumstances of emergency protection to care for children rather than have resort to a child protection order, the effect of which would be to remove the child from its home, school and one or more parent. It is in that context that we should regard what we are proposing to do, and I am sure he will recognise that it is also important that we should not leave open-ended the regulation or lack of regulation of property rights.
One of the major difficulties in domestic abuse cases is having the courage to make the first positive step towards resolving the situation. The matter can be much more difficult where children are involved. Our provision is therefore designed to allow public intervention and support in the initial stages, but with a view to the longer-term situation being resolved with, but not necessarily by, the local authority.
I believe that we have struck about the right balance in proposing that orders should lapse after six months at the latest. That gives adequate time for all concerned to address the situation and for necessary steps to be put in hand. If it is clear that the named person continues to be a threat to the remaining parent or partner, that remaining parent or partner could on their own seek an exclusion order, not only for their own protection but also for a child. They could secure that from the sheriff under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981 where the named person was the spouse or cohabitant.
As I indicated, I consider that six months seems right, as the noble Lord, with his experience, will appreciate. One possible consequence of the exclusion of a named person from the home is that criminal proceedings might be taken against that person. One would certainly hope that if someone was going to be excluded, those who were responsible for investigation and/or prosecution would have taken some steps to bring matters to a head within a period of six months. The last thing one wants

CWH 127
is a difficult situation like this carrying on indefinitely without resolution. It would not only be unfair to the named person. I cannot believe that it would be to the benefit of the child in question if no firm decisions were being taken.
I believe that the balance we have struck must be accepted as about right. It provides the necessary support and time to the non-abusing parent or partner to allow him to make important decisions over the child's longer-term interests and security, together with the involvement of the local authority. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The noble and learned Lord has rather anticipated a point I was going to raise—the issue of court proceedings. What happens if the child is the principal witness against the excluded person, as the child is almost bound to be, and the authorities have not ensured that the matter is dealt with within the timescale in Clause 73?
I know that the noble and learned Lord has said that you can apply for an interdict or exclusion order—I cannot remember the phase and I do not have the matrimonial proceedings Act before me—but we also have the application in the criminal law. So we could have three Acts—the Children (Scotland) Act, the matrimonial proceedings Act and the criminal justice Act 1975, all getting into a terrible fankle, if I can put it that way.
Since this Bill is geared towards the interests of the child, might it not be better to build into the Bill some discretion for the court so that if, on the expiry of the six-month period, proceedings have been raised by the service of a summons, or indeed an indictment in many cases, the exclusion order can be continued within the context of the Bill rather than the burden being placed on the partner or whoever is in charge of the child—the appropriate person, as we saw in the previous context, whether it be a grandmother, grandfather or the guardian?
Perhaps the Government will reconsider the amendment, because one can see what could happen. The court could have three different Acts going in different directions. Subject to that, I am sure the Minister's answer will be read with great care by those interested in these matters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 188 to 191:
Page 61, line 43, after ("person") insert (", or to an appropriate person,").
Page 61, line 46, after first ("person") insert (", an appropriate person").
Page 62, line 1, after ("home") insert ("and is not an appropriate person").
Page 62, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section, partners are persons who live together in a family home as if they were man and wife.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74, [Exclusion orders: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 62, line 13, at end insert:
("b) the period within which a hearing shall be held under subsection (3B) of section 70 of this Act after the granting of an order under subsection (3A) of that section;").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 192, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 193 and 194. These amendments can safely be described as of a technical and drafting nature. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 193 and 194:
Page 62, line 14, at end insert (";
( ) the service of any exclusion order on the named person and the appropriate person within such period as may be specified in the rules.").
Page 62, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert:
("( ) the person who will be the named person if the application is granted;
( ) the child to whom the application for the order relates;
( ) an appropriate person;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Recovery of certain fugitive children]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 63, line 12, leave out ("or the Channel Islands").
The noble Earl said: Government Amendment No. 206 clarifies the way in which the provisions of the Bill will extend to the Channel Islands. New subsection (9) of Clause 96 provides that
"Her Majesty may by order in council direct that any of the relevant provisions specified … shall extend … to any of the Channel Islands".
Clause 76 is one of those provisions. Therefore, the reference to the Channel Islands in Clause 76 can now be deleted. The intention will be achieved through government Amendment No. 206. Therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 195 which is consequential upon it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 77 and 78 agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 195 A:
After Clause 78, insert the following new clause:
Application for review of establishment of grounds of referral.
("New evidence: review of establishment of grounds of referral
—(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, where subsection (2) below applies an application may be made to the sheriff for a review of a finding such as is mentioned in section 62(10) of this Act.
(2) This subsection applies where the sheriff, on an application made by virtue of subsection (6) or (8) of section 60 of this Act (in this section referred to as the "original application"), finds that any

CWH 129
of the grounds of referral is established.
(3) An application under subsection (1) above may only be made where the applicant claims—

(a) to have evidence which was not considered by the sheriff on the original application, being evidence the existence or significance of which might materially have affected the determination of the original application;

(b) that such evidence—

(i) is likely to be credible and reliable; and

(ii) would have been admissible in relation to the ground of referral which was found to be established on the original application; and

(c) that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure to lead such evidence on the original application.

(4) An application under subsection (1) above may only be made by—

(a) the child in respect of whom the ground of referral was found to be established; or

(b) any person who is a relevant person in relation to that child.

(5) Where the sheriff on an application under subsection (1) above is not satisfied that any of the claims made in the application are established he shall dismiss the application.
(6) Where the sheriff is satisfied on an application under subsection (1) above that the claims made in the application are established, he shall consider the evidence and if, having considered it, he is satisfied that—

(a) none of the grounds of referral in the original application to which the application relates is established, he shall allow the application, discharge the referral to the children's hearing in respect of those grounds and proceed in accordance with subsection (7) below in relation to any supervision requirement made in respect of the child (whether or not varied under section 67 of this Act) in so far as it relates to any such ground; or

(b) any ground of referral in the original application to which the application relates is established, he may proceed in accordance with section 62(10) of this Act.

(7) Where the sheriff is satisfied as is mentioned in subsection (6)(a) above, he may—

(a) order that any supervision requirement so mentioned shall terminate—

(i) immediately; or

(ii) on such date as he may specify; or

(b) if he is satisfied that there is evidence sufficient to establish any ground of referral, being a ground which was not stated in the original application, find such ground established and proceed in accordance with section 62(10) of this Act in relation to that ground.

(8) Where the sheriff specifies a date for the termination of a supervision requirement in accordance with subsection (7)(a)(ii) above, he may, before such termination, order a variation of that requirement or of any condition contained in or related to it, of any requirement imposed under subsection (6) of section 64 of this Act, or of any determination made under subsection (7) of that section; and such variation may take effect—

(a) immediately; or

(b) on such date as he may specify.

(9) Where the sheriff orders the termination of a supervision requirement in accordance with subsection (7)(a) above, he shall consider whether, after such termination, the child concerned will still require supervision or guidance; and where he considers that such supervision or guidance will be necessary he shall direct a local authority to provide it in accordance with subsection (10) below.
(10) Where a sheriff has given a direction under subsection (9) above, it shall be the duty of the local authority to comply with that direction; but that duty shall be regarded as discharged where they offer such supervision or guidance to the child and he, being a child of sufficient age and maturity to understand what is being offered, is unwilling to accept it.").
The noble and learned Lord said: As your Lordships
CWH 130
will see, Amendment No. 195A, and Amendment No. 222A with which it has been grouped, are substantial amendments. It might be helpful if I take a moment to explain exactly what they contain. They provide a new procedure for the consideration of new evidence after a sheriff has held the grounds for referral to a children's hearing to have been established. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 makes no provision for the consideration of new evidence once the grounds for referral have been established. If significant and relevant information comes to light, it is necessary to make use of the nobile officium and to apply to the Court of Session under an exceptional procedure.
That is not a satisfactory way to proceed, although it is available as a route of last resort. It was the subject of comment by the Lord President of the Court of Session, the noble and learned Lord Hope of Craighead, in the recent case of the south Ayrshire children. At the Second Reading, I indicated to your Lordships' House that I would be bringing forward amendments to deal with the matter. Your Lordships may recall that in his maiden speech to your Lordships' House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, indicated his approval of the approach that we proposed to take.
If there is significant new evidence which would have materially affected the determination of the original application to the sheriff, it is important that there should be an opportunity to consider that evidence. In decisions concerning the welfare of children, it would be wrong to exclude, simply on procedural grounds, significant evidence which might affect an important decision in the life of a child. It is equally important that there should be clear criteria for dealing with potential new evidence to avoid the constant reconsideration of decisions because, if that were to be allowed, it would lead to uncertainty and affect the welfare of the child, which is at the centre of the consideration.
Our new clause tries to strike the right balance between those two objectives. The clause makes provision for a child or a relevant person, who could most commonly be a parent, to apply to the sheriff for the consideration of new evidence. To qualify as new evidence, the evidence should not have been considered at the original proof hearing before the sheriff; it should be of a significance which might materially have affected the original proof findings; there should also be a reasonable explanation of why the evidence was not given at the original proof hearing; and there is, finally in this respect, a test on the reliability, credibility, and admissibility of the evidence.
If the sheriff is not satisfied that any of the claims in relation to the new evidence meet the subsection (3) test, which I have just described, then he will dismiss the application. However, if he is satisfied that the claims do meet the test, having considered the evidence, he will, if satisfied that none of the original grounds is established, discharge the referral to the children's hearing. He may then either terminate the supervision requirement or hold established new ground on the evidence and refer the case to the children's hearing. Alternatively, if he is satisfied that any of the original grounds of referral is established, then he will remit back to the hearing.
The new clause also recognises that bringing a

CWH 131
supervision requirement to an abrupt halt may create problems, particularly if the child had been under supervision away from home for a period. The clause therefore makes provision for the sheriff to set a date for the termination of the supervision requirement or vary the requirement so as, in effect, to phase the implementation of his decision. The new clause also provides for the sheriff to direct the local authority to provide supervision and guidance after the termination of the supervision requirement has taken place. The child can, of course, choose whether to accept this support. These elaborated provisions reflect particular difficulties which have, in practice, arisen in the south Ayrshire case to which I referred.
The further government amendment to Schedule 3, page 105, line 17, makes a consequential amendment to Clause 20 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill which is presently before Parliament. This amendment will ensure that Clause 20, which deals with the construction of clauses regarding the admissibility of evidence, covers the new procedure on new evidence in children's hearings.
I hope that the new clause and the associated amendment in Schedule 3 respond fully to the problem of how to take account of new evidence in relation to children's hearings and that they appropriately reflect the experience of recent cases. With that somewhat extended but necessary explanation of what is allowed for, I commend these amendments to your Lordships.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for that very clear explanation of the foundation for this particular amendment. It comes at a late stage in the Bill, and will require close consideration by us all to see what practical difficulties might arise in the administration of justice. Subject to that, I welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Parental responsibilities order: general]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 65, line 6, leave out ("duties") and insert ("responsibilities").
The noble Earl said: These are essentially technical drafting changes. They seek to clarify the precise role of the local authority where a parental responsibilities order is made. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 196A:
Page 65, line 21, at end insert:
("( ) Where an order has been made under this section, no application in relation to the child shall be competent under section 11 of this Act.").
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, I would like to have the opportunity to ask whether Clause 4 could apply in Chapter 4 of Part II? I just wonder whether it would actually apply. It is a very awkward question, I know. Perhaps the Minister would like to write to me.
Lord Earl of Lyndsay: I shall take up the noble Earl's suggestion that we write to him on this matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80 [Further provision as respects parental responsibilities orders]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 197:
Page 65, line 40, leave out ("look after the child") and insert ("fulfil the transferred responsibilities").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 196. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 66, line 6, leave out (", or for the variation or revocation of,").
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to delete a misleading reference to the variation or revocation of a parental responsibilities order as requiring rules for the appointment of a reporting officer or curator ad litem. There will be no role for a reporting officer and facilities already exist for the appointment of curators. There is, therefore, no need for the subsection to refer to "variation or revocation of an order and the amendment makes the necessary deletion. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: May I again ask a question at this stage? In Clause 80 we have this person called a "reporting officer". I notice that subsection (4) says on page 66 line 17:
"no employee of theirs"
—that is of the local authority—
"shall be appointed under either or both of those paragraphs".
I am sorry I have not managed to give my noble friend any warning of this but what kind of a person is this reporting officer? Who appoints him? There does not seem to be a definition of a reporting officer. It is the first time I have come across this word and I am a little mystified.
The Earl of Lindsay: The person is appointed by the courts to witness the consents of the parents. Does that enlighten the noble Earl at all?
The Earl of Balfour: I see; he is appointed by the courts. Fair enough, that is the reason why he must be completely independent from the local authorities and everything else. That is a very great help.
Perhaps I may ask another question. Clause 81(3) refers to the "named person". Is that the same person as appears in Clause 70 of the Bill? These points just made me wonder a little.
The Earl of Lindsay: No, that is a different person.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Consent of child to certain procedures]:
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 197B:
Page 67, line 22, at end insert ("; and without prejudice to that generality where a condition contained, by virtue of section 64(5)(a) of this Act, in a supervision requirement requires a child to submit to any examination or treatment but the child has the capacity mentioned in the said section 2(4), the examination or treatment shall only be carried out if the child consents.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 197B and Amendment No. 198, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, are intended to clarify the relationship between particular provisions of the Bill and Clause 83, and in particular to ensure that children have the right to consent or refuse any medical examination or treatment.
I can sympathise with the intention behind the noble Lord's amendment, but if his amendment were to be introduced, it would create an absolute right for children to refuse medical examination or treatment against the express direction of the sheriff or in contravention of a condition imposed by a children's hearing. Such a right is entirely appropriate for children who are of sufficient understanding to make an informed decision, but the amendment would extend that right to children of any age—down to infants. On reflection, I think that the noble Lord would recognise that would go too far.
On the other hand, our amendment, Amendment No. 197B, gives the right to consent to or to refuse an examination or treatment required by a supervision requirement only to children who are of sufficient understanding. I think that the noble Lord will recognise that terminology. It is in line with Section 2(4) of the Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 which generally extends that right. With that explanation, I invite the Committee to accept Amendment No. 197B. I hope that the noble Lord, given that explanation, will not choose to move his amendment. I suggest that mine is preferable.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The question of a child's consent to this particular form of treatment is a very delicate one. As I have indicated to the noble and learned Lord the Minister, notwithstanding his amendment, Amendment No. 197B, I would not in any event be moving Amendment No. 198, so the matter can be considered again.
However, I wonder whether the government amendment takes into account the religious beliefs of the child. We talk of the child having "the capacity mentioned"—that is, the capacity to give consent—but does that take into account the religious or ethnic origin of the child? If it seems that a child requires treatment bur refuses it because he is of a certain religious belief, do the provisions mean the child can withhold consent? Subject to that, I welcome the amendment.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: This is a matter not of the religious conviction, but of whether or not the child can consent. If the child is of sufficient understanding and withholds that consent, then because that decision has been rationally made and understood, in those circumstances the child stands in exactly the same position as would the noble Lord in consenting or withholding consent in relation to a medical treatment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Does that cover the position of a child who is asked "Do you understand why you are being asked to do this?" to which the child says, "Yes", and who is then asked, "Do you understand it is necessary for your well-being", and the child says "Yes"? The child may then be asked, "Do you want to give consent?" to which the child says, "No". When the
CWH 134
questioner asks "Why?", the child may say, "Because I am of a certain religious persuasion. I know it is for my benefit physically, but I cannot give consent because of my religious beliefs". I am just wondering whether we are moving into another difficult area.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The circumstances in which the noble Lord might decline to consent to medical treatment might be regarded by physicians and by other noble Lords as being, in many senses, irrational, but, provided he had a clear understanding of what he was refusing to consent to, that would be his right. I am saying that in such circumstances, and provided the child is seen to have sufficient understanding, then the child is in much the same position as the adult.
It seems to me that the more critical difficulty in the 1991 Act—I do not shrink from it—lies in determining whether the child has what might be described in the words of the statute as a "sufficient" understanding.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: The provisions mean in real terms—I am not talking of financial terms—that if a child who has the capacity to understand that for which consent is being asked then gives an irrational reason for not consenting, the questioner who is asking for the consent can do nothing about it.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I would like to ask how the amendment will deal with the child who is the subject of a child protection order under Section 54(5)(a)? Does it actually deal with child protection order children or do they have to wait until they come under a supervision requirement from the children's hearing?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The amendment applies to conditions of examination or treatment included in a supervision requirement made by a children's hearing. It does not apply to conditions laid down in a child protection order made by the sheriff.
Clause 54(4) provides for direction in relation to the exercise of any parental responsibility which embraces matters of consent or refusal to examination or treatment.
I hope that fully explains the matter to the noble Earl, but perhaps he may wish to return to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 199:
After Clause 83, insert the following new clause:
Procedural rules in relation to certain applications etc.
(".—(1) All proceedings to which this section applies are civil proceedings for the purposes of section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 (power of Court of Session to regulate civil procedure in the sheriff court).
(2) Any reference in this Part of this Act to regulation or prescription by rules in relation to any proceedings to which this section applies shall be construed, unless the context otherwise requires, as a reference to regulation or prescription by rules made by virtue of subsection (1) above.
(3) In relation to any proceedings to which this section applies, rules may permit a party to such proceedings, in such circumstances as may be specified in the rules, to be represented by a person who is neither an advocate nor a solicitor.
(4) This section applies to any application made to the sheriff, and any other proceeding before the sheriff (whether on appeal or otherwise), under any provision of this Part of this Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Part II of the Bill contains a number of provisions for applications and appeals to be made to the sheriff. Some of these provisions contain rule-making powers while others do not. The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that adequate provision is made for all the sheriff court procedure rules necessary to ensure the effective implementation of the provisions of this legislation and, at the same time, to gather all of the provisions for the rules into one clause in the Bill to facilitate reference.
My understanding is that in another place there was the usual complaint made that, where there are such rule-making powers, if they are spread in various places round the Bill it is extremely difficult to draw together any clear appreciation of what is allowed for. That is why this provision is included in this way in the form of a new clause and I certainly anticipate that it will be of great benefit and value to those who wish to know whether or not rules can properly be made in terms of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Grouped with Amendment No. 199 is the amendment to omit subsection (6) of Clause 84, which is the first three lines at the top of page 70. That was my guide to the amendment that I moved in Clause 58 where I started off by saying "at the top of page 70". I wonder in respect of the rules versus regulations problems that I have, whether this clause really deals with all the rules that are made by the courts as compared with regulations by the Secretary of State. I think perhaps the new clause is a better way of doing it and I am quite happy to accept it.
However, I again have a slight problem in that Clause 84, the interpretation clause, ceases to deal with these rules. In view of the amendment already spoken to with Amendment No. 195—it is an amendment to Clause 96 at the bottom of page 12 of the Marshalled List which talks about Orders in Council and refers to a number of clauses including Clause 84—I wonder whether this new clause which my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser has introduced should not be Clause 83A when we come to it at the end of the day.
As I am referring to that, there are regulations issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 68, mentioned in Amendment No. 206, and I wonder whether Clause 58, which also deals with regulations, should perhaps be included here as well. I know that the Minister has spoken to it but I felt that this was the easiest point at which I could raise these questions.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I cannot say that I entirely followed the noble Earl in his detailed traverse through the Bill looking up the terminology of rules and
CWH 136
regulations in all its respects, but I shall certainly look again to ensure that there is no duplication and at the same time ensure that there are no gaps because that would defeat the very purpose of the new clause, which is that we should try to draw together in a clear way what is allowed for.
What this new clause deals with, as shown by the reference in subsection (1) to Section 32 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971, are those rules that are made in the Court of Session by the Lord President under acts of sederunt. The provisions contained in Amendment No. 199 are not intended to cover regulations—there are other regulations, as the noble Earl appreciates—which could be made at the hand of the Secretary of State. The new clause is designed, for acts of sederunt made by the Court of Session.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendment No. 199A:
After Clause 83, insert the following new clause:
Legal aid in respect of certain proceedings.
(". For section 29 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 substitute the following section—
29.—(1) This section applies to legal aid in connection with—

(a) proceedings before the sheriff (including, without prejudice to that generality, proceedings on an appeal to the sheriff principal from a decision of the sheriff) in respect of any matter arising under Chapter 2 or 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (in this section referred to as "the 1995 Act"); or

(b) an appeal to the Court of Session in connection with such proceedings.

(2) Subject to subsections (3) to (5) below, legal aid to which this section applies shall be available to a child and any relevant person in relation to him in connection with—

(a) proceedings before the sheriff on an application for a child protection order or child assessment order, or for the variation or recall of such an order;

(b) an appeal to the sheriff under section 47 of the 1995 Act against—

(i) a decision of a children's hearing to grant a warrant such as is mentioned in subsection (5)(a) of that subsection; or

(ii) any other decision of a children's hearing;

(c) an application—

(i) by virtue of section 60(6) or (8) of the 1995 Act for a finding as to whether the grounds for a referral are established; or

(ii) under section (application for review of grounds of referral) of the 1995 Act for a review of such a finding;

(d) an appeal to the sheriff principal or to Court of Session under section 47 of the 1995 Act.

(3) Legal aid shall be available under subsection (2)(b)(i) above on an application made to the sheriff without inquiry into the resources of the child or the relevant person.
(4) Legal aid shall be available under subsection (2)(a),(b)(ii) or (c) above on an application made to the sheriff if the sheriff is satisfied—

(a) that it is in the interests of the child that legal aid be made available; and

(b) after consideration of the financial circumstances of the child and any relevant person in relation to him that the expenses of the case cannot be met without undue hardship to the child or to any relevant person in relation to him or the dependants of any of them.

(5) Legal aid shall be available under subsection (2)(d) above on an application made to the Board if it is satisfied—

CWH 137

(a) after consideration of the financial circumstances of the child and any relevant person in relation to him that the expenses of the appeal cannot be met without undue hardship to the child or to any relevant person in relation to him or the dependants of any of them; and

(b) that the child, or as the case may be the relevant person has substantial grounds for making or responding to the appeal and it is reasonable, in the particular circumstances of the case, that legal aid should be made available accordingly.

(6) The Board may require a person receiving legal aid under subsection (2)(d) above or subsection (9) below to comply with such conditions as it considers expedient to enable it to satisfy itself from time to time that it is reasonable for him to continue to receive such legal aid.
(7) Subject to subsection (8) below, legal aid to which this section applies shall be available in connection with proceedings before the sheriff on an application for an exclusion order (or for the variation or recall of such an order) to—

(a) a child;

(b) a relevant person in relation to a child;

(c) a person who is a named person, or will be such a person if the application is granted;

(d) a spouse or partner of a person mentioned in paragraph (c) above; and

(e) a person who is an appropriate person, or will be such a person if the application is granted.

(8) Legal aid shall be available under subsection (7) above on an application to the sheriff if the sheriff is satisfied after consideration of the financial circumstances of the applicant and, where the applicant is a child, of any relevant person or appropriate person in relation to him that the expenses of the case cannot be met without undue hardship to the applicant or any dependent of the applicant.
(9) Legal aid shall be available in connection with any appeal to the Court of Session from a decision of the sheriff on an application for an exclusion order or for the variation or recall of such an order to any of the persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (7) above on an application to the Board if it is satisfied—

(a) after consideration of the financial circumstances of the applicant and, where the applicant is a child, of any relevant person or appropriate person in relation to him, that the expenses of the appeal cannot be met without undue hardship to the applicant or any dependent of the applicant; and

(b) that the applicant has substantial grounds for making or responding to the appeal and that it is reasonable, in the particular circumstances of the case, that legal aid should be granted accordingly.

(10) Where in connection with any proceedings—

(a) the sheriff has been satisfied as is mentioned in subsection (4)(b) or subsection (8) above; or

(b) the Board has been satisfied as is mentioned in subsection (5)(a) or subsection (9)(a) above,

and has made legal aid available to any person, it shall not be necessary for the sheriff or, as the case may be, the Board to be so satisfied in respect of an application for legal aid by such a person in connection with any subsequent proceedings arising from such proceedings.
(11) Legal aid to which this section applies shall consist of representation by a solicitor and, where appropriate, by counsel in any proceedings (including any appeal) mentioned in subsection (1) above and shall include all such assistance as is usually given by solicitor or counsel in the steps preliminary or incidental to such proceedings.
(12) In this section—

(a) "child" and "relevant person" have the meanings given by section 84(2)(b) of the 1995 Act;

(b) "child protection order", "child assessment order" and "exclusion order" have the meanings given by section 84(1) of that Act;

(c) "named person" and "appropriate person" have the meanings given by section 70 of that Act; and

CWH 138

(d) "spouse or partner" shall be construed in accordance with section 73(4) of that Act.".").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 199A has grouped with it a number of other amendments, namely Amendments Nos. 218A, 218B and 218C. For any of your Lordships looking at this formidable new clause for the first time, it would seem to be extremely complicated and difficult to follow. It may be helpful if I explain what the amendment does. It provides for technical amendments to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986. Section 29 of that Act provides for legal aid in certain proceedings relating to children. These are proceedings before the sheriff arising under Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and related appeals. Part II of this Bill replaces and supplements Part III of the 1968 Act. It is therefore necessary to amend Section 29 of the 1986 Act to ensure that procedures in Part II are covered from the legal aid perspective.
Although this may seem an extensive and elaborate new clause, it should be noted that it begins by saying:
"For section 29 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 substitute the following section".
So in many respects it is a replacement of what is already there. I hope that it will be helpful, as it were in almost a consolidating fashion, for those who have to administer legal aid and understand it to have the new provisions provided in this fashion.
The associated amendments to paragraph 37 of Schedule 3 also amend the definitions of "legal aid" and "person" contained in Section 41 of the 1986 Act. This again is to reflect the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Interpretation of Part II]:
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 200:
Page 69, line 33, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("( ) Any reference in this Part of this Act to a child being "in need", is to his being in need of care and attention because—

(a) no-one has parental responsibility for him;

(b) he is lost or abandoned;

(c) for whatever reason, the person who is or has been caring for him is not safeguarding or promoting, or is not adequately safeguarding or promoting, his welfare;

(d) he is disabled or affected by the disability of another member of the family;

(e) he has witnessed the abuse of one parent by the other;

(f) he is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development without the provision of services by the local authority; or

(g) his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired or further impaired by the absence of services provided by the local authority.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to expand the definition of a child "in need", which is set out in the Bill at page 69, line 34. In putting forward the amendment, I am in no way being critical of the present definition. I note that the noble and learned Lord the Minister has an amendment, Amendment No. 201, which covers the same area and, indeed, has common ground with four aspects of Amendment No. 200.
It is an unfortunate aspect of life today that the

CWH 139
catalogue of parental negligence, abuse and cruelty, as we are learning day by day, week by week and month by month, knows no bounds. Sometimes that is brought about either by a deliberate act of the parent or by ignorance, and indeed, in many cases reflects on the treatment which the parent may have had during his or her own childhood.
The amendment seeks to broaden the area within which the child in need can be protected and it gives, I hope, greater protection to the child. We know from recent experience that where a child is, for example, lost or abandoned, as set out in the original definition, that can lead to tragic consequences all round—to the child and to the parents, and, indeed, in some cases to people who have murdered the particular child or children, as the case may be.
Paragraph (c) of the amendment gives an umbrella approach to defining a child in need, because obviously one cannot have a universal definition for a child in need. We could be here all night discussing it. We all have our own ideas about what particular circumstances would constitute a child being in need.
As I say, paragraph (c) of the amendment is an umbrella provision:
"for whatever reason, the person who is or has been caring for him is not safeguarding or promoting, or is not adequately safeguarding or promoting, his welfare".
That gives a very wide scope to people to take the child into care. For example, if a child is found wandering about in the main street at half-past eleven at night, or a four-year-old is wandering about, it would on the face of it appear not that the child is necessarily lost or abandoned but that the person who should be looking after the child is not promoting its welfare.
For example, I do not know what the statistics for house fires are in the United Kingdom—and we are dealing only with Scotland at the moment—but there are parents or so-called parents or guardians who have gone out to the pub and perhaps left four children under the age of 12 in the house and the house then goes up in smoke. The reporting of that kind of situation to the authorities before a tragedy happens is the sort of thing that we need to build into the Bill. That is the general purport behind it.
As I say, it is impossible to build into legislation every circumstances, but I would hope that an amalgam of the two amendments, Amendments Nos. 200 and 201, might at least give as near universal coverage and protection to the child as legislation can give. With that explanation, I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I remind the Committee that should this amendment be agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendment No. 201.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: When we were debating Amendment No. 52 previously, I spoke then, albeit briefly, to Amendment No. 201, which, in our view, is one of the most important amendments to be moved by the Government at this stage of the Bill, knowing as I did that a number of organisations had concerns about the way in which local authority welfare duties were spelt out within Clause 20 as presently drafted. Indeed,
CWH 140
such was the knowledge of the concerns expressed that when the Bill was being discussed in another place, undertakings were given that the Government would look again at the scope of the clause.
A number of important adjustments are being made through changes in the definition of "child in need". In Clause 84(4), which is my Amendment No. 201, our revised definition introduces a more child-centred definition of a child in need, and so indicates a positive duty on local authorities to promote the welfare of children in need in their area. The amendment should ensure that no children in need of local authority assistance are prevented by statute from receiving it.
I might say, in relation to Amendment No. 201, that the revised definition is very similar to that in the Children Act 1989. I am confident that the approach we have adopted, which is to place a firm and simple duty on local authorities to promote the welfare of children in their areas who are in need, is one which is very reasonably and properly directed.
I turn to Amendment No. 200 which has a number of features which I should explain to the noble Lord I do not consider are appropriately placed here, although the concerns he expresses in the amendment are perfectly appropriate—not least, the references within that definition, which we had also, to those who had been lost or had been abandoned. If the noble Lord cares to look back to Clause 22, he will find there that:
"(1) A local authority shall provide accommodation for any child who, residing or having been found within their area, appears to them to require such provision because—

(a) no-one has parental responsibility for him;

(b) or he is lost or abandoned".

That would seem to be the more appropriate place to deal with the sets of conditions which, certainly, that local authority should be engaged in.
Another concern I have is that in his amendment one provision is within the definition of being in need. A child is so described if, under paragraph (e),
"he has witnessed the abuse of one parent by the other".
That really is an extremely wide and potentially very long lasting provision in that a young child, perhaps aged three or four, might have had the undoubtedly unhappy experience of seeing violent abuse by perhaps the father on the child's mother, but it might seem rather startling that that child should continue within the age definition until reaching the age of 16. For that reason, there are difficulties within the noble Lord's amendment. I would suggest that government Amendment No. 201 is preferable. While I would be interested to hear from anyone with an interest in this matter in Scotland about the new definition, my understanding is that there is a general acceptance that what the Government have now introduced is certainly very much wider. I understand that it is generally considered acceptable to those who properly are concerned that local authorities' duties should be appropriately defined. With that somewhat extended explanation, I hope the noble Lord will feel that Amendment No. 200 can be withdrawn.
Lady Saltourn of Abernethy: Looking at the amendment and at Clause 22—the category "lost or

CWH 141
abandoned"—I am wondering whether "lost" should be qualified in some way because the best parents can lose a child temporarily. A child who has been lost temporarily is not really seriously in need except temporarily. What he needs is to be restored to his family. I wonder whether there ought to be some kind of qualification to discriminate between the child who is totally lost and the child who is temporarily lost.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I can imagine local authorities the length and breadth of Scotland would be horrified that if every time a child was lost in a park or a shopping plaza they immediately had to assume an indefinite obligation to care for that child because it was lost.
My noble friend makes a good point, but I believe that it is already covered. Clause 22 requires that,
"A local authority shall provide accommodation for any [lost] child who appears to them to require such provision".
I should have thought that it was part of a local authority's correct approach to such matters if it found a lost child wandering in the streets to see what it could do to return that child to his or her parents without immediately providing accommodation and causing every other agency in the locality to go into top gear. It is a good point, but nevertheless it is covered.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am grateful to the Minister for his exposition in these matters, although I can see that in the light of what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said we may be dealing in terms of timescale. It may be that Clause 22(1), envisaging the provision of accommodation for children as it is spelt out, is indeed the situation where a child is found wandering on a temporary basis and the local authority has a duty to take him into care until his or her parents have been found.
I fully accept the views expressed by the Minister on the wide range of paragraph (e) in Amendment No. 200. It has no timescale. If I may say so, that is a very valid criticism, but it is meant to indicate where the child has been adversely affected by witnessing abuse of one parent by the other. As the noble and learned Lord knows, some of the amendments are tabled in order to have discussion on these matters. We may be able to widen the definition in terms of long-term need, which is what the term "in need" means. Clause 22(1) certainly does not cover the question of a child in need; it merely covers the question of the provision of accommodation for children. I am not sure that the definition of a child in need sits happily in Clause 22(1). Again, we will note with interest what the Minister said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie Lord Fraser of Carmyllie moved Amendments Nos. 201 and 202:
Page 69, leave out lines 36 to 41 and insert:

("(i) he is unlikely to achieve or maintain, or to have the opportunity of achieving or maintaining, a reasonable standard of health or development unless there are provided for him, under or by virtue of this Part, services by a local authority;

(ii) his health or development is likely significantly to
CWH 142
be impaired, or further impaired, unless such services are so provided;

(iii) he is disabled; or

(iv) he is affected adversely by the disability of any other person in his family.").

Page 70, line 1, leave out subsection (6).
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 201 in relation to Amendment No. 52 and I have done so again in relation to Amendment No. 200. So far as Amendment No. 202 is concerned I spoke to that in relation to Amendment No. 199. I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 85 [Approval of adoption society for specific services]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 202ZA:
Page 70, line 8, at insert ("which is a voluntary organisation").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 202ZA and those with which it is grouped are essentially minor amendments to clarify certain aspects in the process through which adoption societies are approved. The first makes clear that an adoption society must be a voluntary organisation. The second amendment allows application for approval of a service which has not yet commenced. The amendment puts beyond any doubt that approval can be given in respect of appropriate new services.
The third and fourth amendments deal with a change in Section 3(7) of the 1978 Act. The change brings in a degree of flexibility to allow the Secretary of State to approve adoption societies for a period less than three years, the present norm. In view of the declining numbers of adoptions and the possible tendency for societies to specialise in offering particular services, there may be occasions on which it would be appropriate to offer approval for a more limited period. This gives that useful degree of flexibility to the Secretary of State in approving adoption societies. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 202ZB to 202ZD:
Page 70, line 11, after ("maintained") insert (", or to be maintained,").
Page 70, line 34, leave out ("and").
Page 70, line 36, at end insert ("; and
(e) in subsection (7)—

(i) for the words "a period of" substitute "such period not exceeding"; and

(ii) after the word "operative" insert "as the Secretary of State may specify in the approval.".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 85, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 86 [Welfare of child paramount consideration]:
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 202A:
Page 71, line 13, at end insert:

CWH 143
("(3) In reaching any decision relating to the adoption of a child, a court or an adoption agency shall determine the matter without unreasonable delay.".").
The noble Lady said: With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 202A in place of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who is unable to be here this afternoon.
The object of the amendment is to prevent unnecessary and undue delay in adoption cases. It gives statutory force to what should be good practice, and what is already in case law in Scotland for courts. Despite good practice and case law, unnecessary delays do occur.
There has been a case where an adoption petition took between four and six months when the children were already freed, because the sheriff was otherwise occupied and delayed the adoption hearing. There are already two changes to the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978, covering delay, in Schedule 2, paragraphs 4 and 17, but they do not cover all stages of the adoption process. For instance, paragraph 4 only deals with the stage of actually getting parental consent. Paragraph 17 provides that courts shall draw up timetables, but only in cases where there is a dispute over parental consent. It would not cover unopposed cases.
The Government, I believe, said that this was better dealt with in rules of court, with timetables. But are they prepared to undertake that the rules of court will provide timetables for all the adoption court cases, not just disputed ones, because delays do occur in unopposed cases? Also, rules of court are no use in preventing deals by adoption agencies. If we cannot have the statutory protection of the amendment, what about an undertaking to provide regulations with timetables?
Such delays are not in the interest of the children involved, and are very hard on the would-be adopters. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I am in no doubt that in moving the amendment the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has the welfare of children very much at heart. She has demonstrated that. I doubt, however, whether it is necessary to add the subsection to the Bill in the way proposed.
Clause 86 inserts a new Section 6 into the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 and Section 6(1)(a) makes it quite clear that a court or an adoption agency has to regard the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child concerned as the paramount consideration. I believe we could reasonably expect that the court or the agency is responsibly discharging that duty in relation to a child, to avoid any unnecessary delay.
The message is reinforced elsewhere. Clause 16 also makes it clear that a court should have the welfare of the child as its paramount consideration in making any determination. And, most importantly, Section 1(3) of the 1978 Act requires that the adoption service shall be provided in conjunction with the local authority social work service so that help may be given in a sensible, co-ordinated manner without duplication, omission or avoidable delay.
I believe that there are already adequate safeguards within the legislation but I would add that, as far as
CWH 144
avoidance of delay by the courts is practicable, I believe it can best be achieved through rules of court. We have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lady and we will consider her argument on this point. On that basis, I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for that explanation. I should be very interested to know in more detail what is proposed but perhaps I could ask him about it at some other time. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Adoption by person married to natural parent]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 202B:
Page 71, line 32, after ("person)") insert ("—(a)").
The noble Earl said: These amendments to Clause 88 are again essentially of a minor nature. Subsection (2) of Clause 88 makes changes in Section 15(1) of the 1978 Act, which deals with adoption by one person. The aim is to ensure that step-parents can be included within the categories of single persons who may adopt. The aim is to remove the need for the natural parent to adopt his or her own child in step-parent adoption cases.
The changes which are now being introduced seek to make clear that the categories of people described in paragraph (aa) and in paragraph (b) are mutually exclusive. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 202C and 202D:
Page 71, line 34, after ("(aa)") insert ("not being a person who may make application by virtue of paragraph (b) below,").
Page 71, line 38, at end insert ("; and
(b) in paragraph (b), at the beginning insert—
"not being a person who may make application by virtue of paragraph (aa) above".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these amendments earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 89 to 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Interpretation, rules, regulations and Parliamentary control]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 202E:
Page 74, line 19, at end insert ("or the Lord Advocate").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment. Although Clause 36 empowers the Lord Advocate jointly to make regulations with the Secretary of State in relation to the powers of a reporter to conduct proceedings before a sheriff, there is no provision requiring such provisions to be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. This amendment rectifies that omission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 74, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert ("and no instrument containing such rules or regulations shall be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to Clause 94(2) to which the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, referred in relation to the previous amendment on the inclusion of the Lord Advocate. As drafted, subsection (2) referring to "prescribed" states it,
"shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
It may be an error in draftmanship but I am not sure what the intent is behind the use of the word "either". Amendment No. 203 may also be defective, because it proposes the inclusion of the words:
"and no instrument containing such rules or regulations shall be made unless a draft of the instrument has been before or approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
That is meant to imply Houses of Parliament. As Clause 94(2) stands, it means that the regulation could go before another place or this place and would not need to be considered in both. That is the rationale, if I can flatter it with that description, behind this particular amendment. With that explanation, I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: This amendment seeks to ensure that no statutory instrument of rules or regulations shall be made unless the draft has been approved by both Houses. We stand by our draftmanship on this side of the table but we will read in Hansard what the noble Lord said.
The amendment would apply to a higher degree of parliamentary supervision of all the matters which the Bill proposes should be dealt with in rules or regulations. It is normal for secondary legislation which deals with detailed and operational matters to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, in its report to the House, did not object to the negative resolution procedure provided in Clause 94(2) to deal with matters for regulation included in the Bill.
If the underlying concern is a lack of notice or consultation on the matters contained in regulation, then I believe that I can reassure the Committee.
We have consulted widely both before and during the passage of the Bill, and we will certainly continue to do so on regulations and guidance following on from it. This has been our practice in the past and it will continue to be so in the future.
I shall ensure that our draftsmanship is right, as we believe it to be. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the noble Earl for his explanation. Your Lordships may have noticed, as I have, over the past year that in newspapers and indeed in that august body, the BBC, in particular, the word "either" is becoming confused with "each". We get it in various aspects of broadcasting. I wonder whether that is why the word "either" has crept into Clause 94(2) and whether what the draftsman really
CWH 146
meant was "each" House of Parliament. However, if the noble Earl the Minister can give me an undertaking that the intention in the use of the word "either" is that it means both Houses of Parliament, then I am quite satisfied with that explanation. But I am not happy that the word "either" should be left here and I am sure that he would add clarity if the word "either" were eliminated and the correct word inserted in its place. With these observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 204:
After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:
Consultation by the Secretary of State
(".—(1) Before the Secretary of State makes an order in terms of any provision of this Act he shall—

(a) consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by his proposals; and

(b) consult such other persons as he considers appropriate.

(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State, as a result of the consultation required by subsection (1) above, that it is appropriate to vary the whole or any part of his proposals, he shall undertake such further consultation with respect to the variations as appears to him to be appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to expand the area within which the Secretary of State should consult before making any regulations. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay: I must say at the outset that I cannot see the need for this provision to be inserted into the Bill. We have clearly demonstrated over a number of years and on numerous occasions that we are very ready to consult and listen to the views of all relevant parties. The Bill before us today is well informed by such views and well supported for that reason.
The hearing of evidence in the Special Standing Committee was a further demonstration of our willingness to listen. I can assure the Committee that we will continue to consult as frequently on such matters as we have in the past.
The fact that differences of opinion exist in a relatively small number of areas is not as a result of a lack of consultation. It is quite simply that it is not always possible to meet, or indeed reconcile, the expectations of all organisations, which will have their own individual and possibly competing interests to pursue. On that basis, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am well aware that a great deal of consultation takes place. However, as Clause 94 stands at the moment, there is no obligation to have any consultation, so that it is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State at the time whether to consult anyone. I do not know whether the noble Earl the Minister accepts that view. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps he would give an indication of the Government's view on that.
The Earl of Lindsay: I repeat that we demonstrated in matters concerning this specific Bill and its formulation and in other related areas a willingness to consult in a substantial way both during the formulation and during the passage through both Houses. Therefore, the proof is in the practice.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Discussion is taking place in the Moses Room and the noble Earl's words will be enshrined in tablets of stone and noted in due course. With that observation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clause 96 [Extent, short title, minor and consequential amendments, repeals and commencement]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 74, line 32, leave out ("and (8)") and insert ("to (9)").
The noble Earl said: These are technical amendments. Amendment No. 205A ensures that the minor consequential amendment set out in Schedule 3 to the Bill and the repeal set out in Schedule 4 do not automatically have effect on the coming into force of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 205B and 205C ensure that the references to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 proposed in Amendment No. 221 will extend to England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 205A, 205B and 205C:
Page 74, line 35, after ("for") insert "subsections (1), (2) and (5) to (9).
Page 75, line 17, leave out ("and 47") and insert (",47 and 47A").
Page 75, line 19, after ("47") insert (",47 and 47A").
Page 75, line 19, after (",47A)".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No 206:
Page 75, line 33, leave out subsection (8) and insert:
("(8) This section, so far as it relates to the repeal of Part V of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 also extends to the Channel Islands.
(9) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any of the relevant provisions specified in the Order shall extend with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications (if any) as may be specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands; and in this subsection "the relevant provisions" means sections 68,76,77 and 84 of this Act and any regulations made under Section 68 of this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978].
[Amendment No. 206A not moved]
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 206B:
Page 78, line 21 leave out ("16(b)(i)") and insert ("16(1)(b)(i)").
The noble Earl said: The amendments to Schedule 2
CWH 148
are simply minor corrections. They stem from detailed scrutiny of proofreading of the Bill and are not concerned in any way with changes to policy. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 206C and 206D:
Page 78, line 49, leave out second ("and").
Page 78, line 50, leave out ("subsection (3)(a)") and insert ("subsection (3)—
(i) in paragraph (a),").
The noble Earl said: These are detailed but, I suggest, useful amendments to Sections 12 and 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. Amendments Nos. 206C, 206K, 206L, 206M and 206P are minor consequential amendments.
Under existing legislation, if a child who is under a supervision requirement is placed for adoption or a court decides that he should be freed for adoption, it is necessary for the children's hearing to review the case before the supervision can be terminated.
Where the supervision requirement arose from a need to protect the child and not because of difficulties with his own behaviour, there would almost certainly be no need for it to continue, given the arrangements being made for the child's adoption. The review hearing in those particular circumstances is an unnecessary bureaucratic step which could be hurtful to the new parents. A similar situation arises in relation to freeing orders.
The amendments ensure that where a court is making an adoption or freeing order and it is clear that there is no continuing need for a supervision requirement, the court has the power to terminate that requirement.
As I said, the other amendments are consequential on this main provision. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 206E:
Page 78, line 51, at end insert ("; and
(ii) in paragraph (b)(ii), for the words "rights and duties" substitute "responsibilities and parental rights".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 206E when moving Amendment No. 206B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 206F:
Page 78, line 51, at end insert ("; and
(d) at the end add—
"(9) Where a court making an adoption order in relation to a child who is subject to a supervision requirement is satisfied that, in consequence of its doing so, compulsory measures of supervision in respect of the child are no longer necessary, it may determine that the child shall forthwith cease to be subject to that requirement".").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment on Amendment No. 206C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 206G:
Page 79, line 41, leave out ("an illegitimate") and insert ("a").
The noble Earl said: This amendment deletes an

CWH 149
unfortunate reference to a child as being "illegitimate". Such language has not been used in legislation for many years. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 206H to 206L:
Page 79, line 48, after ("(Scotland)") insert ("Act").
Page 80, line 5, at end insert ("; and
(d) at the end add—
"(9) Where a court making an order under this section in relation to a child who is subject to a supervision requirement is satisfied that, in consequence of its doing so, compulsory measures of supervision in respect of the child are no longer necessary, it may determine that the child shall forthwith cease to be subject to that requirement.".").
Page 81, line 45, leave out from "Reporter"") to first ("the") in line 46 and insert ("has").
Page 84, line 29, at end insert:
("( ) after the definition of "child" insert—
""compulsory measures of supervision" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;";").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these amendments either when moving Amendment No. 206B or No. 206E. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 206M to 206P:
Page 84, line 31, leave out ("and").
Page 84, line 42, leave out ("and").
Page 84, line 46, at end insert ("; and
(e) after the definition of "specified order" insert—
""supervision requirement" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 90, line 23, at end insert (", the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 or any other enactment").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 207 and those grouped with it are essentially consequential and technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 92, line 23, at end insert:
("Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.65)
.—1(1) The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 56(9) (enactments exempted from repeal by virtue of that section), for paragraph (d) substitute—
"(d) paragraphs 3 and 8 of Schedule 1 to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (Children's Panel Advisory Committees and joint advisory committees);".
(3) In Schedule 25, paragraph 41 shall cease to have effect.
(4) In Schedule 27, paragraphs 185 and 187 shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 208, which I spoke to when I moved Amendment No. 207. I would just add, for clarification, that when I
CWH 150
moved Amendment No. 207 I spoke not only to Amendment No. 208, but also to Amendments Nos. 217, 218, 219 and 222. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 92, line 41, at end insert:
("() In section 23 (which, as amended by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995, provides for remand of persons under twenty one in secure accommodation)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), for the words "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

(b) in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), for the words "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").

The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 209, I am also speaking to Amendments Nos. 210 to 216 and to Amendments Nos. 220 and 221. These are all technical or consequential amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 210 to 218C:
Page 92, line 46, after ("2(4)") insert ("respectively").
Page 93, line 10, leave out ("paragraph (a)") and insert ("paragraph (c)").
Page 93, line 19, leave out ("the").
Page 93, line 44, after ("2(4)") insert ("respectively").
Page 94, line 6, at end insert:
("( ) In Section 329 (which, as amended by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995, provides for remand of persons under twenty one in secure accommodation)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), for the words "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

(b) in paragraph (a) of subsection (4), for the words "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").

Page 94, line 9, leave out ("paragraph (a)") and insert ("paragraph (c)").
Page 94, line 17, leave out ("the").
Page 95, line 30, at end insert:
("Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (c. 30)
.In section 23(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (bodies subject to investigation by Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland), for paragraph (d) substitute—
"(d) any Children's Panel Advisory Committee formed under paragraph 3, or joint advisory committee formed under paragraph 8, of Schedule 1 to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;".").
Page 98, line 50, at end insert:
("(5A) In section 13 (which makes provision as to the effect of a refusal to allow a visit to a foster child or to allow premises to be inspected), for the words from "sections" to the end substitute "section 51 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (child assessment orders) as giving the local authority reasonable cause for the suspicion mentioned in subsection (1)(a) of the section.".").
Page 100, leave out lines 43 to 47.
Page 100, line 48, after ("(interpretation)") insert("—
(a) in the definition of "legal aid", for the words "Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968" substitute "Chapter 2 or Chapter 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

CWH 151
(b)").
Page 101, leave out lines 1 to 8 and insert ("(b) includes a person under the age of sixteen years.".").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 219:
Page 102, line 35, at end insert:
("Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c.42)
.—(1) The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 14(5) (restriction of effect of provisions of that section in relation to certain committees), for paragraph (d) substitute—
"(d) a Children's Panel Advisory Committee formed under paragraph 3, or a joint advisory committee formed under paragraph 8, of Schedule 1 to the Children (Scotland) Act 1995;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 220 and 221:
Page 104, line 25, at end insert:
("( ) In paragraph (f) of section 17(4) (persons to whom notice of an application for an assessment order must be given)—

(a) after the word "order" insert "—

(i)"; and

(b) at the end insert "; or

(ii) under section 81 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".
() In paragraph (f) of section 18(7) (persons who may apply for variation etc. of assessment order)—

(a) after the word "order" insert "—

(i)"; and

(b) at the end insert "; or

(ii) under section 81 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").
Page 104, line 42, at end insert:
("Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c.53)
. In paragraph 61 in column 2 of Schedule 1 to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (which specifies certain tribunals in relation to social work in Scotland)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), for the words "Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49)" substitute "Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.00)"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), for the words "that Act" substitute "the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.49)".").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 222:
Page 105, line 12, at end insert:
("Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 (c.39)
.—(1) The Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 shall be amended in accordance with this paragraph.
(2) In section 128 (establishment of Scottish Children's Reporter Administration)—

(a) in subsection (3), for the words from "the 1968 Act" to the end substitute "the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and any other enactment conferring functions upon him"; and

(b) in subsection (8), for the words from "the 1968 Act" to the end substitute "the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and any other enactment conferring functions upon him".

(3) In section 130 (annual reports by Principal Reporter) in sub-paragraph (i) in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), for the words "the 1968 Act and the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975" substitute "the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and any other enactment (except this Act) conferring functions upon him".
(4) In section 132 (duty of Administration to provide
CWH 152
accommodation for children's hearings), for the words "section 34 of the 1968 Act" substitute "section 35 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 222A:
Page 105, line 17, at end insert:
("Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.00)
. In section 20 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995 (construction of sections relating to the admissibility of certain evidence)—

(a) in subsection (3), in the definition of "criminal proceedings"—

(i) for the words from "under" to "application" where it appears for the first time substitute "of an application made under Chapter 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995"; and

(ii) after the word "child" insert "or for a review of such a finding"; and

(b) in subsection (5), after the word "1968" insert "or by virtue of Chapter 3 of Part II of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 223:
Page 107, line 9, at end insert:

("1973 c.65.

Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.

In Schedule 25, paragraph 41.

In Schedule 27, paragraphs 185 and 187.").

The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 223, 224 and 225 repeal provisions which are no longer appropriate in the light of this Bill. The reference to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 reflects the amendments already referred to under Schedule 3, as does the reference to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.
The final amendment to Schedule 4 corrects the references to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 and deletes parts of Schedule 3 to that Act which are now overtaken by this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 224 and 225:
Page 109, line 25, at end insert:

("1989 c.42.

Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

In Schedule 11, paragraph 15.").

Page 109, line 40, column 3, leave out ("Section 138)" and insert:

("Section 139.

In Schedule 13, paragraph 76(6) and (10) to (25); paragraph 92(14)(b)(iii); paragraph 100(6)(b)(iv); paragraph 103; and paragraph 161(7)(c).").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
The Committee adjourned at twelve minutes past five o'clock.

  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  Messina Conference
  Messina Conference
  Foreign Affairs Council, 29 May
  Foreign Affairs Council, 29 May
  SOE Archives: Release
  SOE Archives: Release
  Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report
  Legal Services Ombudsman: Annual Report
  DTI MINIS Returns
  DTI MINIS Returns
  Immigration Act Detainees: Transfer to Prison
  Immigration Act Detainees: Transfer to Prison