Sitting of 15 June 1995

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

  QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Third Reading read.
  To be read the Third time on Thursday 22 June.

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Orders for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 22 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Small Business
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made with measures to help small business announced in his 1993 and 1994 Budgets. [27001]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): My right hon. and learned Friend's Budget measures to help small firms are making good progress, particularly in regard to the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts.
    Mr. Jenkin: When Ministers consult small businesses with regard to the next Budget, will my right hon. Friend take on board the views of the vast majority of small businesses, which have no interest in a single European currency? Could that be because they experience the reality of doing business as small firms, and know that we export less than 8 per cent. of our gross domestic product in goods and services to the hard-core countries of the European Union which are likely to participate in a single currency? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that those firms will not be treated as right-wing xenophobes?
    Mr. Aitken: Like my hon. Friend, I have noted the views of the Federation of Small Businesses, which makes a great contribution to our domestic economy and our performance as not just a European but a world trading nation.
    I hope that the federation will take some comfort from what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the single currency on 8 June, namely that
    874
    "the circumstances may not ever be right".—[Official Report, 8 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 316.]
    Encouraging signals have also come from President Chirac's Government. All those signs suggest that the prospects of economic and monetary union are receding into more distant and uncertain horizons; but when any decision is made, it will be made on the basis of what is in Britain's best national interests and in accordance with our constitutional arrangements.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Chief Secretary aware that very few people will take any notice of his answers about anything? When he went to a board meeting of BMARC—a small business—he sat there not even knowing what was being done. He was paid £10,000 a year for not asking questions; two of his mates got done £2,000 for asking questions. What kind of a show does the right hon. Gentleman think he is running?
    Mr. Aitken: I might as well retort that nowadays the hon. Gentleman does not seem to know what his own Front Benchers are doing. I am, however, glad to have a chance to repeat to the House that I stand by my statement on 30 March that I was given not the slightest indication or information, as a non-executive director, that any of the contracts that were going to Singapore would in any way be for onward shipment to Iran or anywhere else. I welcome the new inquiries that are taking place, and I am certain that at the end of the day they will clear my name completely.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that small businesses will provide an increasing number of jobs over the next decade and beyond? Is it not vital, therefore, to ensure that we continue to have low interest rates and low inflation to provide the right economic framework to enable those businesses to prosper?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right: small businesses are the life-blood of Britain's economy. There are some 3 million of them, and they create employment for some 50 per cent. of the work force. They depend, as much as any other part of the economy, on a stable economic framework in which there are sound public finances, low inflation and sustainable growth—all of which conditions have been put in place by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

    Economic and Finance Council
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decisions were reached at the last meeting of ECOFIN. [27033]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): At its last meeting, on 22 May, the Council reached political agreement on a proposed investor compensation directive. We agreed that the conditions were now met for the disbursement of the 85 mecu loan to Ukraine which was first agreed in December 1994 and we reached agreement in principle to a further loan of up to 200 mecu, subject to conditionality. Lastly, the Council adopted a regulation to delay revaluation of the Belgian franc within the agrimonetary system.
    Mr. Soley: Have there been any discussions at all in ECOFIN about the political framework that would be necessary to operate a single currency?
    Mr. Clarke: ECOFIN has made quite a lot of progress talking about the technical issues that surround the

    875
    proposal to move to economic and monetary union. Obviously, there are considerable political implications in that and ECOFIN is composed of Ministers of Finance who discuss the politics of it, but these are early days. It is when the framework becomes clearer, the timetable becomes clearer and the number of states that comply with the convergence criteria becomes clearer that the political debate will no doubt deepen.
    Mr. Wilkinson: As the mechanistic and regulatory impediments to a true, single, integrated market remain since the last meeting of ECOFIN, will my right hon. and learned Friend, when he goes to Brussels on Monday for its next meeting, say clearly to his counterparts on the Council that they really ought to get rid of the bottlenecks and impediments to free trade in the Community and pay less attention to harmonisation of exchange rates?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend that the completion of the single market with the removal of all regulatory and other impediments to free trade and fair competition between the member states is extremely important. As he knows, the British Government have taken the leading part in that, and it was really following the Single European Act and the actions we took after that that the British paved the way for the creation of the single market. We intend to complete it. Anything that improves the workings of the market and removes barriers to or distortions of trade is, in my opinion, welcome.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given the Chief Secretary's stated opposition this afternoon to the principle of a single currency and given the Prime Minister's statement earlier this week on the principle of a single currency that he is persuadable—and persuadable against it by the very group the Chancellor of the Exchequer accused this morning of right-wing xenophobia—will the Chancellor now confirm his position on a single currency? Is he, as he always was, in favour of the principle of a single currency—yes or no?
    Mr. Clarke: I think the hon. Gentleman should consult an ear, nose and throat specialist, because he did not seem able to hear clearly what I said last night about my inflation target and I do not think he was quite able to hear what my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said a few moments ago, either. The position is that we negotiated an opt-out at Maastricht, which means that we were left free to decide for ourselves in due course, if and when the situation arose, whether to join an economic and monetary union.
    We are now taking part in the discussions on what form that monetary union may take and, in due course, if any states go ahead, Britain will decide one way or the other. The decision, in my opinion, ought to be taken on a hard-nosed judgment of British interests, judged when we see what the details are. That is the principle on which the party of which I am a member fought the last general election and it is the policy recently restated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is plainly the only sensible policy to pursue until we see whether economic and monetary union is going ahead in the EU.

    Inflation
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how long the underlying rate of inflation has been at or around its current level. [27034]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The retail prices index figures published this morning show that underlying inflation was 2.7 per cent. in May. Inflation has now been below 3 per cent. for 20 months, which is our best performance since 1961.
    Mr. Knapman: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his speech at the Mansion house last night. Does he agree that the careful control of inflation is absolutely essential for the promotion and protection of the prosperity of middle England, especially those on lower incomes?
    Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Anyone who aspires to govern this country and deliver the sustained recovery, without a return to boom and bust, that I think the population want must have a clear objective for inflation and must be capable of delivering it. We have a clear objective. We have been delivering low inflation. Those who criticise us appear to be incapable of making any useful contribution to the debate whatsoever.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that his 2.7 per cent. figure for underlying inflation is above his long-term target and that the Bank of England said last month that it would continue to be above his long-term target in two years' time? If that is the case next month, will he take action—yes or no? When he said that he was putting inflation back in the box, did he omit to tell us that there was no lid on the box?
    Mr. Clarke: If the Liberal party or the Labour party would give us any figures at all as a basis for their economic policy, we should be able to judge whether they were capable of getting within 0.2 per cent. of anything. The current position is that we have delivered the best record on inflation since the early 1960s. That is one of the principal reasons why our economy is growing and our prospects are looking so much better. Last night, I made it quite clear that I would set policy for the foreseeable future on the basis that we were aiming at inflation of 2½ per cent. or less. We aim to get there by the end of this Parliament and we shall aim to keep it there thereafter. That is a clear policy, and we are showing ourselves capable of delivering it.
    Mr. John Townend: I, too, congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the speech that he made last night, and especially on his statement that he wanted to follow the iron lady and become the iron Chancellor who is not for turning. Does he accept that I also welcome his warning to fellow Cabinet colleagues and, indeed, to Back-Bench colleagues, that he wants to cut taxes, but that he can do so only if he can cut spending?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend and I agree strongly on that point. The Government are showing that they are capable of controlling public spending in order to achieve our low taxation goal. We think that we shall have a more successful and competitive economy, with more prosperity and more secure jobs, if we can reduce the proportion of national resources taken by the state. It is yet another sphere in which, as far as I am aware, we do not have the slightest indication from the Opposition about what proportion of GDP they think should be taken by the state, what their objectives are for taxation or

    877
    precisely what their views are on public spending, or at least how those of the Treasury relate to those of other Opposition spokesmen.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor explain his extraordinary memorandum to Conservative Back Benchers last night? Why, having told the City that he would keep within his 4 per cent. inflation target all the time, did he say to his Back Benchers that he might meet it only most of the time? Why does he say one thing to the country and another in secret to the Conservative party?
    Mr. Clarke: The document to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not especially secret. The policy that it sets out is exactly the same as that about which I spoke last night. The inflation target is 2½ per cent. or less which will, in practice, deliver inflation within a range of 1 to 4 per cent. That is the policy that we have been pursuing successfully, and I projected it forward.
    Will the hon. Gentleman explain his extraordinary silence on the whole matter? He cannot even reply to letters from me in which I asked what inflation target he has in mind or whether he agrees with the decision that I took on interest rates more than a month ago. There is no piece of paper containing any details of any Labour policy on any these issues.
    Mr. Dunn: The Government have made known their inflation target. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor confirm when he last asked the shadow Chancellor to make known his inflation target and say what response he received?
    Mr. Clarke: I think that we should take a leaf out of the Opposition's book and ask the Leader of the Opposition to hold an independent inquiry into whether the shadow Chancellor has an economic policy and, if he claims to have an economic policy, whether he is prepared to put a figure to it. At the moment, I find myself facing shadows, but invisible shadows who will not put forward any proposition of their own. The hon. Gentleman has lost his way on economic policy.

    Fiscal Policy
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has had in 1995 with the Trades Union Congress to discuss fiscal policy. [27035]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir George Young): My right hon. and learned Friend has had no meetings so far this year with the TUC to discuss fiscal policy, but does expect to meet representatives of the TUC in the autumn before the Budget.
    Mr. MacShane: May I put it to the Minister that, if this country is to make any serious progress on its economic policy, discussion with the body that represents 7 million people in industry on a regular, not corporate, basis is necessary and would be useful and that, until there is a renewal of dialogue across the industrial divide, Britain cannot expect fully to prosper?
    Sir George Young: As I said, my right hon. and learned Friend looks forward to meeting the TUC against a background of the discussions leading up to his Budget. He had two meetings with the TUC last year, at the first of which there was very constructive dialogue about what the Government were doing on training, which received
    878
    wide support from the TUC, and also what we were doing on the industrial finance initiative. When the TUC comes to discuss fiscal policy with my right hon. and learned Friend, at least there is a policy to discuss.
    Mr. Butterfill: When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the TUC in the autumn, will he take that opportunity to explain to it the extraordinary damage that would be done to our economy were we to adopt a national minimum wage? It would create massive unemployment, particularly in the holiday industry, which is so important to my constituency.
    Sir George Young: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend would wish to make that point in a courteous but firm way. I was interested to see, in The Guardian on Monday, that the general secretary of Unison conceded that, were we to move towards a minimum wage, at the level at which he preferred, there would be job losses. There have been some estimates that there could be up to 800,000 job losses. My right hon. and learned Friend, who minds about unemployment, will indeed make that point to the TUC.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give me an assurance that the fiscal policy that he is going to follow is a United Kingdom fiscal policy and that the blandishments from Dublin to the effect that there should be 25 per cent. value added tax and 10 per cent. corporation tax in Northern Ireland will be resisted?
    Sir George Young: Yes, what my right hon. and learned Friend said at the Mansion house, the economic policy that he puts forward, is an economic policy for the United Kingdom.

    Inflation
    Mr. Clappison: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the control of inflation. [27036]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have received many representations about the control of inflation. These reinforce my commitment to our objective of permanently low inflation.
    Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that consumers and business men in my constituency will welcome the long-term commitment to low inflation that he has given; but when he hears the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), will he exercise just a little caution, bearing in mind not only that the hon. Gentleman will not say what his inflation target is but that the one policy he does have—the introduction of a minimum wage—would cause inflation of its own accord, and that the last time the Labour party held office, inflation moved within a range of between 7 per cent. and 27 per cent. per year?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend does well to remind us of the record. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman does not say whether he would have a higher inflation target for the next Parliament, thereby loosening policy, or whether he would have a lower target, thereby tightening policy. He does not say that he agrees with the Government—which I suspect is the case—because he cannot think of anything else to do. If he indicated anything else, he would have to answer my question about what his views are on interest rates.

    879
    I do not think that the hon. Gentleman believes in a minimum wage. I do not think that his leader does. This sits in a quite silly fashion compared with the current speeches that they are making about the principles of economic policy. I do not know why they do not stop refusing to put a figure on that. They will not put a figure on anything. Why do they not just drop it and adopt the shadow, at least, of our policy without giving it any substance?
    Mr. Sheldon: Although the control of inflation must be a prime objective, in what he called his occasionally combative discussions with the Governor of Bank of England, will the Chancellor forcefully point out to him that there are other matters, such as investment and economic growth, that must be considered also?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not regard low inflation as an aim in itself, and nor does the right hon. Gentleman, but low inflation is an essential precondition to getting prosperity and secure jobs, and the economic success, which other countries, such as Germany and Japan, have enjoyed in the past because they have enjoyed stable economic conditions. That is why the Governor and I are agreed on pursuing the targets that I have set out. The Governor welcomed what I said last night, and I quote:
    "The Chancellor has restated the Government's monetary policy objective—permanently low inflation—quite unambiguously this evening. I very much welcome that."
    I look forward to continuing to work with the Governor to deliver that low inflation aim.
    Mr. Brandreth: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that among the key groups who welcome low inflation and targeted low inflation are the elderly and the prudent? Does he recognise that in the year, for example, when my own father retired on a fixed income, inflation topped 27 per cent. under the previous Labour Government, and that retired and prudent people today will welcome a governing party that has a firm, precise and deliverable target for low inflation?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. He echoes the views of what I call middle England, which, for the benefit of Scottish nationalists, is middle Scotland as well. Those people who wish to work and to be responsible for their families, to save and to feel secure in their family finances, need low inflation. The experience of high inflation is that it destroys savings and creates instability in society. It robs the elderly and gives money to the improvident and those who borrow. It is also very destructive for investment and long-term economic prospects. For the past 20 months, we have delivered the best record on inflation that this country has seen since the early 1960s. I set out last night the Government's determination to continue to deliver that.
    Mr. Ashton: I take it that it is in order to ask a question from the Government crib sheet which has been handed to Conservative Back Benchers and which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) found in a telephone box. Is the Chancellor aware that my constituents would prefer sound economics to soundbites on the management of the economy? Why does the Chancellor have to write down all these soundbites for all the people behind him?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely good point. I assume that those who are responsible for that are in Conservative central office, and I shall ask them next time to distribute a similar sheet to Opposition Members so that they can find some questions to ask, because the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer does not have a policy that is worth leaving on a piece of paper in a telephone box and he is giving no guidance whatever to those behind him.
    Mr. Forman: I preface my question by saying that I have not had a chance to visit a phone box. However, I have a question for my right hon. and learned Friend. Is he aware that his counter-inflation policies have a real test behind them—market credibility? The record shows that the markets believe in that credibility and in that of the Governor of the Bank of England and the aim of getting inflation down and keeping it down. Is not the real contrast between my right hon. and learned Friend's sound policies, which will add to future growth, and those of the Opposition, that his have the ring of clarity whereas those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) are surrounded by a number of obscurities?
    Mr. Clarke: The Governor, in his speech last night, said that we seemed to be on course to see a peak of interest rates in this cycle of about half or less of the peak they reached in the previous cycle. My hon. Friend is right about market expectations on inflation and interest rates, which are coming down steadily as well. That is of real value to business, to investment and to people with mortgages who want to know what might happen to future interest rates. As we deliver, we are building confidence in a sustained recovery with low inflation, and it would be absolute folly to put all that at risk, certainly under pressure from a policy which is not represented by a figure on a piece of paper.
    Mr. Darling: May I refer the Chancellor again to the private note that he sent to Conservative Members? It is printed on Treasury notepaper and the accompanying note is in the same type face as the Treasury press release. Therefore, it is not just a "piece of paper", as the Chancellor said. When he told Conservatives privately that the inflation target would be met only "most" of the time, was he giving Back Benchers a nod and a wink that he will take risks with inflation if that is needed to try to win the next election for the Conservative party?
    Mr. Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman is going to get our briefing notes, he might read them and quote them properly. He paraphrases in the most loose and untidy fashion and he got it wrong. The inflation target that is set out in that note is the same as the target set out in my speech—2½ per cent. or below. As I explained in my speech last night, in practice one does not deliver one figure every month: there is fluctuation, sometimes down and sometimes above, but setting policy every month at that target should deliver inflation of between 1 and 4 per cent. The target is 2½ per cent. or less and that is the basis on which I shall set policy month by month when I have discussions with the Governor. It could not be plainer, it is as plain as a pikestaff, and the briefing said nothing different from that. It is the only policy going in this country at the moment. Fortunately, it is delivering considerable success.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic benefits of falling unemployment. [27037]
    Mr. Aitken: Unemployment has fallen by 661,000 since December 1992. Our assessment is that this has made a major contribution towards the Government's aim of promoting rising prosperity for all.
    Mr. Booth: As unemployment in Finchley has fallen by 16 per cent, over the past year, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his assessment of unemployment. Has he taken time to look at unemployment in France and Spain, and do not the very much worse figures in those countries exist because they have adopted just the sort of policies that the Labour party would impose on us?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that in Britain unemployment is falling faster than in any other major country in the European Union and that it is far lower than in France and Spain. Youth unemployment is 50 per cent. higher in France and 250 per cent. higher in Spain than in Britain. My hon. Friend asks why those differences, which are so much in our favour, have occurred. The answer is that those countries have the minimum wage; we do not. Those countries have a social chapter; we have opted out of a social chapter. Those countries have rigid labour markets; we have deregulation. We have Conservative free market, supply-side reforms and policies, whereas France and Spain have continued to cling to the same tired old socialist policies that the Labour party still espouses.
    Ms Armstrong: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that many of the problems that he has identified have led in this country to job insecurity, which I know is a matter about which he himself is concerned. Has he noticed that a survey said yesterday that more people in work are increasingly insecure about the future and worried about losing their job? Does he not understand that that insecurity, coupled with the still far too high unemployment levels, mean that much of the Government's strategy for economic growth is put under threat?
    Mr. Aitken: That is a feeble retort to the case that I made in the supplementary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth). As he reminded us, unemployment in his constituency has come down by 16 per cent., so people are not feeling so insecure in Finchley. Since December 1992, unemployment in Durham, North-West, which the hon. Lady represents, has come down by nearly 1,000 people—a fall of 23.3 per cent., so she does not have much to complain about.
    Mr. Gallie: In response to the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms Armstrong), does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest threat to workers' jobs would come with the election of a Labour Government and that therein lies the greatest feeling of insecurity?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many Labour policies, such as a minimum wage, that will destroy jobs. He represents a constituency in Scotland and he will be well aware that the policies for a tax-raising Scottish Assembly are absolutely guaranteed to scare away the magnificent flow of inward investment projects that are coming into Scotland at a rate of two a week—
    882
    they will go as soon as there is a tax-raising Scottish Parliament. All the extra policies, such as the minimum wage, and all the high expenditure will destroy jobs faster than anything else.

    Housing Market
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the financial implications of the state of the housing market. [27039]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): For the average mortgage holder, housing costs are £1,600 per annum lower than in 1990.
    Mr. Corbett: The Minister's complacency about the housing crisis will appal millions of people. With cuts in tax relief on mortgages costing £20 a month and, from October, another £20 a month for people on income support, why is it that the Government keep on hurting home owners rather than helping them?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am not the slightest bit complacent about people who find themselves with negative equity, but I am entitled to point out that, as a result of lower inflation and lower interest rates, since 1990 the average mortgage holder is £130 a month better off. The best long-term policy to help those existing householders and people who wish to own their houses is sustainable growth, with its consequence of rising earnings, combined with low inflation, which is what we are delivering.
    Mr. Rowe: Did my hon. Friend experience, as I did at the height of the housing boom, large numbers of constituents saying how extremely worried they were about the prospects of their children being able to get on the housing ladder? Do not steady and reduced house prices make it much easier for young people to get started?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. The conditions of the housing boom—such as those that we experienced—are not the friend of householders, especially young people who wish to own their houses. Although there is a problem of negative equity at present, its extent has reduced. Indeed, we should remember that last year almost 500,000 people became house owners for the first time.
    Ms Primarolo: Did the Paymaster General hear the unfortunate comments by the Chancellor on the "Today" programme this morning when he ruled out any special measures to help home owners? Will he confirm that that complacent view will continue and that there is to be no assistance for home owners in the present housing crisis?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My right hon. and learned Friend is not the least bit complacent about this issue, but he is right to point out that the best long-term help that we can deliver to households, as to others sectors of the economy, is sustainable growth with low inflation, which is exactly what we are delivering.
    Dr. Spink: What would be the impact on the housing market and interest rates if my hon. Friend were to follow the Labour party's policy on inflation—or does he not know?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. High inflation, with the consequence of high interest rates,

    883
    would crucify householders with outstanding mortgages. We must never allow the Labour party to be given a chance.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy on interest rates. [27040]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Interest rates are set to deliver permanently low inflation and ensure that the present healthy recovery is sustained.
    Mr. Hughes: Is not the truth somewhat different? Has not the Financial Times got it right when it says that the Chancellor has fudged policy on interest rates and that he is keeping interest rates down, stoking the economy and preparing for short-term tax cuts as his preferred solution?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has just arrived in the Chamber out of breath and did not hear the rather lengthy exchanges that have already taken place about all this. The inflation target is 2½ per cent. or less. I set monetary policy to achieve that target. Given that there are always unpredictable things from month to month, that policy will keep inflation between 1 per cent. and 4 per cent. We have set that target for the end of this Parliament and we are well on course to deliver it. Now we are going to sustain it throughout the next Parliament as well.
    Tax cuts are a legitimate aim. To be a competitive economy, we need to continue to be a low-taxation economy. But we can do that only when spending is under control—it is being kept under control—and when it is in the interests of the economy we can then cut tax.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one way to ensure that interest rates are higher than necessary is to have no policy on inflation, no policy on public expenditure and no policy on taxation, like the Labour party?
    Mr. Clarke: I rather imagine that if the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) ever met the Governor of the Bank of England he would ask him for a quick little note on what monetary policy is for and how one ought to approach it. When the hon. Gentleman sets out his propositions and they are put alongside the spending promises of all his shadow colleagues, it is quite obvious that high inflation will be only one of the extremely bad consequences of having a Labour Government.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is not it true that, on interest rates, the Chancellor pays more attention to the representations of Tory Back Benchers in marginal seats than to the Governor of the Bank of England? [Interruption.] Is not that more to do with his medium-term aspirations to be Leader of the Opposition than the long-term interests of British people?
    Mr. Clarke: I take first and foremost the advice of the Governor of the Bank of England. I listen to the advice of my Back-Bench colleagues who understand economic policy and specialise in it. I do not get any advice from the Labour party because it does not seem to have any opinion on the subject. My policies have delivered the best record of inflation that this country has seen since
    884
    the early 1960s. We are well on course to deliver permanently low inflation for the rest of the decade.

    Public Spending
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his policy to reduce public spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. [27042]
    Mr. Aitken: Yes. The Government's policy, unlike that of the Labour party, is to reduce the share of national income taken by the state.
    Mr. Amess: I welcome my right hon. Friend's robust commitment to controlling state expenditure. Will he confirm that that is in marked contrast to new Labour, which apparently has no commitment to increase spending, taxation or borrowing, but which in reality can be relied upon to increase all three?
    Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right. Scratch the soundbites of new Labour and we find old spending Labour in full swing. Let me list, for the benefit of my hon. Friend and of the House, the high spending to which the Labour party is committed. It includes income support for 16 and 17-year-olds, new regional assemblies and development agencies, an emergency employment programme, a defence conversion agency, a flexible decade of retirement, and above all, a national minimum wage. Labour is still the same old high-spending party, and it will be a high taxation party too.
    Ms Eagle: After 16 years in power, is it not a demonstration of the Government's utter failure that GDP continues to rise because they are paying the cost of economic failure by keeping so many people on the dole, at a cost of £9,000 per person? When will the Government tackle the problems rather than the symptoms of their utter failure to adopt a decent economic policy?
    Mr. Aitken: As the hon. Lady is so interested in the public expenditure dimension of unemployment—I take it that that is what her question is about—she may like to know that the unemployment total is falling at a rate of 1,000 per day. Every time 100,000 people come off the unemployment register, £400 million or so is saved in public expenditure. That is good news for the taxpayer as well as for the unemployed people who become employed.

    Brown's Law of Economics
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study his Department has made of Brown's law of economics. [27043]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Brown's law is receiving the study that it deserves.
    Mrs. Lait: As my right hon. and learned Friend continues his study of Brown's law, does he agree that its contention that borrowing should not exceed investment is a useless guide to sound public finance, as it sets no level for investment or for borrowing and clearly avoids setting any inflation target, let alone one as low as 2.5 per cent.?
    Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct. That is one of the few specific statements that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East put into Brown's law, but upon closer examination it turns out to be simply an excuse for having

    885
    no limit on the amount of borrowing on which one can embark in any one year. That is one of the many examples of what the policy would mean, and it would represent a considerable loosening of present policy, although the hon. Gentleman claims that Labour could match the growth with low inflation that the Government have achieved.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Would not the costs of speculative and widespread currency exchange transactions be greatly reduced, indeed ended, if we had a single European currency? How long must British tourists throughout Europe continue to be ripped off by banks because politicians cannot face their responsibilities?
    Mr. Clarke: It is tautologous to say that economic and monetary union would get rid of wild fluctuations in currencies and transaction costs across the foreign exchanges. We have preserved the position that will allow us to choose whether to join in economic and monetary union with the other European member states once the details have been put in place and when we see the conditions for convergence. We shall then decide whether it will be in Britain's interests to join.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the true principles of Brown's law is to reverse the Government's trade union reforms? Would not one of those reversals mean that people such as Mr. Jack Dromey would not be able to challenge Mr. Bill Morris for the general secretaryship of the Transport and General Workers' Union? Would it not be a great pity if Mr. Dromey were prevented from earning income to support his family?
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am certainly not going to take a position on the internal battles of the Transport and General Workers Union. It is true that the Labour party is a little more precise in what it believes it will do so far as trade union law is concerned than it is on economic policy. If Brown's law sheds any light on the future control of the trade union movement over Labour policy, I suppose it has some value.

    Small Investors
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Chancellor ofthe Exchequer what steps he is taking to increase the influence of small investors in corporate governance. [27044]
    Sir George Young: I expect that the work of the Greenbury committee, and the successor to the Cadbury committee will continue to bring improvements in corporate governance.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that many small shareholders in middle England would have thought that the Chancellor was an iron Chancellor if he had used his speech last night at the Mansion House to tell the City's institutional barons that it is about time they cleaned up their act, and stopped using their block vote to deprive ordinary shareholders of a voice at the annual meetings of companies?
    Sir George Young: The average small shareholder has done well under a Conservative Government. Since 1979, the average small shareholder with a portfolio of UK shares will have seen a real rate of return of 10 per cent. per annum. The Government have extended the benefits of shareholding. There were 3 million shareholders when we started, while there are 10 million today.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June. [27062]
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is currently in Canada attending the G7 conference.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the release of the remaining members of the Welch Fusiliers and of the RAF flight lieutenant by the Bosnian Serbs shows clearly that the Government's robust response to the taking of the hostages was the right one? Does he further agree that we now have an opportunity to reassess how our diplomatic and military efforts in Bosnia can best be taken forward?
    Mr. Newton: The whole House will want to join in my hon. Friend's welcome of the release of nearly all of the remaining hostages, including the British ones, and it is essential in our view that the other 26 are released immediately. My hon. Friend was right to say that the Government's policy has been vindicated. Indeed, by standing firm, the whole international community has shown that it will not submit to blackmail and terrorism of that kind. I share the view implicit in my hon. Friend's remarks that it is vital that we redouble our efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement.
    Mr. Prescott: Does the Leader of the House think that it is really wise for the Prime Minister to be out of the country at this time?
    Mr. Newton: At a time when it is widely acknowledged throughout the international community that this country's economic performance in growth, increasing investment, improving our trade performance, keeping inflation down and reducing unemployment makes it a world leader in that respect, it is quite right that my right hon. Friend should be sharing our experience with our partners in the G7.
    Mr. Prescott: With Baroness Thatcher making it clear that the Prime Minister is not up to the job, the President of the Board of Trade professing loyalty while preparing to take over the Prime Minister's job and the Chancellor attacking his Tory critics as right-wing xenophobes, is not it obvious that the Tory party is in a state of civil war and, like the Prime Minister, is clearly unfit to govern this country?
    Mr. Newton: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that—against the background of the account of our successful economic policies which I have just given—he will believe anything. He might also explain why his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took the risk of letting him ask questions from the Dispatch Box today. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June. [27063]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.

    887
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's trade union reforms reintroduced democracy into the Labour movement? Will he therefore ask the committee considering the Nolan report whether the 165 Members of the parliamentary Labour party who are sponsored by trade unions will resign if the long-overdue reform of the trade union block vote does not go ahead? In particular, if the Transport and General Workers Union gives that reform the order of the sharp elbow, will the Leader of the Opposition sever all his links with that union?
    Mr. Newton: I am not quite in a position to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks because the committee to which he refers has not yet met and, therefore, has not made a decision about who should be its chairman. In one way or another, however, I will ensure that my hon. Friend's request is drawn to the committee's attention. No doubt the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) will draw the second half of my hon. Friend's question to the attention of his right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Ashdown: Is not it absolutely clear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement last night that, when it comes to a policy on inflation, the Government's policy is very clear—a target is a target, but only so long as it does not get in the way of a tax cut?
    Mr. Newton: What is clear from my right hon. and learned Friend's speech last night is that the Government's commitment to low inflation remains absolutely unshakeable and clear and that the commitment to low inflation is part of a range of policies, which I have already described and which will make it possible for us to consider tax cuts in due course when it is appropriate and responsible to do so.
    Mr. Heald: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June. [27064]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Heald: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming this week's further fall in unemployment, which is down for the 21st month in a row and down 500,000 in the past two years? Does he agree that it is not coincidence, but the result of the Government's policies and that if we had a guaranteed minimum wage as the Labour party suggests—it is no good the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) looking glum as he has admitted this—there would be a shake-out of jobs and any silly fool knows that? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of Britain, that policy must be reversed?
    Mr. Newton: Although it is sometimes difficult to glean from the observations of the Opposition, I imagine that the whole House will welcome the fact that unemployment has fallen by 350,000 in the past year and, indeed, that employment has grown by more than 170,000 in the year to March. I see the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) giggling in some way—
    888
    it is especially ironic that, not so long ago, he forecast that unemployment would go on rising month in and month out. No doubt he will be reassessing his forecasting methods. At the same time, he might reassess policies such as the social chapter and the minimum wage, which would certainly push things in the other direction.
    Mr. Madden: May I ask the Leader of the House a question, of which I gave the Prime Minister notice on Tuesday; will he comment on the tragic events in Bradford at the weekend? In condemning without reservation those who commit serious criminal damage, does the Leader of the House share my deep concern about the large number of very young people who are so deeply angry, disaffected and alienated, not only in Bradford but in many other inner cities throughout the country? Will he support an independent public inquiry to establish what happened in Bradford—[Interruption]. If the House—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point as I have other questioners to call.
    Mr. Madden: But this is a serious matter to the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman support an independent public inquiry, which can identify the causes of the serious public disorder that took place in Bradford at the weekend and draw attention to the action that can be taken by all public agencies, including the Government, to bring back hope to young people, their parents and local communities?
    Mr. Newton: First, I am grateful, as everyone in the House will be, for the hon. Gentleman's initial acknowledgement that, whatever arguments he or anyone else cares to adduce, we all agree that there can be no excuse for the kind of behaviour that we saw in Bradford at the weekend.
    So far as the inquiries are concerned, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Police Complaints Authority is supervising the investigation of a number of complaints made against the police during the weekend. That authority is independent and will do a thorough job. The work will be undertaken by officers from another force—
    Mr. Madden indicated assent.
    Mr. Newton: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that. I think that that is the appropriate action to take.
    As for the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, I am glad to know that discussions are now taking place between the police and members of the Asian community in Bradford. That is the way to explore other problems.
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June. [27065]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hendry: Has my right hon. Friend ever seen a shred of evidence that suggests that people in this country want more government rather than less? Is he aware that my constituents in High Peak would be horrified at the

    889
    prospect of another tier of regional government based perhaps 100 miles away in Leicestershire? Is not it time for those people who advocate such a policy to admit that what they are really saying is that we should have more bureaucracy, more waste, more remoteness and more taxes?
    Mr. Newton: Labour's plans for regional government would certainly end up simply sucking responsibility away from many existing councils that are closer to the people whom they represent. As one of Labour's think tanks made clear yesterday, English regions would be "essentially artificial constructs", which is true of more or less the whole of Labour's policy in that area.
    Mr. Macdonald: Is the Leader of the House aware of the growing anger, not just in Britain but on the continent, about the plan to dump the Brent Spar oil platform at sea, at a spot not more than 150 miles from my constituency? Is not it a disgrace that Shell should have tried to hide the true costs of recycling the oil platform on land? Is not it time that the Government intervened to halt the tow of the Brent Spar and allow a proper examination of the true benefits of recycling on land, which would be better for the environment and for jobs?
    Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are following the principle of disposal on a case-by-case basis. In the Government's view, the deep-sea disposal of Brent Spar is consistent with the UK's international commitment, and all necessary approvals and consents have been obtained. It is also the Government's view that it is the best practicable environmental option available.
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June. [27067]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend draw the Prime Minister's attention to last week's report by the Social Security Select Committee into the growth of social security, which vindicates the Government's view that the continuing growth of social security spending is a cause for concern? Is it not time that we tackled that problem? Is not the test of the Opposition whether they start to support those reforms, otherwise they betray the fact that they have no commitment to dealing with the growth of public expenditure?
    Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. The increase in social security expenditure in its various forms, under various pressures including
    890
    demographic trends, is a matter of concern throughout the western world and perhaps beyond. Against that background, it has been absolutely right for my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the social security system to ensure that the bill is constrained while at the same time meeting proper priorities. That is what he seeks to do and it deserves the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 15 June. [27068]
    Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Campbell: Will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister whether, while considering what to do about the damage that his Government have caused to home owners with negative equity, he will consider the misery caused by the removal of mortgage interest relief to those who are unemployed and the damage caused to those who need social housing by the £600 million of cuts to housing associations?
    Mr. Newton: I shall always draw the hon. Lady's questions to the attention of my right hon. Friends. However, she might have referred to the fact that negative equity and repossessions are sharply down since the 1991–92 peak, and that average mortgage payments have fallen by £130 a month since October 1990. On the hon. Lady's first point, a survey has shown that two thirds of lenders intend to buy block protection in the area to which she referred, and the majority of those, including the Skipton building society, to which my right hon. Friend referred last week, intend to make no charge.
    Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the county of Gloucestershire, under the profligate Lib-Lab pact local government, the schoolchildren are being cruelly misused? Is he aware that, as a result of the historic overspending in Gloucestershire, the county council has decided to cut spending on education? Is he further aware that some of us are tired of being a whipping boy for Lib-Lab extravagance, and that it is time that we considered lifting the cap on local authority expenditure?
    Mr. Newton: I see that it has been reported in some parts of the press that the Leader of the Opposition has managed to persuade the Labour councillors of Mid-Glamorgan to reduce their demands for increased allowances from the exorbitant to the extortionate. I hope that he might now use his influence with some other Labour local authorities to persuade them to pursue sensible and proper policies.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The next instalment of the serial. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Need for an Independent Inquiry into the BMARC Affair", followed by a debate entitled "Government Failure on Overseas Aid". Both debates will arise, I need hardly say, on Opposition motions.
TUESDAY 20 JUNE—Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill (Lords). Remaining stages of the Town and Country Planning (Costs of Inquiries, etc.) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 21 JUNE—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
THURSDAY 22 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Crown Agents Bill (Lords).
FRIDAY 23 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 21 June to consider European Community document No. 10911/94 relating to economic growth and the environment.
MONDAY 26 JUNE—I understand that the Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration. In addition, the House will be invited to consider Lords Amendments to the Health Authorities Bill and to the Jobseekers Bill.
Subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the remaining stages of the Environment Bill (Lords) are taken on Tuesday 27 June and Wednesday 28 June. Government business will also be taken on Thursday 29 June and Friday 30 June, which, in the case of that Friday, is a sitting day. I should say, however, that I would expect the business on the Friday to be on a motion for the Adjournment.
[Wednesday 21 June: Debate on the European Union—Relevant Documents: White paper on Developments in the European Union January-June 1994 (Cm 2675); White paper on Developments in the European Union July-December 1994 (Cm 2798); European Community document COM (95) 333 relating to the Green paper on the practical arrangement of the introduction of the single currency; Unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 6 June 1995 submitted by Her Majesty's Treasury on the European Commission's recommendation for the broad guidelines of the economic policies of the member states and the community, drawn up in conformity with article 103 (2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community; European Community document EP: A4–0102/95 relating to a European Parliament Resolution on the Functioning of the Treaty on European Union with a View to the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference—Implementation and Development of the Union; European Community Document SEC (95) relating to the Report of the European Commission on the operation of the Treaty
892
of the European Union; Report of the Council of the European Union on the Functioning of the Treaty of the European Union (Cm 2866); Report by the Court of Auditor to the "Reflection Group" on the operation of the Treaty of European Union; Report of the Court of Justice on Certain Aspects of the Application of the Treaty on European Union; European Community Document 7221/95 relating to the White paper: Preparation of the Associated Countries of Central and Eastern Europe for integration into the internal market of the Union; European Community Document 12269/94 relating to a Commission communication on recognition of qualifications for academic and professional purposes; Letters from the Minister of State at the Department of Employment to the Chairman of the House of Commons European Legislation Committee dated 23/3/95 and 31/3/95 concerning a Resolution on the implementation of directives in the social field.
European Standing Committee B—European Community document: 10911/94, Economic Growth and the Environment. Relevant European Legislation Report: HC 70-iv (1994–95).]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. Regarding the Jobseekers Bill, which the Leader of the House has announced will appear before the House again on Monday week, when will Ministers give an indication of whether they intend to accept their defeats in the House of Lords? Will the Leader of the House ensure that full information about that is supplied before the deadline for the tabling of amendments, so that decisions can be taken after proper consultation, discussion and reflection, because those amendments will have to be tabled next week?
Secondly, may I ask the Leader of the House about the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill? Victims of crime throughout the country will not understand the Government's refusal to have a proper debate on the Bill. They will also fail to understand the Government's reluctance to disclose the fact that millions of crime victims who are self-employed or on low pay will lose under the new system as a result of the new time limit that Ministers are trying to smuggle through the Parliament. The Bill went into Committee only a week ago today. Will the Leader of the House give an assurance this afternoon that all aspects of the Government's changes to the system will be considered fully in Committee?
Thirdly, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Employment to make a statement next week about the outcome of the International Labour Organisation annual conference which is taking place this week in Geneva? It has issued a statement deeply regretting and deploring the failure of British Ministers to solve the problem of the trade union ban at Government communications headquarters. Will Her Majesty's Government accept the proposed ILO mission to arbitrate in the matter of the trade union membership ban?
Finally, I press the Leader of the House yet again for a debate on the economy. I have raised the matter several times during business questions, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House. We must have an economic debate before the Budget statement. The Leader of the House must recognise that an economic debate is becoming increasingly urgent, not least because of questions surrounding the Chancellor's words last night

893
and the central office briefing. When will we have an economic debate, and when will we know the date of the Budget statement in the autumn?
Mr. Newton: I am in a position to respond somewhat more positively to the hon. Lady's final questions than to some of her earlier ones. That probably means that I should conclude my remarks by responding to her latter questions, but I shall go straight to them now.
We need to have a debate on the economy before the summer recess. I must obviously add a qualification about uncertainties at this stage, but it is my intention—subject to those uncertainties—to have a debate on the economy on Wednesday 12 July. I can inform the House that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to introduce his Budget statement on Tuesday 28 November.
I now turn to the hon. Lady's other questions. So far as the Jobseekers Bill is concerned, I can do no more than ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is aware of the hon. Lady's request. I shall bring the hon. Lady's request for a statement to the attention of the Secretary of State, but I make it clear that the Government do not accept that their policies in respect of GCHQ are inconsistent with their obligations to the International Labour Organisation.
I have not yet received an account of this morning's proceedings on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill in Committee. As with any legislation, the Government are concerned to see that it is discussed properly in the appropriate manner, while taking account of the need to make progress.
Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend noticed in recent years the slow, inexorable intrusion of the judiciary into the business of the Executive and of the legislature? Does he share my view that the first principle of parliamentary democracy is that Parliament is answerable not to outside bodies or persons, no matter how eminent, but to the electorate alone? Will it be possible to have a general debate on that increasing constitutional problem?
Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's concern and the request that he has made, although I am certainly not in a position to undertake to make time available for an early debate on that matter. We need to bear in mind the fact that it is for the courts to interpret the laws passed by Parliament. If that interpretation turns out to be different from what was intended, Parliament must then decide whether to change the law.
Ms Liz Lynne: Following the petition that I delivered to 10 Downing street about the crime rate in the north-west and the recent debate on drugs in the House, will the Leader of the House make time for debate next week on the causes of crime, particularly the link between drug abuse and crime?
Mr. Newton: I understand why the hon. Lady raised that point. No doubt she was unable to be here last Friday, when we had a full debate, to which her Front Bench contributed, on drug abuse. However, I cannot promise a further early opportunity.
Mr. John Butcher: May I support the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) in calling for a debate on law and order? What society have
894
we become, when evil and violent people can randomly select a woman on the streets of London, take her away and rape her with impunity, because they no longer fear the law?
During such a debate, may we examine why the Tory party, the Cabinet and successive Home Secretaries are united and vehement in their defence of law and order, but when the law is administered out there in the country, the civil liberties of criminals seem to be safeguarded more vigorously than those of the population at large?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the House will agree that it is important to strike the right balance. Neither aspect of civil liberty to which my hon. Friend has referred can be ignored. He will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, by proposed changes in the law and reforms in the organisation and management of police forces, is seeking to direct attention firmly and strongly to exactly such concerns as my hon. Friend has expressed.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Is the Leader of the House aware of the widespread concern in the House about the Derbyshire? The House should know that the two objectives of the inquiry are the Derbyshire itself and the wider issue of safety at sea. There is concern that Lord Donaldson's terms of reference fall far short of what is required to reach those objectives. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the terms of reference are published and copies placed in the House of Commons, so that hon. Members can see them?
Mr. Newton: I have several times paid my respects and those of the whole House to the way in which the hon. Gentleman has followed this matter over a long period. In that spirit, I shall draw his request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. David Ashby: Has my right hon. Friend seen that a jury today returned a verdict in favour of Mr. Souness in respect of the disgraceful libel by a national paper, the Daily Mirror, about the personal life of Mr. Souness? Can hon. Friend say when we shall have a privacy Bill to put a stop to such behaviour by newspapers?
Mr. Newton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's strong interest in the subject, and understand it. Only this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is continuing work towards, among other matters, the response due to the Select Committee on National Heritage on that subject.
Mr. George Stevenson: In view of the recent opinion poll showing that 63 per cent. of the population blame the Government for the housing crisis, and the Shelter report that 700,000 people have lost their homes due to repossessions since 1985, will the Leader of the House provide a debate in Government time to discuss what can only be described as a national scandal presided over by the Government of which he is a member?
Mr. Newton: I made some comments on related matters a few moments ago, wearing my deputising hat, and I cannot add to them.
Mr. John Marshall: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1219, which now has nearly 200 signatures?

895
[That this House calls on the Government to acknowledge that over 3,000 people with haemophilia have been infected with the hepatitis C virus (HCV) as a result of NHS treatment with contaminated blood products to recognise that over 50 people with haemophilia are now understood to have died from liver disease contracted as a result, and to consider giving similar financial assistance to those infected with HCV, who currently receive no additional help, as for those infected in the same way with HIV who have been compensated by the Government.]
Does he agree that it is morally and logically unfair to deny compensation to those who have been infected with hepatitis C, perhaps mortally, through treatment on the national health service?
Mr. Newton: Once again, I have good reason greatly to respect my hon. Friend's interest in such matters. It is, of course, an unhappy fact that the patients about whom he is concerned received the best treatment available in the light of medical knowledge at the time. He will acknowledge that to offer compensation when no negligence or neglect was demonstrated would be a significant and substantial step.
Mr. Andrew FauldsWould it not be advisable that the House, sooner rather than later, should debate the appalling social damage being done by the national lottery to the well-being of the folk of this country, and the total improprieties of the profit levels of the company running it?
Mr. Newton: Against the background of the huge sums of money being raised for the arts, sport, heritage and a number of other important social causes, the hon. Gentleman's description of the consequences of the lottery is—to put it mildly—an exaggeration. Secondly, Camelot's bid to run the lottery, which has proved such a great success, involved the lowest costs of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is talking about of any of the bids.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Would it be in order to make a helpful suggestion to the Government? There is to be a debate next week on Europe, so would it be possible for the Government to make a commitment to a referendum if ever a single currency were put before the country? In that way, the Government would be able to unite the right-wing xenophobes and the left-wing Euro-quislings among their supporters.
Mr. Newton: It is certainly well in order, if slightly out of the usual run of things, for my hon. Friend to make a helpful suggestion; but I am not in a position to add to what the Prime Minister said most recently last Tuesday, or to what was said in a number of the exchanges during Treasury questions today.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the vigorous debate in the European Standing Committee last Tuesday, when a number of hon. Members expressed serious concerns about the lack of direction in the Government's fisheries policy, especially in relation to Spain's integration in the common fisheries policy? Is he aware that that debate was marked by an anxiety on the part of the Fisheries Minister not to return the subject to the Floor of the House? Can
896
he at least give us an undertaking that there will be a statement early next week on the outcome of today's Fisheries Council meeting?
Mr. Newton: In a sense, the hon. Gentleman has answered his own questions. The need for parliamentary consideration before today's Council was one of the factors rendering the debate necessary. Of course, as always, consideration will be given to the appropriateness of a statement, in the light of today's discussions.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on the value for money and freedom of decision taking being enjoyed by grant-maintained schools? I am thinking of the seven out of nine secondary schools in my constituency and about 1,000 elsewhere. It is clear that these facts are not getting across enough—although the Leader of the Opposition understands them, to the benefit of his own family. But I am not so sure that these benefits are clearly understood by the Opposition in general, and it is obvious that they are not understood by Labour councillors up and down the country, who are spending council tax payers' money on opposing parents' decisions to go grant-maintained.
Mr. Newton: I share my hon. Friend's hope that the Leader of the Opposition might divert some of his time, among other things, to securing a more sensible and more responsible approach by Labour authorities to this subject.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I seek the co-operation of the House. We have an important debate coming up, for which I will have to limit speeches to 10 minutes, so it will be difficult to call all hon. Members who are seeking to ask a business question if they take a long time asking that question. I shall do my best, without commitment, to call them all; but I want one brief question in each case, and a brisk reply.
Mr. David Winnick: As virtually every national newspaper is stating that the Prime Minister is going to face a challenge in November to his position as party leader, may I helpfully suggest that arrangements be made for the contenders to come to the House and explain why they want the job, and their alternative policies?
Mr. Newton: It is even more unusual for the hon. Gentleman to make a helpful suggestion, and he has certainly been true to form on this occasion. I think I shall leave his suggestion on the table.
Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the alarming report agreed yesterday by the Employment Committee of the European Parliament, which stated that the convergence criteria would add another 10 million people to the unemployment total on the continent—on top of the appalling 20 million who are already on it—will my right hon. Friend guarantee that Ministers comment on the report on Wednesday? Will they also think about it and explain to the House whether this is not—coming as it does before the single currency—the kind of economic disaster that some of us think it is?
Mr. Newton: I can hardly guarantee the contents of other people's speeches, but I should be surprised if my right hon. Friends did not make some reference to the report.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I pre-empt the difficulties that, in my view, will inevitably arise in the new special Committee set up to implement the Nolan proposals, by asking again whether that Committee can meet in public and deliberate in public—a question that was raised last week during and after business questions? If we are to avoid the disputes that I expect to take place, why should we not hear the arguments in public? Surely that would at least enable us to achieve a resolution.
Mr. Newton: I shall not add much to what I said last week. It is clear that no Select Committee has ever deliberated in public; that is a centuries-old practice of the House, and if this Committee decided to deliberate in public, it would constitute a change going beyond what is expected of Select Committees.
Mr. Harold Elletson: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent statement from the Foreign Office on the state of Anglo-French relations, following the French Government's decision to resume nuclear testing on the Muroroa atoll? Does he agree that that disgraceful decision, which has been roundly con-demned by environmentalists and Commonwealth Governments, may seriously undermine other countries' commitment to both the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the comprehensive test ban treaty? Does he also agree that the decision underlines, once again, the utter foolishness of attempts to impose a common European foreign policy?
Mr. Newton: Obviously, we may have to take a second or two to understand the concern caused by the French decision; but we see no reason why a limited programme of tests need affect prospects for a successful negotiation of the comprehensive test ban treaty. At any rate, I can assure my hon. Friend that our policy on testing remains unchanged. We are actively working for a test ban treaty, and have said that we will not seek to test while the United States moratorium remains in force.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate on London soon, please?
Mr. Newton: I will think about it.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Some months ago, the Labour-controlled council of Rochester-upon-Medway sent away the enthusiasts who are trying to restore a local theatre, saying that, if they raised £50,000, the council would give them an interest-free loan of £50,000. When they returned, having raised the money, the council shilly-shallied. May we have a debate, at this early stage of the council's existence, in order to teach it how to run itself?
Mr. Newton: There appear to be a large number of matters that the Leader of the Opposition ought to be investigating in relation to Labour-led local authorities.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will we hear a statement from the Prime Minister about the G7 meeting in Canada? Canada is a very funny place for the Prime Minister to visit, in view of what happened a few short months ago, when its Conservative party lost every seat bar two. What is the Prime Minister going to Canada for—to study election meltdown?
Mr. Newton: As I said at Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend has gone to Canada to demonstrate how to run an extremely successful economy.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a proper debate to inform the public about the way in which policy is made by both Opposition and Government? I am particularly concerned about the fact that a policy that opposed grant-maintained schools in December moved towards doubt in January; by March, it seemed that the Opposition might accept a grant-maintained school system, and it now appears that they will.
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly take the matter into consideration. It is another addition to the long list of Labour "policies", in which the only policy appears to be confusion.
Mr. Bill Michie: Will the Leader of the House devote some Government time to the issue of the pay rise for the head of Ofgas, which is of great interest to the public? We are asked questions about it, and I think it only right for us to debate it.
Mr. Newton: I do not undertake to give time for such a debate. The Gas Bill is, of course, before Parliament at the moment. Indeed, that is part of the background to the matter, because the extra work, which will increase still further with the Government's plan to introduce more competition, is a factor in the decision.
Sir David Madel: I assume that the new Select Committee on the Nolan report will invite Lord Nolan himself to come and share his thoughts on why he reached his conclusions. On Lord Nolan's view that outside earnings from consultancies should be declared in full—my interest in the matter is properly declared in the Register of Members' Interests—would my right hon. Friend draw Lord Nolan's attention to the Data Protection Act 1984, which imposes a general duty of confidentiality between employer and employee and to the Companies Act 1985? [HON. MEMBERS: "Special pleading".] Not at all. We are all taxpayers in the House, and no different from the public. We should all be treated the same.
Mr. Newton: On the first half of my hon. Friend's question, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), since the Committee has not yet met, I can hardly pre-empt the decisions that it might or might not take. On the latter point, I will, of course, draw his remarks to the attention of the Nolan Select Committee.
Mr. Mike Watson: The Leader of the House may be aware of early-day motion 1242, which refers to the campaign being led by the Glasgow Evening Times on the terrible drug problems facing that city.
[That this House congratulates the Glasgow Evening Times on its anti-drugs campaign, in particular the immediate success of the hotline enabling the public to expose the merchants of death on the city's streets; recognises that drug abuse is in large measure the result of appalling social conditions and the lack of jobs available for young people; and urges the Government to ensure that increased resources are made available to statutory and non-statutory organisations which help those affected, directly and indirectly, by drug abuse.]

899
However, he will certainly be aware of the similar problems that afflict every majority city throughout the United Kingdom. Will he do everything in his power to ensure that we have an opportunity to debate that serious matter before the summer recess?
Mr. Newton: We debated the Government's White Paper on drugs on Friday—I accept that it applies to England, but it parallels the Scottish document—and that would make it difficult to schedule another such debate before the summer recess.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on the publication of the air accident investigation branch report into the Chinook helicopter crash on Mull last year? Is he aware that, among the families of the people who died in that tragedy, there is widespread concern that compensation is likely to be limited to the terms of the Warsaw convention? That would not only be bad for the morale of all members of the security and intelligence services but also terribly unfair on the widows of those people, who devoted their lives to fighting terrorism.
Mr. Newton: The whole House would once again want to express its condolences to the widows and other family members of those who died, and I should like to do that in responding to my hon. Friend's question.
I should make it clear that the Ministry of Defence will be considering compensation claims in excess of the provisions of the Air Act Order 1967, which is another way of making the point that my hon. Friend raised. However, the amount of compensation is for discussion between the MOD and the next of kin or their representatives.
Ms Glenda Jackson: As, under Government rules, a French water company may submit a bid to provide rail services in south-west England, but, under the same rules, British Rail, the only company with the relevant experience and expertise, may not, will the Leader of the House find time next week for an urgent debate on what is clearly a deeply unpopular piece of legislation? That is highlighted by a recent national opinion poll, which showed that one in six Conservative voters will be reconsidering their votes because of that issue alone.
Mr. Newton: It seems to me that the interest of a French company in south-west trains is a demonstration of how wrong Opposition Members were to say that there would be no interest in the private sector franchises.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on local government finance, so that the House can consider the position of Ealing's Labour council, which put up service charges for those who bought their homes—a fat lot the Labour party cares about that—by 200 or 300 per cent. at a stroke two or three weeks ago? The House should know that that is costing my constituents £300 or £400 a year in some cases, and should take action against Ealing's Labour council accordingly.
Mr. Newton: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is on your obviously long list, Madam Speaker but if he is, I hope that he may get an opportunity to make that point in today's debate.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Leader of the House aware of the letter from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the chair of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Belfast, which says that, if a Northern Ireland Member brought forward a Bill on abortion to clarify the law or to bring it into line with the British legislation of 1967, the Government would facilitate its progress through the House? As the Government believe in a United Kingdom Parliament, is that offer open to other hon. Members? Would such facilitation be extended to me if I introduced such a measure?
Mr. Newton: I think that I had better draw that request to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider an urgent debate on grant-maintained schools? I ask because of the concern felt by parents in my constituency who have been reading reports that the Labour party is proposing to pack school governing bodies with elected councillors. That is socialism through the back door, and parents will not stand for it.
Mr. Newton: Once again, there is an urgent need for clarification of the Opposition's policy, and I hope we shall get it.
Mr. Andrew Miller: In a written answer on 17 May, the Government announced their intention to investigate the possible privatisation or scrapping of the Data Protection Registrar's office. Since the consultation period expires tomorrow—as I understand it, the Government have invited very few views—will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the subject, and ask his colleagues in the Home Office to extend the consultation period as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office will be answering questions next Thursday; perhaps the hon. Gentleman might like to raise the matter with them then.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the availability of pornographic material to children? I hope that he has had the opportunity to study the correspondence that I delivered to his office yesterday. It is correspondence that I have had with my constituent, Mr. Wilde, about the purchase by his 11-year-old daughter of a grossly obscene record which rejoices in the innocent name "(Don't Stop) Wiggle Wiggle" by the Outhere Brothers. Such filth suggests that the record industry is not policing its output effectively, and that there could be a need for further action by the Government.
Mr. Newton: I have indeed read the correspondence that my hon. Friend kindly gave me, and I fully understand his concern. He has written to my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, and I am sure that she will reply to him.
Mr. George Mudie: The Leader of the House will be aware that his reply to the hon. Member

901
for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) will be depressing for the families of the 3,000 haemophiliacs who caught hepatitis C from having contaminated blood through the national health service. Is he aware that a number of the 3,000 people affected are youngsters whose lives have been blighted? Will he use his considerable influence with the Secretary of State for Health to get a debate, or at the very least a ministerial statement, on this sensitive matter?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that I have good cause to be aware of the difficulties and the problems for families affected in this way, as I held the relevant ministerial post when there was a similar problem in relation to AIDS. I shall, of course, draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an urgent debate on policing policy? It would give the House an opportunity to congratulate the deputy chief constable of Cheshire on her unique appointment as chief constable of Lancashire, which is a proper recognition of the qualities of an outstanding police officer. It would also give us the opportunity to recognise good service when it is delivered, because crime in Cheshire is falling, detection rates are rising and front-line policing in Cheshire is improving, thanks to 195 additional police officers and special constables this year.
Mr. Newton: Everyone will want to congratulate Mrs. Clare on her appointment as chief constable of Lancashire. I hope that it will not have gone unnoticed by the Labour party that it has happened without an all-women selection list.
Mr. Jim Dowd: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the role and responsibilities of Ministers, so that the House might further explore the thesis advanced by the President of the Board of Trade on Tuesday: that, although Ministers can come to the House and deal with individual Members proclaiming Government policies, they seem to have no responsibility for carrying them out?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend made no such suggestion, but, if the hon. Gentleman thinks he did, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will consider his words.
Mr. Nigel Evans: May I join the growing clamour for a debate on grant-maintained education? A number of schools in my constituency are currently grant-maintained, and the reason is that parents wanted to dislodge themselves from local authority control. The leadership of the National Union of Teachers has changed its mind, but the Labour party is hopelessly confused. A debate would give the Labour party the opportunity to focus its attention on coming up with a policy on grant-maintained education, so that the public will know where they stand.
Mr. Newton: I would add only to what I said earlier: that I am pleased to see that, in the NUT's survey of its members who work in GM schools, an overwhelming number supported GM status and believed that it had improved those schools. I hope that that will be taken into account by local authorities and by the Labour party.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend facilitate a debate as soon as possible on whether there was collusion between the Labour party and the BBC following the report on 5 June, on the "Today" programme regarding Sir Richard Scott's report? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the thesis of that report was a letter that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had written to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? That letter was sent on 25 May, yet the BBC did not use it until 5 June—the same day that it used the leaked report of Sir Richard Scott, which, it emerged this morning, it had had for two to three weeks.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend's question will be looked at carefully, both by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage and, no doubt, by those at the BBC.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging an urgent debate on the policies of social correctness and social engineering, such as that imposed by the London borough of Islington, which led to such dire effects for the children of that borough?
Mr. Newton: I very much hope there will be an opportunity before too long to explore some of those matters in local authority affairs, many of them falling exactly under the heading of political correctness.

Remploy
4.6 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has been good enough to draw to my attention a passage in a speech that he made yesterday morning in the House on a debate on Remploy, in which he said:
"It has been suggested to me that Remploy could be transformed into an employee-owned trust. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), the Opposition spokesman on finance and City affairs, spoke at the launch of the new Employee Share Ownership Trust, so there is interest on both sides of the House in considering a possible different structure for Remploy as an employee-owned trust."—[Official Report, 14 June 1995; Vol. 261, c. 713.]
I had no idea that the hon. Gentleman was going to make that speech and mention me, but at no time have I ever suggested any structure for Remploy. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman approached me in the Lobby some two days ago, asking about Remploy, and I specifically referred him to my colleague on the Front Bench who has responsibility for Remploy. It is perfectly true that we are in favour of employee-owned trusts, but we have never made any comments so far as Remploy is concerned.
I am quite prepared to accept that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East inadvertently misled himself. I did look for him before I raised this matter, but it is important that the record is put right, because these proceedings are followed outside the House.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central has taken time to do precisely that.

BILL PRESENTED
  ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS
  Mr. Alan Keen, supported by Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Malcolm Wicks presented a Bill to prevent the making of false or unsupported environmental claims and similar claims related to animal welfare in relation to goods or services, and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]

Council Tax
Madam Speaker: We now come to the main motion of the day. I have had to limit speeches made by Back-Bench Members to 10 minutes.
4.8 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move,
That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.
It is the duty of any Government to balance genuine requirements for local services against the wider considerations of the level of public expenditure and taxation and the state of the economy as a whole. I recognise that this year's settlement is tight and that some authorities would have wished to have been able to spend more. That is perfectly understandable, but local authorities have to continue to take a rigorous approach to pay and efficiency and to make a realistic assessment of their spending priorities.
In the event, the great majority of authorities did set budgets that were within their cap. Only 10 did not. Those were South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority; Barnsley, Newcastle and Sheffield metropolitan districts; the shire counties of Devon, Gloucestershire, Shropshire and Somerset; Norwich city council; and Lincolnshire police authority.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: My right hon. Friend referred to Norwich city council. Will he make it clear to my constituents that that council has had a fair deal as a result of the announcements and has increased money to spend? Will he confirm that council tax payers in my constituency are protected and will be excused from having to pay excessive bills that they would otherwise have had to pay?
Mr. Gummer: I am surprised at Norwich because it could have asked for special determination, to enable it to charge 80 per cent. of the cost of the ending of the temporary rule system. That would have saved the council more than £500,000, but it did not bother to take advantage of that. It is hard to understand how Norwich is in difficulties when it was not willing to ensure that it took the maximum opportunities. It had known for about 15 months that its present policies would end in it not being able to meet the proper requirements of the Government and council tax payers. It made that clear to my hon. Friend and officials some time ago. I shall come to the situation of Norwich in a moment.
I designated all the authorities that I have mentioned on 4 April and proposed for each of them a maximum amount or cap for its budget. The authorities then had 28 days in which to accept or challenge their caps. We listened carefully to the representations that were made by South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority and by others, and accepted at the outset that the cap implied by the capping principles would not be achievable. Therefore, we proposed a cap at the same level as that proposed by the authority as its budget requirement. South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority accepted that cap and is not included in the order.
The remaining nine authorities decided to challenge their proposed caps and suggested alternative maximum amounts. In each case they proposed as their alternative

905
their original budgets and submitted detailed papers setting out their case for a higher cap. My hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones) and the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration met delegations from all the authorities to hear their case. Before taking my decisions, I carefully considered the points of all the authorities, including those made at the meetings, and the representations made by hon. Members and other interested parties.
Much time and effort has been spent to ensure that each authority has had a full opportunity to put its case to us in an effective fashion and that we properly understood the points and figures that they put to us. In assessing the impact of our decisions, we relied, of course, very largely on the local authorities' own figures and estimates. Of course, it is bound to be true that, in presenting a case, local authorities will put those figures in the most effective way. The cases presented by the four shire counties focus primarily on their concerns about the impact on school budgets and, in the case of Gloucestershire and Shropshire, on social services.
Mr. Roger Knapman: Is it the case that Gloucestershire county council has acknowledged that, even if it was capped at the present level, there would be no need for cuts in school budgets? If that is the case, the Liberal and Labour parties in that county have been running an absolutely disgraceful campaign using individual schools and the pupils in them as political pawns.
Mr. Gummer: In its submission to me, Gloucestershire county council clearly said that school budgets were not cut in cash terms. Therefore, if any school in Gloucestershire finds to the contrary, it must immediately get in touch with its local authority, which has made the position quite clear. It is necessary for Gloucestershire county council to explain if that is not the position. My hon. Friend will want to make that point clearly. There is no doubt that in Gloucestershire there has been a great deal of party politicking by the Liberal-Labour alliance that runs that unfortunate county.
Mr. Nigel Jones: I am listening with great interest to the Secretary of State. He does not seem to have taken into account the pay award for teachers. School budgets have not been cut in cash terms, but the pay award has a significant effect on those budgets. Does he not realise that the budget that was proposed by Gloucestershire county council was a joint Liberal Democrat-Conservative proposal? The Labour party wanted to set a much higher budget. It was proposed by John Sewell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats on the council, and seconded by Richard Izett, the leader of the Conservatives on the council.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's point does not detract from the fact that, all around Gloucestershire, individual schools are finding that Gloucestershire county council has failed to meet its own demands. It said that there would be no cut in cash terms, but schools are finding that they are getting a cut in cash terms. That is because the council must be using the money that it said was going to schools in some other way, and it is blaming the Government for that.
Mr. Paul Marland: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gummer: No. I must answer the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). On the payment of schoolteachers, the fact of the matter is that Gloucestershire county council knew perfectly well that it was necessary to restrain expenditure. It was able to have an increase in what it was spending over last year, but it has not delivered in the way in which it claimed it would be able to deliver. It has the means to find ways of spending money more efficiently and effectively. What is more, schools in Gloucestershire have significantly large balances—about £5 million, or 7 per cent., of the direct schools budget is in balances. That puts those schools in an especially favourable position.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Gloucestershire county council has inspired a campaign giving out all the fax numbers of Gloucestershire Members of Parliament, and that my floor is about half an inch thick with faxes from angry parents? It is a disgrace for the county council to blame Members of Parliament when it has cut individual school budgets by between 4 and 7 per cent. Will he clearly explain why Gloucestershire's appeal was not allowed, yet Somerset's appeal was?
Mr. Gummer: Gloucestershire county council had every opportunity to come and explain why it was not able to live within the same sort of restrictions within which most other counties lived. When it came to do so, I am afraid that it did not put up a convincing case. Somerset was able to show that, in the particular circumstances concerned, it would have had to cut its school budgets in cash terms, but Gloucestershire county council admitted from the beginning that it did not have to. Having admitted that it had the money to deliver a reasonable solution, Gloucestershire is now claiming something wholly different, to try to blame the Government for what is its own fault.
My hon. Friend is right: Gloucestershire is running a party political operation to excuse its own incompetence. Like everyone else, it had every opportunity to put its case. I am afraid that it failed to do so because its case was not very good.
I have therefore concluded that the cap for Somerset should be £264.920 million, an increase of £2.6 million above the original cap. In reaching that conclusion, I took into account the authority's overall financial position and the particularly severe impact that a budget cap would have had on school budgets in Somerset.
I considered carefully the cases put to me by Devon, Gloucestershire and Shropshire.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: In the context of the meetings and conversations that I have had in recent days with my right hon. Friend, he will know that people in the west country are worried that there may be a disparity of treatment between Somerset and Devon. May I remind him in particular of a letter that was sent to me by John Garnett of Exmouth community college? He believes that there has been inequality in the way in which the two counties have been treated. Will my right hon. Friend deal with that point specifically, so that people in Devon will understand just how disgracefully Devon county council has behaved?
Mr. Gummer: The fact is that Devon could increase its schools budget by 1.2 per cent.
Mr. David Jamieson: How?
Mr. Gummer: It has the money to do so, largely provided by the taxpayer. Somerset would have had to cut its budget by 3.5 per cent. The difference is that Devon was in a position to spend something more than three times as much as Somerset. The difference between the two is about three times. Therefore, Somerset clearly had a much better case.
In order to cover up that difference, Devon county council has produced a series of—if I dare say it in the House—untruthful figures. For example, in order to pretend that it has been done down, instead of talking about spending per pupil, it wanted to use spending per head of the population in its figures and bring all the adults into its school population. Only in that way could it produce the figures.
When Devon came to compare administration costs, it included redundancy in the Somerset figures and left redundancy out of its own figures to show how much better it supposedly was on administration. I am afraid that a county that has to mislead its electorate shows by its own words that its case is extremely poor. Its case did not stand up under close consideration by myself and my officials when the council came to see us.
Mr. Marland: I should like to help out with Gloucestershire. My right hon. Friend is right when he says that part of the trouble in Gloucestershire is the historic overspending. That is the problem, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) knows full well. The council went on a spending spree when the hon. Gentleman was on the county council and ran up a deficit of more than £120 million. The third largest item on the council's budget is now debt servicing. The first item is education, the second is social services and the third is debt servicing. Historic overspending by Gloucestershire county council is the problem.
May I tell my right hon. Friend that I and other Gloucestershire Members of Parliament are sick and tired of being the whipping boys for Liberal and Labour overspending on Gloucestershire county council? Does he agree that it is time now to start looking at the possibility of raising the cap in order that the guilty men can be exposed and the blame can be laid where it truly should be—at the door of the Liberal and Labour—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The House is aware that Madam Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on speeches after the Front-Bench speeches. We are getting close to 10-minute interventions.
Mr. Gummer: The fact of the matter is that the Liberal-Labour hangover in Gloucestershire is a very serious worry. The Liberal party is a spendthrift party. It has a technique. It is to spend the money and then complain when there is none left and blame the Government. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great temptation to say that it should stew in its own juice and should have to charge the public with the sums that are the result of its misapplication of funds, its wastage and its inability to control funds when the whole of the rest of the public sector must do so. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) intervened. Everyone in the House knows where the fault lies in Gloucestershire. It lies in the inability of the Liberals not
908
to spend money on anything that happens to be around and then to blame everyone else when they find that that is costly.
Mr. Nigel Jones: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way. I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman. One time is enough for him. If I give way again, he might put his foot in it a second time. He is wrong in what he says. If Gloucestershire county council under Lib-Lab control, but particularly under the Liberals, had been less spendthrift in the past, it could have done better now. It must not blame the Government for its attempt to pinch money from the taxpayer generally to make up for its past spending. It is time that the people of Gloucestershire knew that rather than just hearing the carefully phrased clauses of the hon. Member for Cheltenham.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Although I am not involved in the affairs of Gloucestershire, it seems very clear that there is confusion, whether in Gloucestershire, Devon or, indeed, in matters relating to the London boroughs, of which I certainly have some knowledge. May I suggest that, to avoid such confusion, the Government ought to consider lifting the policy of capping? In all seriousness, the public do not understand all the complexities and those guilty men should be seen to be responsible.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We shall—as always—be looking at the issue again this year. He must consider the other side of the argument. When we did not have capping, those guilty men made ordinary people's lives intolerable by increases in council tax. Although the sort of increases demanded in towns such as Harlow and boroughs such as Ealing—I declare an interest because I live in Ealing during the week—showed them to be the kind of councils that they were and they reaped electoral disbenefit afterwards, ordinary people were faced with bills that were extremely hard to pay. So there is a balance to be struck.
Mr. Mark Robinson: I would not want to draw comparisons with other counties, but once we got under the Liberal Democrat rhetoric in Somerset, we realised that a case for the schools of Somerset needed to be heard. That is why we supported the case for the cap to be raised in Somerset. That at least shows that the appeal system works fairly and properly, that cases are considered and that some win and some are not successful.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend points to the fact that hon. Members have every right and duty to look behind the figures produced by their councils—even if they are produced by councils with which they do not agree—to see whether there is some basis for them. In the case, for example, of Somerset, there is no doubt that, despite the relaxation in the cap, Somerset is in a much less favourable position with regard to school budgets than Devon. Devon is in a better position even after the raising of the cap.
Mr. Nick Harvey: How?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman does not know how because he does not understand the system. Like so many members of his party, he just shouts out parroted comments while not understanding what he is talking

909
about. The truth is—I shall put it very clearly—that Devon is able to increase its schools budget by 1.2 per cent., whereas even after the cap has been raised in Somerset, Somerset can increase its schools budget by only 0.1 per cent. Therefore, my facts are clear.
Mr. Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Anthony Steen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gummer: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most Members who represent Devon have been subject to a most vitriolic campaign involving students, young people, parents and educationists, who have been saying that because of the county cuts, hundreds of teachers will have to be laid off? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to use a good agricultural phrase, the people of Devon have had the wool pulled over their eyes—or have Members of Parliament had the wool pulled over their eyes?
Mr. Gummer: It is about time that people in Devon recognised that, over the past two years, Devon has been able to increase its schools budget by 8 per cent. What is more, that has been possible while the county council has chosen to give greater priority to social services, the budget for which this year has risen by 3.6 per cent. That county council has chosen social services as its priority and increased that budget rather than the spending on education. It is still able to do better for education than its neighbours, yet it is blaming the Government for the fact that its competence has meant that that money has not got through to the schools concerned.
Mr. Rupert Allason: As my right hon. Friend has made a comparison in terms of expenditure per pupil, will he make that comparison between Somerset and Devon? That would be comparing like with like, rather than comparing apples with oranges.
Mr. Gummer: I can give my hon. Friend a detailed note, which will be available to any Member of the House, showing the difference between the case put forward by Devon and the truth of that case. My hon. Friend will be able to see the details exactly compared, and I am sure that he will want to use the information widely.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: My right hon. Friend is right to talk about the great confusion surrounding local government expenditure. Central Government now account for about 90 per cent. of local authority expenditure, so will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues consider as a matter of urgency whether in future years a leaflet should be sent by the Secretary of State to every council tax payer explaining how much money the Government have given the person's local council, compared with the sums given to other councils? It is a nightmare trying to understand all those budgets.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is the end of long interventions. I shall interrupt any further long interventions and stop them, because interventions must be brief and to the point.
Mr. Gummer: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we are now producing performance indicators that will enable people to see easily the difference in the quality of
910
provision between one county or district and another. The performance indicators are simple to understand, and one of the facts that emerges clearly is the incompetence of Derbyshire county council, which, as I have said in the past, is and has been for many years one of the worst councils in Britain.
Mr. Harvey: The Secretary of State says that Devon could spend more on its education budget. Will he confirm that Devon is already spending more than its standard spending assessment on education? He says that social services is one of the departments that the money might come from, but what account has he taken of the fact that Devon was the hardest-hit shire county when the funding for community care was reorganised last year? Where is the money that the right hon. Gentleman proposes should be spent on education supposed to come from?
Mr. Gummer: I have explained to the hon. Gentleman that, despite having decided to put more money into social services, Devon has still been able to increase its education budget by 8 per cent. over the past two years. If schools are not receiving the money that they hoped for, it is because Devon county council has not operated efficiently and effectively. It could deliver the money, but only if it were not run by people who do not understand how to be efficient. The hon. Gentleman does his county no good by standing up for the inefficiency of those who rule it instead of for those who ought to be getting a better service. He should intervene and press his friends who are getting it all wrong, instead of constantly trying to pass the buck.
The hon. Gentleman must realise that power demands responsibility, and it is not responsible to attack the Government for the faults of his Liberal Democrat friends. He ought to learn that fact, but he will not have long to learn it, as the Liberal Democrats will be turfed out at the next election because of the appalling way in which they have behaved. He should realise that his area is one of the places where the Conservatives will make gains at the next election, because the people have been shown what it is like to have their councils run by Liberal Democrats.
I shall now deal with the metropolitan districts of Barnsley, Newcastle and Sheffield, all of which made cases for redetermination. I have concluded that the cap for Barnsley should be £152.626 million—a relaxation of £2 million, but about £1 million less than Barnsley proposed. In reaching that conclusion, I took into account all the factors relevant to Barnsley's case, including the area's economic and social difficulties, which have been exacerbated by large-scale closures in local industries, and the special problem of education standards in the area.
I carefully considered the cases made by Newcastle and Sheffield. Sheffield was given a relaxation of £3 million in its cap last year, to give it time to adjust to a change in its circumstances. The benefit of that relaxation will be carried forward into the current year. In addition, the figures that Sheffield gave to me show that it has budgeted for significant savings in its financing costs in the current year. In consequence, the budgeting position for main services such as education and social services has eased sufficiently to enable the council to increase its expenditure compared with 1994–95.
On the figures that Newcastle has put to me, it can be seen that that council will be able to budget for modest increases in expenditure in main services such as

911
education and social services. I have concluded that, by taking into account the overall financial situation and circumstances, it would be reasonable to confirm the original capping limits for both Sheffield and Newcastle.
Mr. Clive Betts: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, despite what he has said, the capping limit that he is intending to impose this year is lower in real terms than the initial cap for last year, which he decided was inadequate and later increased by £3 million?
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman did not mention to the House that Sheffield budgeted for a saving of £20 million on its financing costs, or that it will also benefit from the £13.5 million of savings that it achieved last year. Sheffield was given help last year because of its financing costs, much of which existed because of the hon. Gentleman's period in office in the city. The ordinary council tax payer in Sheffield is paying for the overspending of many years.
If the council tax payers of Sheffield want to know why their bills are so high, they must ask the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). It was during their stewardship that the burden of debt was put on the shoulders of the people of Sheffield. The hon. Gentleman wants me to take the burden that he placed on the shoulders of the people of Sheffield and move it on to everybody else's shoulders. He wants the debt to be passed on to the shoulders of people who have been looked after by prudent Conservative authorities. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I will not do that.
It is time that the people of Sheffield recognised that the prudent policies of the Government have brought reductions in the financing costs. The financing costs have come down because an economy with low inflation rates, and therefore low interest rates, enables the costs of past profligacy to be less than they would otherwise be. I am sure that, given the facts, the people of Sheffield would recognise that the hon. Gentleman has only one part to play in the House—to apologise for the extent to which the local council wasted the money of the people of Sheffield in the past.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Will the Secretary of State explain why the cap that he has set for Newcastle will not allow Newcastle to spend the money that he actually wants to give it through the SSA?
Mr. Gummer: If one looks at what Newcastle did to the council tax last year, one sees precisely that the council took from the people of Newcastle more than it should have. Am I supposed to say to the people of Newcastle that we shall protect everybody else but them in these circumstances? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Many of my hon. Friends would prefer it if we did not give protection, and if we allowed the Labour and Liberal parties to show the electorate precisely how expensive they are. That is a view which I respect. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) cannot have it both ways. Under the present system, there is no
912
doubt that our purpose is to make sure that the people of Newcastle do not pay the full penalty for having voted Labour.
Sir Irvine Patrick: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the steps that Sheffield has now taken to get itself out of the financial mire? Those steps include a huge reduction in the number of staff. May I say that I am grateful for two things that the Government have done? The first was the help that they gave the fire and civil defence authority, and the second was the help that they gave Sheffield last year.
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right, and I pay tribute to Sheffield for what it has done. We gave Sheffield that breathing space because it has at long last—after the demise of the two hon. Gentlemen whom I mentioned—begun a management plan to face the issues of the debts that have been placed on the people of Sheffield. We gave Sheffield that help in respect of that plan and it continues this year. I am sure that that was the right thing to do.
Lincolnshire police authority was the only police authority to seek an increase in the capping limit. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and I accept that the transition to a new cash-limited financial regime in 1995–96 has created particular difficulties for the authority. We have decided to agree to the budget proposed by the authority—a relaxation of £1.8 million. I must stress, however, that that relaxation is intended as a one-off adjustment, to enable the authority to adjust to the new financial regime and to give it the time that it needs to plan and implement the savings of about £1 million that Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has identified as achievable through improved management efficiency.
This year, it is for Lincolnshire to do what Sheffield was asked to do last year. It must take advantage of the temporary help that has been given, to ensure that a situation that it ought to be able to put right, is put right.
Sir Peter Tapsell: First, may I say how exceedingly grateful everyone in Lincolnshire, including my constituents, is for the decision that my right hon. Friend has taken? We all feel, irrespective of party, that the Lincolnshire police are an extremely efficient organisation and, unlike Sheffield, there is no background history of profligacy or inefficiency. While I fully understand my right hon. Friend's argument about next year, will he also bear it in mind that, in the weeks ahead, we shall be explaining to him that the formula for deciding police authority grants is not appropriate to Lincolnshire for a variety of reasons?
Mr. Gummer: I certainly would be happy to discuss with my hon. Friend his views on the formula and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will be happy to do the same. One needs an objective scheme to share out money in central funds if the taxpayers' interests are, in fairness, to be protected, and my hon. Friend will understand that one problem with any formula is that those who benefit tend to be quiet but not very grateful and those who find it difficult want a different formula. I shall be happy to look into the matter. Of course, it is the first year of full operation and my hon. Friend may well have some points that we shall be able to take on board.

913
Norwich city council was the only one of 294 districts that did not set a budget at the level implied by the capping principles. It has known for some time that its spending relied on an unsustainable rundown of reserves. It has taken some steps to moderate spending, but nevertheless could have done more to adjust its budget and avoid the necessity of late change. The council chose not to do so. I considered carefully the council's representations, but concluded that the cap that we propose is reasonable and achievable, and should be confirmed.
If the order is approved by the House, we shall serve a statutory notice on all nine authorities, formally setting their cap. With the exception of Somerset and Lincolnshire police authority, the capped authorities will have 21 days to reduce budgets in line with their cap and to set new, lower council taxes.
I conclude by reminding the House of the long period of consultation that underlies our decisions on capping. Our intentions for the capping principles were published with the rest of the draft settlement in early December and again at the time of the local government finance debate in February. At each stage, we have listened to the arguments put to us. In February, the provisional capping principles were amended to relax caps for authorities that had been affected by major reductions in standard spending assessments in the 1993 review and to allow greater increases for metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities.
In April, when we confirmed the principles and designated authorities for capping, we accepted the particular problems of South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) for his thanks on that subject. We therefore set the cap at the budget that the authority proposed. We now propose relaxations for a further three authorities.
That record shows that we have taken the greatest care to implement what was certainly a tough settlement as fairly as was practicable, and that we are prepared to make adjustments when there are especially severe problems. As my right hon. and hon. Friends will no doubt have noticed, however, that means that it is important to make the distinctions, in their counties and districts, between those that have been put in a position that it is difficult for them to meet because of the nature of the system and those that wished to blame central Government for the consequences of their own actions as county councils. County councils that have failed to deliver what their electorate expected must take the responsibility. The hon. Member for Cheltenham, who is no longer in the Chamber, has been trying to press the Government to take the blame instead of the local authority that he sought to control and now does control. He ought to take his own responsibility.
Mr. Robert Ainsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the second time that I have raised a point of order with regard to this Secretary of State. Madam Speaker announced that it was necessary to impose a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench Members' speeches and there are guidelines for Front-Bench spokesmen, yet we seem to have a continuing problem with the right hon. Gentleman, who has been wasting the time of the House and thus preventing other hon. Members from speaking.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There may be guidelines, but as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, it is for the Secretary of State to deliver his own speech.
Mr. Gummer: I must point out that I have taken about 18 interventions and that my speech is extremely short. I had to answer those questions and I hope that the answers will save time for many hon. Members who need to speak. I understand that some people do not want to hear the facts of what happens when local councils are run by Labour and Liberal authorities.
Authorities whose caps have not been relaxed will be disappointed. I reiterate that we have not taken the decisions lightly, but have considered all aspects of the authorities' overall situation and listened carefully to the arguments put to us. We have changed the figures for a number of authorities—authorities whose policies we might not agree with, but which have been able to put a proper case that has been clearly acceptable within the rules. We concluded that the cases that they put to us provided a sufficient base for relaxing their caps, while others provided an insufficient base.
It is a tight settlement, but the great majority of authorities have been prepared to take tough decisions to set budgets within their caps. The caps that we have proposed in the order are reasonable, appropriate and achievable in all the circumstances of each authority. They will save council tax payers in the relevant areas about £24 million in 1995–96 alone. I commend the order to the House.
4.47 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: I must welcome three and a half aspects of the Secretary of State's speech. We welcome his acceptance—it was really forced on him by the Home Office, which supported the authority—that South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority would have been endangering people if it had stuck to the cap that the Department originally envisaged. We also welcome the decision to allow Lincolnshire police authority to spend what it thinks necessary to police Lincolnshire, and I suppose that we should welcome the result of the Somerset SOS—save our seats—campaign from the local Tories.
To some extent, we should welcome the relaxation of the cap for Barnsley, but the order will mean further budget reductions of about £2 million in Norwich, £2.25 million in Newcastle, £4.5 million in Sheffield, £4 million in Gloucestershire, £4.5 million in Devon and £6 million in Shropshire. That is what the Secretary of State, not the people of those areas, has decided. In a sense it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should take those decisions, because he took the decisions that set the spending levels in the first place. The principal influence on the amount of money that a council can spend and that it must raise through council tax is the amount of grant that it gets from the Government. That amount was never adequate when it was first announced in November last year; we said that it would not match the rate of inflation, or what was likely to be the teachers' pay settlement then, and it has not done so. Consequently, councils are in trouble. It was a political racket then and it remains a political racket. It is not the product of some objective or God-given formula; it has been put together by politicians with a political purpose, the main object being to make everyone else suffer so that their friends in Westminster will be okay.

915
The capping system cannot be fair because it is the ultimate expression of a totally unfair system. The basic building block of the grants system is the Government's official indicators of need. An examination of the indicators shows that the system is rotten to the core because the Government regard Westminster as the fourth most deprived place in Britain. Nobody in his or her right mind believes that, not even the people who run Westminster city council, but as a result of it Westminster gets massive grants.
Let us compare the amount of grant per head that Westminster receives with the amount received by the capped authorities. If Norwich were to receive the same grant per head as Westminster, it would not collect any council tax this year but would give every council tax payer in Norwich a rebate of £816. In Barnsley, the rebate would be £867 per head, in Sheffield £588 and in Newcastle £293.
The same calculations could not be made for the counties because the financing is done differently, but I shall give some examples from the districts affected by the county decision. In Gloucestershire, for example, if each citizen of the city of Gloucester received the same Government help as those in Westminster, Gloucester city council could make rebates of £921 per head and the Forest of Dean council could make rebates of £685. In Devon, Plymouth city council could pay out no less than £992 per head, and Exeter city council could pay out £789 per head. In Shropshire, the Wrekin council could pay £777 per head.
It is not as though Westminster city council were the epitome of efficiency and financial prudence.
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): If the hon. Gentleman were reorganising the standard spending assessment system to achieve the outcome that he would like for Westminster, what would be the implication for the cuts in rate support grant for Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Southwark and the other inner-city, Labour-controlled authorities?
Mr. Dobson: I had always assumed that the Minister was in his right mind, but if he seeks to compare Tower Hamlets and the other boroughs that he mentioned to Westminster, he has clearly taken leave of his senses—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State made an enormously long speech. If he will keep quiet, I shall get on with mine and hon. Members will be able to speak up for the communities that they represent.
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a connection between those authorities and Westminster city council because they are encompassed by exactly the same methods of calculation. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman were to seek to re-engineer the SSA system to achieve the deliberate outcome of cutting grants to Westminster, the necessary consequences would be reductions in grants to Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Southwark and the other inner-city London authorities, unless he were deliberately to rig the system.
Mr. Dobson: If the Minister wants to talk about deliberate rigging of the system, perhaps he should explain to Tory Members who voted for this settlement
916
that Westminster city council receives a special allowance, for which virtually no one else in the country qualifies—that is why it was invented—for visitors to Westminster.
Mr. Curry: Anybody is entitled to it.
Mr. Dobson: Yes, just as anyone can eat at the Ritz. Anyone is entitled to the grant, but the grant is especially useful to Westminster.
Many visitors arrive in Westminster in cars and pay parking charges. Westminster city council receives more than £20 million a year in parking charges, which is not offset against any aspect of its grant. It is a racket, it has always been a racket and it will remain a racket so long as the Government are in office.
It is a racket that protects over-spenders in Westminster. The capped authorities spend much less on refuse collection: Newcastle spends £25 per head, Norwich spends £11 per head and Sheffield spends £14 per head. However, the Tories' over-subsidised fat-cat Westminster city council pays out no less than £53 per head on refuse collection. On street cleaning, Newcastle spends £8 per head, Norwich spends £5 per head and Sheffield spends £5 per head. Those councils have been capped so that Westminster, profligate as it is, can spend £36 per head on street cleaning. It beats me why Tory Members from Shropshire, Gloucestershire, Devon, Norwich and Sheffield are willing to go along with that racket, which lines the pockets of a few people in Westminster and does no good for the people whom they purport to represent.
I shall compare the allowance made in the grant for education for the capped authorities with that made for Westminster. If Devon county council were to receive the same education allowance as Westminster, it could employ 2,566 extra teachers this year rather than think about getting rid of teachers. Gloucestershire could employ 1,618 extra teachers, Shropshire could employ 996 extra teachers, Sheffield could employ 892 extra teachers, Newcastle could employ 371 extra teachers and Barnsley could employ 451 extra teachers. I cannot understand why Tory Members voted for a settlement like that. It must be said, however, that that is the basic background to this decision. If something is rotten to the core, the final product—the capping—is also bound to be rotten.
Mr. Tracey: I have been interested to hear the hon. Gentleman constantly talk about Westminster. As he mentioned foreign visitors, will he say how many foreign visitors go to Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester or the outer London boroughs, one of which I represent? The House should also know the total external grant that a Labour Government would give.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman, who does not seem to rank among the star wranglers of the play, confirms my point. There is a grant for visitors because it suits Westminster and it is no use to virtually everyone else in the country. That is why the Government conceived it in the first place.
The decisions on the capping criteria do not make sense either. When the settlement was announced, the Secretary of State chided me, saying that I was new to the job, had misunderstood the figures and had not done my

917
homework. I had the audacity to predict that the average increase in council tax would be 6 per cent. as a result of the settlement.
Sir Irvine Patnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman accuses me, as a Sheffield Tory Member, but appears not to hear when I seek to intervene.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point of order is an abuse of the House. He is an experienced Member, not least in the Whips Office, and knows full well the procedures of the House. What he has to say is a matter for his own speech or an intervention if the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) gives way.
Mr. Dobson: As I was saying before I was so politely interrupted, the Secretary of State said that I misunderstood the figures and had not done my homework, but I predicted that the average council tax increase across the country would be 6 per cent. I freely confess that I was wrong; it was 5.2 per cent.
I plead in justification, however, that in Suffolk, Coastal, represented by the Secretary of State—I use the band D figure, because that is his favourite method—the increase was 6 per cent. It was 8.5 per cent. in Huntingdon, represented by the Prime Minister. It was 7.4 per cent. in the area represented by the Secretary of State for Education and, in the area represented by the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), it was actually 15 per cent.
If we then compare—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State made a long speech. Let me finish my argument. If we compare the increases in those places with the increases in the places that are to be capped, what do we find? We find that, if Barnsley had had its way, it would have been 12 per cent. In Devon, there would have been no increase, allowing for the police. In Gloucester, there would have been no increase, allowing for the police. In Shropshire, it would have been 12 per cent. and in Sheffield 13 per cent.
Staggeringly, if Newcastle city council had had its way, it would have reduced its council tax by 5.6 per cent., but it gets capped. It is a fiddle and a farce. If the Secretary of State wants to confirm that, he is welcome to do so.
Mr. Gummer: Did the hon. Gentleman notice that all those constituencies held by Conservatives can attribute the increase in the council tax to the Liberal-Labour county councils under which we labour? Will he explain why, when the Labour party was in power, Westminster did significantly better by comparison than it now does. If he is saying that there is something wrong with the present system, it is surprising that Westminster fares worse under the system that was introduced with the support of his hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
Mr. Dobson: I am not entirely sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was a Minister of the Crown in the most recent Labour Government. [Interruption.] Oh God, he was a special adviser, so it must be his fault. If we are talking about special advisers, this is the Secretary of State whose special adviser did a bunk on the night of the local elections. One can understand why.
918
Who does the Secretary of State believe that he represents? As I understand it, in Barnsley, Gloucestershire, Newcastle, Shropshire and Sheffield, all the parties on the council supported the budget and supported the representations asking to be allowed to go through the cap.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: The hon. Gentleman was talking about his forecasts of the increase in the council tax, and I genuinely want to know what the figure would have been for Norwich. Will he confirm that Norwich's citizens will receive a rebate as a result of the action that the Secretary of State is taking tonight?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will tell us what horrors would have befallen the people of Norwich if the Secretary of State had not intervened.
It is not confined to members of the council. Shropshire Tory Members of Parliament, as I understand it, have made representations to the Secretary of State, saying, "Look after the old folks; look after the children in Shropshire". In Devon, one or two Members of Parliament certainly did that. They are not here, but one or two of them certainly started making public representations and then, apparently, changed their minds. The circumstances had not changed; they had simply changed their minds.
There appears to be public opposition from Tories in Gloucestershire, but I have been told by people from Gloucestershire that they have been led to believe by some of their Conservative Members of Parliament that they are making private representations, so I do not really know where we are.
Those matters were material to the local elections in all those places. The Tories had every opportunity—the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes could have raised the subject time and again at his press conferences—to say whether the councils should go through the cap.
What happened? The Tories lost half their seats in Barnsley; they now have one out of 66. They lost half their seats in Sheffield; they have four out of 87. They lost more than half their seats in Newcastle, where they have two out of 78, and they lost half their seats in Norwich, where they have one out of 48.
The Tories also made the issue a topic of the district elections in the counties concerned. In Devon, they lost 64 seats, in Gloucestershire they lost 20 seats and in Shropshire they lost 35 seats. Local people will express some concern that in—
Mr. Nigel Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dobson: I shall in a moment.
The people of Devon will be uneasy that the hon. Members for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), for South Hams (Mr. Steen), for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) all voted for that rotten settlement.
People in Gloucestershire will be uneasy that the hon. Members for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown), for Gloucester (Mr. French), for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) and for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) also voted for that rotten settlement.

919
As we all know, the biggest impact of the settlement, with the exception of Norwich, is the threat to education and social services. It is having the same results throughout the country. Parents, governors and teachers are in revolt about the threat to their children's education. The Government have tried their desperate best to blame the authorities. They have failed in that effort, because people understand that it all depends on that rotten, rigged grant system.
I do not know whether the leaks came from the Education Secretary, who is trying to prove that she is friendly towards education, but shall we say that the newspapers gathered and then received a memorandum, which showed that the Education Secretary believed that the settlement was harmful to schools. She has been going round sweethearting teachers and other organisations, saying, "I am sticking up for you", but she has not done it sufficiently well to ensure that the caps are reduced.
The budget for Gloucestershire is the same as last year, and Gloucestershire is finding it necessary to abandon schemes to provide new centres for people with mental health problems in Newent in the Forest of Dean and in Gloucestershire. There are cuts because of massive cuts in the Government's community care grant. The council is getting fewer hours from 850 home care assistants who used to help people in desperate need in their homes so that they did not need any residential care. Some of those home care assistants have had their hours reduced by 50 per cent. because the county cannot afford to pay them. That, I gather, is being challenged in the courts.
Devon county council suffered the largest reduction in community care grant of any county in the country. It is being forced to contemplate redundancies in the education department, including teacher redundancies. Spending on pupils has, I understand, had to decrease by £270 per secondary pupil in the county, and the council is now confronted with a 10 per cent. increase in the pupil-teacher ratio. However much funny Tories may wish to argue, everyone knows that the lower the pupil-teacher ratio the better off children are. Counties have made substantial economies. Norwich city council has made economies of more than £8 million in one-off or recurrent reductions in expenditure and it has cut its staff by 15 per cent. in the past few years.
The Secretary of State usually rants on—he rants in a most seemly way, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker—about the Audit Commission report on the massive increase in white collar workers in local authorities. Sheffield has substantially cut the number of its white collar workers at a time when everyone else appears to be increasing theirs, but it has received no credit.
Shropshire has had to cut its spending by £26 million in the past four years. The cap will lead to cuts in schools, closure of old people's homes, cuts in home care, reductions in teacher jobs and reductions in books for children. The whole thing is wrong.
If the Government are trying to ensure that every local authority in the country can serve its local community in the way that it wishes and the way that it has been democratically elected to do, the settlement shows that the Government have got things wrong. If the figures are not the product of their getting things wrong, they are the
920
product of a malign approach to the future of many people, especially children and old people, throughout the country, and the country will not forgive them.
5.8 pm
Mr. John Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was challenged on account of the length of his speech. I regret that, because it is all too much of a rarity now to have a ministerial speech peppered with interventions, yet that is at the heart of the practice of Parliament and the exposition of difficult and arcane topics, and there are probably few topics more arcane than local authority expenditure. It was rather refreshing to hear my right hon. Friend approach the subject with all the fervour of the Cambridge Union. Although I found that approach uplifting, I intend to be a great deal more prosaic in my own comments—
Mr. John Garrett: And more brief.
Mr. Biffen: And certainly more brief. I shall concentrate upon the fortunes of Shropshire. The county sought a budget of just more than £245 million against the Department of the Environment's preferred budget of £239 million. It is the £6 million difference that has been at the heart of the discussions and the dissent. I pay tribute to the Minister of State for his courtesy and care in consulting Shropshire Members of Parliament—I see that the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) are in their places. Although that courtesy, alas, did not culminate in justice as far as I was concerned, nonetheless, in this sad world even courtesy has its advantages.
When we move from the statistics to the reality, we are talking about what the county can provide in terms of education, fire services and care for the elderly. I shall make only two points, but I believe that they go to the heart of the general debate rather than to the argument about the formula which sustains local government financing.
First, in examining the county's provision of education, fire services and care for the elderly, we must leave aside the detailed statistical analysis and ask whether they are the consequence of prodigal, feckless or irresponsible budgeting. One may argue about the priorities of that service provision, but I do not believe that it invites any of those judgments.
Shropshire asked to be permitted to make a modest fiscal judgment in order to take account of what it believed to be its responsibility to provide core services in the county. After all, it is not seeking the £6 million from Brussels or Westminster and Whitehall; it is being sought from a council tax that is paid by the Shropshire electorate. That is the heart of the dilemma.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) touched upon the question of whether the capping structure still has the legitimacy that it once possessed. We must ask whether it has become so pervasive that it has ceased to be a safeguard and has instead become a straightjacket.
That is the heart of our dilemma this afternoon. It is not about the knock-about political relationship between erring counties and Whitehall and Westminster; it is about whether the relationship between central and local

921
government has enough flexibility to avoid oppressive centralisation. I sometimes think that the Department of the Environment is inspired by Jacques Delors in its relationship with local authorities. There is no place in the Tory pantheon for that degree of centralist dominance and that desire for formula uniformity.
I do not know how this evening's debate will conclude, although I understand that the motion will be passed. As a consequence of the debate, I hope that hon. Members will reflect upon the fact that we cannot return to this situation year after year because it will worsen year after year. We must now begin to think of a more flexible and acceptable arrangement.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I called the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), I failed to remind the House that Madam Speaker has placed a ten-minute limit on the speeches of Back-Bench Members for the rest of the debate.
5.13 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) in the debate. I often agree with his individual arguments but that is probably the first time that I have agreed with everything that he has said. It prevents me from making several points that I would otherwise have mentioned.
Many hon. Members may be surprised that Shropshire should be so strongly opposed to this year's financial settlement. The efforts of Shropshire Members of Parliament and local councillors, who have repeatedly made all-party representations to Ministers in the past four years, has culminated in overwhelming opposition. Ministers always listen courteously to our views and—I hope that it will not be the same pattern this year—then reply that first, we should look at our budget to see if we can make any reductions or economies; and, secondly, say that we should look at our reserves.
Shropshire has certainly made real expenditure cuts in the past four years. I shall not mention them all, as I am trying to make my remarks as brief as those of the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North. There have been cuts in residential care for the elderly—including the closure of Castle Lodge in my constituency—which always cause upheaval and unhappiness.
There have been cuts in expenditure on schools. Hadley Manor school has closed. We have debates in this place where we swap figures and talk about real terms and base budgets, but the reality sinks in when one visits a building that last year was a thriving school but which is now boarded up. Part of the building has been turned into a centre for people with disabilities, and I am delighted about that. But the fact is that a school has been lost and we owe it to our constituents to try to prevent such closures.
Ministers always tell us to look at the county reserves. We have looked at them. In 1990 the reserves totalled £9.7 million and they have now decreased to £3 million—the Department of the Environment has said that that is about as low as they should go. We have made genuine attempts to deal with our problems in numerous meetings with Ministers over the years.
It is against that background that there was such an outcry this year. I have never experienced anything quite like the public response to the announcement of this
922
year's figures. Schools decided immediately that they simply could not impose the funding cuts and governors stated that they would not do so. There was unanimous opposition to the figures from the chairman of school governors, as well as all-party opposition on the county council.
Once again, we went to see the Minister. The council leader, Sue Davis; the leader of the Liberal Democrats, John Stevens; and the leader of the Conservatives, Brian Gillow, met the Minister to explain the seriousness of the situation and why they felt obliged to challenge the cap. Therefore, we were tremendously disappointed when we discovered that the Government had decided not to respond to our representations.
Small wonder that education has been hit particularly hard. Councillor Derek Woodvine, who is the chairman of the council education committee, also made representations to the Minister. Staff numbers in one primary school in my constituency will almost certainly decrease from seven to five, while class sizes will increase to 34 pupils. The working hours of nursery assistants employed on the home school link will be cut by two and a half hours a week, secretarial help will be cut by five hours a week and special needs will be cut by nine and a half hours a week. That is the situation at only one school. No wonder there was an enormous amount of opposition to the settlement. The depth of disappointment was not surprising.
I conclude with two thoughts. First, the cuts that will result from the decision will affect all council services. I cannot understand why the Government do not realise that the opposition from Shropshire reflects genuine community feeling. It is not orchestrated and it is not unique to Shropshire; it is a genuine reflection of what people feel and the Government ignore it at their peril. We hear rumours in the media that the Secretary of State for Education may realise it only too well.
Secondly, there really should be a better way of dealing with these matters. My first experience of local government was as chairman of the finance committee on a small district council more than 20 years ago. I look back on those days as a time of benign simplicity. Each year, we knew what the grant would be and we worked out the rate we had to set on the basis of the rateable value. We did not go to and from London with delegations to see Ministers. There was a Conservative Government at the time so it was not all happiness and light, but that was how things were done. They were times of great simplicity, when we did not always think that the people in Whitehall knew best.
Next year, as well as looking at the settlement for Shropshire again, I hope that the whole system of unnecessary bureaucracy, paperwork and delegations will be reviewed, and I hope that we return to the simplicity that worked for so long.
5.21 pm
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I do not underestimate the difficulty of hon. Members representing such counties as Shropshire and I understand what my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) meant when he said that he would like the settlement to be a framework rather than a straitjacket. However, I would like to say a few words in favour of

923
the rate-capping settlement, in the context of a tight local government settlement, but one that I believe will be manageable.
I spent 10 years in local government—possibly not as long as many right hon. and hon. Members—and I had some sympathy for the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) when he said that the way in which grant is allocated in local government has become increasingly complicated over the years. There seems to be an unnecessary shuffling back and forth from Whitehall. It is a matter of regret that some 80 per cent. of resources in local government is now provided centrally rather than locally.
Local government should be vibrant and responsive to its local communities and raise a greater proportion of its revenue from them. In principle, I am against capping where it is not absolutely necessary, as it avoids the sins of profligate local authorities. Sadly, until two years ago, my local Labour-controlled Wyre Forest district council was overspending by some £2 million, or 20 per cent. per year. The cap let the council off the hook in respect of the local population.
As the Irishman said, "If you want to get somewhere, you have to find out where you are starting from". We start from a system of local government in which 80 per cent. of funding is provided by the taxpayer; we have a budget deficit and no less than 25 per cent. of total Government spending—something in the region of £43.5 billion this year—is spent by local government. Although only 10 out of 448 local authorities were capped and four of those had adjustments made to their caps as a result of representations to the Secretary of State, we need to control central and local government spending. Capping is one way of dealing with the most profligate or potentially profligate local authorities and providing an effective deterrent to other local authorities that might otherwise be tempted to overspend.
We have to consider, however, not only the possibly justifiable complaints from right hon. and hon. Members that some local authorities have a worse deal than others, but, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, the deterrent provided by capping, and the standard spending assessment system in particular, meant that the increase in local government spending was only 5.2 per cent. Although that is higher than the rate of inflation, it is a better performance than local government has produced in recent years.
We also have to bear in mind long-term trends that will lead to significant additional proportions of gross national product—in addition to the 45 per cent. now being spent—going into Government spending because of the aging population and the tendency of local government to spend money on bureaucracy that does not directly benefit the population. The Audit Commission, in paying the piper, showed that between 1987 and 1983 the number of non-manual staff in local authorities rose by some 93,000 people—enough to fill Wembley stadium—at a cost of £10 billion.
Having heard the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I believe that the capping criteria have been sensitive to local needs generally, although people may disagree. The fact that he changed the formula for inner London boroughs and for police authorities is evidence of that. The fact that only six out of 448
924
authorities were capped and then were unable to achieve any adjustment after talks with Ministers, is evidence of a certain amount of flexibility and demonstrates that capping has not been oppressive for the majority of local authorities.
Before we fall out with the SSA system upon which the capping regime is based, we should bear in mind that the Audit Commission recently concluded that SSAs were
"A more sophisticated system for equalising needs than any overseas system … and an improvement over its predecessor in many respects."
In another recent study, Rita Hale of CIPFA and Tony Travers of the London School of Economics said:
"no overseas country appears to have a full grant system which goes so far in its attempt to achieve full equalisation."
I appreciate that the way in which the SSA is calculated for education and the police service is extremely complex and I do not agree with every instance of it. In the debate on the SSA, I argued on behalf of my own county that the area cost adjustment ought to be either reformed or abolished altogether and that SSA adjustments did not reflect the needs of relatively large towns with inner city problems that are situated in rural areas, such as Kidderminster, Worcester and possibly Bridgnorth and other towns in Shropshire.
As any system of allocated grant on a national basis on such a scale inevitably will have an element of sophistication and possibly even rough justice, and as independent reports suggest that it is about as fair as any in the world, it would be unfair and wrong to fall out about it and say that capping necessarily leads to injustice.
In my own county, we have a very tight settlement, particularly in education where teachers' pay has increased by 2.2 per cent. instead of 3.7 per cent. We know that it is a tight year, but we think that it is manageable. If, in the long term, the capping regime reduces local government expenditure and therefore the total demands that central Government make on the taxpayer to allow a lower tax base and a more vibrant economy, it is well worth supporting.
5.28 pm
Mr. David Rendel: Capping must go, and capping will go. It must do so because, until it has gone, local government cannot fulfil its real purpose—the accountable provision of genuinely local services that serve local needs and are determined by local people. Capping clearly undermines the accountability of all elected councillors. I recognise that the Conservative party may not worry too much about that as they are now the least important party in local government with fewer councillors than either the Liberal Democrats or the Labour party. The Conservatives face the prospect of falling even further behind the two major parties next year.
Surely, a lack of accountability in local government should still be of great concern to Conservative Members. A lot of nonsense is talked by some hon. Members about irresponsible overspending by local authorities. Those Members seem to see it as their life's mission to denigrate their own councils, but in practice there is far more irresponsible waste of resources by central Government nowadays than there is by local government. We have only to look at Whitehall's expenditure on management consultants, for instance, to see that.

925
The truth is that only one county council has set a budget significantly under its capping limit, and that is Essex, controlled jointly by Liberal Democrats and Labour. The solitary Conservative-run county council, Buckinghamshire, is spending right up to its capping limit and has increased its council tax this year by more than 8 per cent.—a long way above inflation. Three quarters of all the counties and the metropolitan and London boroughs are now spending up to their capping limits. Their spending and their revenue is determined not by local councillors but by central Government.
The whole system, therefore, needs a complete overhaul—an overhaul that devolves power to local communities and starts from the premise that local people are the best judges of their needs and of what they can afford to pay.
Today, we have to take a decision as to whether we can set the ball rolling. We have to ask ourselves whether seven particular authorities have set such outrageous budgets that local people require the protection of nanny, in the form of central Government. For that is the Secretary of State's view of the purpose of capping.
On 1 February this year, the Secretary of State proclaimed:
"the capping mechanism was introduced because, in some areas, people were unable to pay the high cost of administrations".—[Official Report, 1 February 1995; Vol. 253, c. 1109]
With that in mind, let us look at Devon and Gloucestershire. These authorities have set budgets which, when adjusted for the change in police authority finance, leave their council taxes at the same level in cash terms as last year. In real terms, the figures are well down. In view of the enormous burden placed on local authorities by the local government settlement, that is a formidable achievement.
So how can Devon and Gloucestershire be deemed by the Government to be acting extravagantly? Are the Government arguing that the level set last year was absurdly high—was, indeed, completely unaffordable? To argue that would mean an admission that last year the Government failed to cap those authorities at an affordable level. Since that would be the first time the Government have accepted that they made a mistake, it would seem highly unlikely that that is what they are arguing.
So are the Government arguing that what appeared at first to be affordable at the beginning of last year turned out unaffordable at the end of it? On the contrary, both counties have council tax collection rates that are much higher than average. Clearly the local people are able and willing to invest in their communities. So if this level of council tax was affordable, as it clearly was, last year, how can the same level of council tax be unaffordable this year? On the basis of the Secretary of State's own rationale for capping, there is no excuse for capping in these cases.
There is still some hope, however. Let us hear the views of Mavis, Lady Dunrossil, the Conservative spokesman in Gloucestershire who expressed her disappointment when responding to the announcement the other day that Gloucestershire's capping was to go ahead:
"I really thought Ministers had been persuaded by the justice of our case. There is still a chance of over-turning this decision if Gloucestershire's Conservative MPs will openly declare their support for us. The proposed County budget over-cap has the full
926
support of all Gloucestershire GM and LEA schools, and involved no increase for the local taxpayers. I appeal to all Conservative MPs to support our schools".
The councils that I am talking about are not profligate, loony councils. Gloucestershire, whose budget this year had the full support of the Conservatives as well as of the Liberal Democrats, has cut the central cost of its education department by 24 per cent. over the past four years. It has made savings of £1.5 million in central administrative departments and has cut the number of staff by 23 per cent.
In Devon, support costs are 36 per cent. lower than for the average county. Over the past three years, Devon's central support staff have been cut by 8 per cent. Senior managers' numbers have been cut by 15 per cent., and this year alone chief officers will have their numbers cut by 15 per cent.
Both Devon and Gloucestershire have already slashed their reserves to just 1 per cent. of their budgets. Indeed, Devon's level of reserves in March 1994 prompted external auditors to remark that the council should
"ensure that there is no further depletion of its non-earmarked balances. In the longer term, it should be looking to rebuild these to more prudent levels".
The level of reserves today is little more than one third the amount that drew this cautionary note.
Contrast this with Buckinghamshire's increase in council tax, at twice the rate of inflation, or Huntingdonshire's increase, at twice the average for English districts. That shows how absurd it is when Conservative Members talk about profligacy merely in Liberal Democrat or Labour-run authorities.
We must examine the real cost of imposing a cap on these authorities. There are likely to be about 3,000 redundancies in the seven authorities covered by the order. I realise that many Conservative Members equate redundancies with efficiency, but even in their terms, ignoring the human cost, is it really efficient for the nation to have to pay all that extra unemployment benefit instead of keeping these people doing useful and productive jobs?
I ask Conservative Members to consider also the enormous cost of re-billing in those authorities; in Devon, it could cost more than £500,000. What kind of folly is it to impose further cuts on already tight budgets, just to spend millions of pounds on unnecessary postage? That is what the Government are doing with their capping recommendations.
We should also think about the impact on our schools, on road safety and on the provision of a whole range of vital services. We should think of the parent of a young child who requires a statement of special needs but cannot get one because there are never enough educational psychologists. We should think of the pensioner who depends on home helps and meals on wheels but who can no longer afford those crucial services even where they are still offered. We should think of the student hoping to further his education but who cannot obtain a discretionary grant because the council cannot afford one. We should think of the child who last year studied in a class of 30 but will now have to study in a class of 38 other children—a genuine example that has come to my attention.

927
It is time the Conservatives realised that local government services are not just some sort of luxury. Perhaps if they had grasped that fact they might not have had such a complete humiliation in the local elections last month.
Nor can the Government any longer use the argument that capping is necessary for the sake of the national economy—as some Conservative Members argued today. It is now clear that, in some cases at least, the capping regime means that local authority budgets are set higher than they need to be. Many councils feel under considerable pressure to budget right up to cap, whether the expenditure is necessary or not in a particular year, because of a fear that they will otherwise lose out next time round.
Capping can cost local authorities in other ways as well. In Devon, the county has resolved to secure as much European funding as it can—rightly so. That requires matched funding from the county. If the Devon Conservatives get their way, in order to meet their capping restriction, half the cuts will come from their European matching funds budget, thereby costing the county many hundreds of thousands of pounds in European revenue. I want to make it quite clear to all who are thinking of going into the Government Lobby tonight that they will be voting for Britain to lose out on its fair share of European funds.
Now there are strong rumours that the Government may be preparing another U-turn on capping. If there is any truth in those rumours, how can it be right to cap the seven authorities today, with all the costs that that entails, only to abolish capping next month? That is simply ludicrous. If the Government are ready to acknowledge that the system is not working, they should do so now.
Capping must go, and I urge Conservative Members to show some courage and vote against the motion. The order makes no sense. It will cost millions of pounds to implement, it subverts the whole purpose of local government, and the House should have nothing to do with it.
5.39 pm
Sir Irvine Patnick: On 25 May last year, when the House debated council tax in Sheffield, I, as a Whip, was not able to take part officially. Despite that stricture, however, I was heard, and Hansard records my participation.
During that debate, my hon. Friend the Minister congratulated Sheffield on establishing a more secure financial base. The united pleas of Sheffield city council and others—including the Sheffield Members of Parliament—resulted in a £3 million increase in the amount originally proposed for the city. Each year, I have made representations to ensure that Sheffield is given its proper chunk of the nation's cake, crumbs and all.
I do not propose to make party-political points about why Sheffield is in its present position, or to apportion blame for its past mistakes. Many Sheffield residents, however, have taken to comparing the city with Manchester for the purposes of standard spending assessments. As the Minister knows, Manchester has more ethnic minorities, more one-parent families and more people on income support. All those factors determine standard spending assessments.
928
Manchester does not have the same physical characteristics as Sheffield, which makes any direct comparison impossible; but many people continue to measure Sheffield against Manchester. When I first entered local government some time ago, a rivalry existed between Sheffield and Leeds: indeed, it still exists. At that time, Sheffield compared itself with Leeds, but now that it obtains more from the Government than Leeds it has sought another city on which to base its arguments and has chosen Manchester.
The Government have responded in many positive ways, making a Minister responsible for Sheffield, approving the city's bid for a single regeneration budget and allowing credit approvals for part of the Sheffield inner ring road. Many other instances debunk the myth that the Government do not care about Sheffield. I am grateful to Ministers for meeting me on many occasions, and also for meeting an all-party delegation from Sheffield, of which I was a leading member. Ministers at the Department for Education have also listened to claims relating to Sheffield's circumstances.
However, my hon. Friend the Minister will not be surprised to learn that, on several counts, I am disappointed by the decision for Sheffield. I am sorry that its request for redetermination was not accepted. The expenditure limits contained in its SSA allowed for the cost of supertram, which greatly concerns not only Sheffield city council but Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and all the other south Yorkshire authorities.
It was always understood—at least by south Yorkshire authorities, and by me—that no financial burden would be placed on local taxpayers. Thanks to supertram, the city council's share of the passenger transport authority's levy has risen by £1.69 million: the 1995–96 figure represents an increase of 8.7 per cent. Just under £1.5 million of that relates to the city's share of the capital financing costs of supertram, which increased by 51 per cent. over the previous year. Furthermore, the effects of supertram road works have influenced the city's traffic count for SSA purposes. Against all predictions, there was a 9 per cent. reduction in traffic flow last year. Sheffield estimates a loss of just under £1 million in the city highway maintenance allowance for 1995–96; I trust that that will be rectified next year, if not this year.
Oddly, not much traffic was passing the census points selected. In fact, all the traffic had been diverted owing to the construction of the supertram route. That is nonsensical.
Difficulties were experienced during 1994–95 in achieving a renegotiation of the council's debt repayment profile with the banks. That was due to factors outside the council's control, resulting in a judgment in the Credit Suisse v. Allerdale district council case. The implications of the judgment have compounded the wary attitude of financial institutions towards complex financial dealings with local authorities. That originally resulted from the interest swap case involving the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
Sheffield city council is near to completing new arrangements with the bank and the Housing Corporation in respect of its housing partnership funding, and believes that that will facilitate further progress in other debt rescheduling. The delay, however, prevented the council from taking advantage of comprehensive rescheduling at

929
an earlier date, which it had hoped to do. The rescheduling had been estimated to involve over £20 million this year alone.
Sheffield acknowledges, and is grateful for, the assistance of the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration and the district auditor in answering points raised by the banks and giving reassurance about the propriety of Sheffield's existing and proposed arrangements. The council has also identified several elements of the SSA which were omitted from the 1993 SSA review, and brought them to the Minister's attention. Those elements, which disadvantage Sheffield, are the social index, the children's social service SSA, the area cost adjustment and the treatment of capital financing.
I urge the Minister to re-examine Sheffield's pleas for reconsideration. Its request is based on the Supertram effect on the SSA, the Allerdale case and points—some of which I have outlined—that were made when the Sheffield delegation met Ministers to discuss elements of the SSA that were not reformed in the 1993 review. Action on any or all off those matters will assist Sheffield greatly.
I hope to receive a positive response that will enable Sheffield to continue the reorganisation of its financial base in line with its plans for improved efficiency and better financial management. It has shown its ability to put its affairs on to a more even footing; it now requires further consideration and assistance from the Minister. I give notice that I intend to press hard for a revision of the SSA on Supertram, further help with the rescheduling of Sheffield's debt and changes in the SSA to favour Sheffield.
5.47 pm
Mr. John Garrett: The city of Norwich has been grievously treated by the capping order. The level proposed will lead to a substantial loss of services and the closure of some heavily used facilities. The city is well run, as can be attested by outside and objective studies of its management by the Audit Commission and other bodies.
Norwich has a particular problem, in that its resource base is much smaller than the population that it serves. It is a regional centre of East Anglia in regard to employment, industry, commerce, shopping, tourism, the arts and culture.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Garrett: I have barely started.
Mr. Jones: It is on the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made.
Mr. Garrett: How could the Minister disagree with it?
Mr. Jones: I do not disagree with it. If the hon. Gentleman is claiming that the aspects that he mentioned are important advantages for Norwich, however, how can he justify what the hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said about wanting to scrap the "day visitors" element of the SSA, which benefits Norwich for precisely the reasons that he has cited?
Mr. Garrett: The day visitors allowance does not benefit Norwich particularly. My hon. Friend was talking
930
about Westminster. There is a small difference between tourist visitors to Westminster and visitors to Norwich. I must say that I wish I had not given way to the Minister.
The ratio between Norwich's daytime population and its resident population is higher than in any other shire district. A city of 100,000 people serves a population of 500,000 in the county. It has high levels of social deprivation and population density, and a low-income community—the 64th lowest paid in the country, including London and the metropolitan boroughs. Recent reports suggest that 30,000 people live below the poverty line in Norwich, a higher proportion than in Birmingham or Sheffield. Norwich has recently received some really hard blows with some 2,500 jobs losses having been announced this year so far. If one allows for the multiplier, 5,000 jobs will be lost as a consequence. That means that the standard of living in the city will fall rapidly.
The capping limit will require revenue expenditure cuts of £5.5 million over the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97. This is almost one third of the net general fund revenue budget and will mean major reductions in direct services. Recurrent cuts of £5.5 million and a one-off cut of £3 million have already been made in recent years. The cuts have been made overwhelmingly from overheads and not direct services. In the same period, over 350 jobs have been lost, which is 15 per cent. of the council's employment.
By the end of 1995–96, general fund reserves will have been reduced to £1 million, which is the lowest prudent level. There are no other reserves for trading or other general fund activities. The level of further recurrent cuts to be made by 1996–97 has risen to £5.5 million. That means that over four years, cuts totalling £11 million will have been required if the current system of national financial control is to be complied with and the designated budget achieved. That scale of cuts represents over 40 per cent. of net general fund spending and 22 per cent. of gross general fund spending, excluding housing benefit payments.
The cuts will impact on virtually all services with reductions in quality and standards, the closure of facilities and the cessation of services. The scope for further cuts in overheads is limited, with the result that there will be major reductions of direct services. That will mean greatly reduced, almost non-existent, discretionary services. The council will find it extremely difficult to meet its mandatory obligations. The whole appearance, culture and life of the city will deteriorate.
It seems to me that that is an exceptionally vindictive action. It may have been taken because, for 60 years, Norwich has been controlled by a very competent Labour authority. The number of Tories on Norwich city council has been reduced to one; as she is the mayor, there is no Conservative voice whatsoever on the city council.
Two important and well-loved community centres will have to be closed. Today, a petition with 25,000 names was presented to the city council asking that those community centres be kept open. One receives 150,000 visits a year. The tourist information centre will have to be largely closed, yet we are trying to develop the tourist industry. The income from tourism is spread throughout the city, in shops, hotels and restaurants.
The fact is that capping is a rotten system that does not recognise the particular needs of the city of Norwich which, by the way, has 1,600 listed buildings to look after

931
and the largest collection of pre-reformation churches in western Europe. All that is the result of being the capital of a region. The Government's formula does not reflect the needs of, or the demands made on, the city council. It is with great regret that I have seen that the Government will not change their mind but retribution will come at the next general election.
5.53 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) used a phrase that struck a chord with me. He said that whatever view one takes about how we got here, we must try to ensure that we do not get into this position again.
I have long taken the view that a system whereby education funding is split, with one body responsible for providing the funds and the other for spending them, can never run satisfactorily. Parents will never know who is ultimately responsible for funding, whether for a major crisis such as the present one, or the standard running crisis that we have from year to year.
When parents are told that there is not enough money, they go to their county councillor, who blames the Government and perhaps the Member of Parliament. They go to their Member of Parliament, who blames the county councillor. At worst, both are probably not being wholly accurate and at best they honestly believe that the other is to blame. As long as funding is split, parents will not, ultimately, feel confident about the education system.
I have noticed with this matter more than with any other issue in the 12 or so years that I have been in the House how desperate and horrified parents have been by developments in Devon. One problem is that politicians use words to try to make a point, but in the end the words become devalued.
To talk about desperation and terror is justifiable, given the letters that I have received and what the people who come to my surgeries say. People going about their daily lives are not interested in the constant party political battle. All they want is their children's education to be funded properly. They have one opportunity and one alone to have that education funded at the proper time for their children.
People going about their own busy lives do not feel qualified to try to understand the minutiae of local government finance. They feel desperate and that, to some extent, politicians are misusing the statistics to try to hide things from them.
Perhaps I ought to declare an interest. Many Back Benchers spoke with such confidence and assurance about the figures that I have to wonder why I do not. I can only pray in aid the fact that I have been a local councillor and an Environment Minister. If I find it difficult to get on top of the figures, I can well understand that others find them difficult, too.
People in Devon may consider how the argument has been presented in Devon. The first thing that Devon county council did was to trumpet its case to the public on the basis that it had received less money this year than last. That is simply not true. When such a thing is said by people outside the House, I can describe it as what it is: a lie. I specifically do not comment on the fact that the same point was made by the hon. Member for Newbury
932
(Mr. Rendel). The fact is that Devon got more money for education, not less. It may not have been a great deal more, but even in Liberal Democrat-speak, an increase that is less than one would like does not amount to a decrease. Whatever figures one uses, that is a salient and cogent fact, but Devon county council has done everything in its power to ensure that the public do not understand it. This year, Devon county council got more for education, not less.
Devon county council next tried to say that it had been treated worse than the average. Depending on what measure is used, it has been treated at least as well as, and in some respects better than, the average. It has been caught on that as well.
Perhaps the most crucial and telling point of all that anyone, whether or not they pretend to understand the minutiae of local government finance, can understand is that in Devon, the Conservative county councillors proposed a budget that was feasible, involved no swingeing cuts in education and, in passing, would also have reduced the council tax. It was voted down by the Liberal Democrat administration.
I could understand it if the Liberals had taken the view that, although it is the party of permanent opposition, it was temporarily in control and perhaps ought to work responsibly to set its own priorities. It should have said, "We are sorry, but when push comes to shove, we prefer to cut education." That would at least have been honest.
Mr. Harvey rose—
Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman can repeat his untruths later. He can repeat outside the case that the Liberal councillors are making in county hall. The longer he holds me up in my speech, the less opportunity the public will have for him to repeat it.
The fact is that a budget was put forward—not an easy budget; there are no easy budgets to deal with this settlement. However, it was a budget that could have been set and would have meant in the end no cuts in education. Surely it would have been more honest if the Liberal Democrat administration had been prepared to argue the case on its merits instead of trying to mislead people about the facts.
This very day, in an intervention to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I put a series of figures that Devon county council came up with just hours ago. What do we find? We find that those apparently authoritative figures make a comparison between Devon and Somerset and exclude redundancy costs for Devon, but include them for Somerset. When the council still could not paint the picture that it wanted to paint, I understand that it got to the stage where it decided to recount adult heads of population rather than concentrate on the children. Perhaps we shall hear more about that in the winding-up speeches. Anyone who has been a west country politician for as long as I have knows that one cannot expect very much from the malignant nonentities who are the Liberal councillors. However, it is immensely sad to see experienced professional senior council officers prepared to traduce their integrity by producing such figures.
Mr. Gummer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures adduced by Devon city council when it put its case to my Department were not those that it gave to Members of Parliament today? In other words, faced with people who knew the facts, Devon produced figures different from

933
those with which it sought to mislead Members of Parliament, who might not perhaps have had the background that would have enabled them to criticise the figures.
Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Not only were different sets of figures produced but, in due course and if necessary, Devon county council will produce different figures again.
The settlement has not been easy, but Devon was treated better than some counties. I hope that, in the end, parents in Devon will come to understand that, as long as we have a system under which functions are split, it is not sufficient to make the easy judgment that it must be the Government of the day who are to blame. Rightly or wrongly, for the time being we have a system under which the discharge of education obligations is shared by local and national Government. To judge by the figures, there is no doubt that the Government have played their part. Even without being able to understand every jot and tittle of the figures, one has only to consider the dishonest way in which the matter was presented in Devon to realise the truth.
6.1 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: Having heard the lamentable and disgraceful speech by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), I begin by paying tribute to the 78 elected councillors in Newcastle, the 250 directly elected school governors in the city and the tens of thousands of people like them across the country who are prepared to take on responsibilities every day. I find it shocking that some, although not all, Conservative Members have snarled about such people or even called them, as the hon. Gentleman did, "malignant nonentities", or complain because such people have put them on the spot. In fact, such men and women are the bedrock of our democracy and have to make difficult decisions every day in the performance of the duties that they carry out on behalf of local people.
I said that I wanted to pay tribute to the 78 elected councillors in Newcastle, but I want to go a mite further and pay tribute to the former leader of the Conservative group on the city council, who lost his seat in the recent local elections thanks to his own party. He was my opponent at the previous general election, so if anyone has reason to use the type of language used by the hon. Member for Teignbridge, it might be me. However, he has behaved absolutely honourably over the issue of capping. He could not be described as a malignant nonentity; he is a man of honour and should be respected.
The situation in Newcastle is wholly perverse, and no one can understand it. The Government told the city council that its needs were such that it ought to spend £2 million more, but the capping criteria mean that, unfortunately, the council is not allowed to spend £1 million of that money. Who can understand and explain that?
The new Labour leader of the city council said that surely everyone in the city could work together to come up with a more sensible proposition. All parties on the city council, all the school governors and the local evening newspaper came up with a contract for Newcastle, which consisted of a proposal that the Government want to vote down this evening.
934
The proposition would have put money back into the city's expenditure specifically for education and social services and would have prevented the loss of some day care provision. It would have meant 250 to 300 people receiving the vocational training that they will not receive if, as seems likely, the order is agreed. The proposal would have put money back into the schools budget and saved more than 100 jobs, 75 of them for teachers, and provided flexibility.
The Labour leader of the city council said that he would not go to the Government simply to ask for extra money, but would set out how it would be spent. He would go to the Government only if he could say that he had the support of the people of the city and all the political parties on the city council. He worked at it and he achieved that support by working out a package of proposals that would have done all that I described and cut the council tax by £43.
It is hard to imagine that any sensible Government could possibly have turned down a package that would have allowed to be spent the money that the Government said should be spent, which would have avoided some nasty cuts and, at the same time, would have cut the council tax by £43. That is the proposal that the Government have turned down.
How can anyone of any political party explain such a decision to a primary school which has a 70 per cent. turnover of kids each year and which is faced with the loss of teachers? How can anyone explain it to a secondary school in my constituency which has just had a bad report but which is experiencing great difficulties and faces the loss of 17 teachers? How can anyone explain the Government's decision to vote down a package of proposals which would have cut the council tax, increased various aspects of the city's spending and saved jobs and which had the support of all political parties locally and the school governors?
This year, 10 or 12 councils came back to the Government for a revision of their cap. That does not mean that there were not 100 councils that wanted to do the same, but only 10 or 12 had seen the necessary anxiety expressed in their communities, which meant that they were prepared to have a go, although they knew that they would not be listened to. That is why only 10 or 12 councils went back to the Government. All but two or three of them have been turned down.
This is a bad day, not only for the city of Newcastle but for democracy as a whole. It is not only capping that has to go, but the Government, who are prepared to enforce it in this way.
6.7 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I begin by endorsing the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), who thanked my hon. Friend the Minister for his unfailing courtesy on the many occasions when Shropshire Members of Parliament have met him to make strong representations on behalf of Shropshire and the particular difficulties experienced by the county. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I preface my remarks by striking a slightly discordant note.
In speaking against the imposition of a cap on local government expenditure in Shropshire, I remind the House that last November I declined to support a motion to send extra money to the European Union because what

935
is spent abroad cannot be spent at home. There was not then, nor is there now, a popular mandate for Euro-spending—quite the reverse—and there was no political kudos to be gained from increased spending in that direction. The popular demand, and the political price to be paid for failing to recognise it, is all here, at home, and home, as far as I am concerned, is Shropshire. Salopians, many of whom are observing these proceedings this evening, live in the same world as other citizens. We are subject to the same laws and, incidentally, the obligations that those laws impose on local authorities. We have to pay schoolteachers on the same salary scales as other local authorities and we have to pay the same taxes.
In Shropshire, incomes are below average. Economies of scale do not apply, because our county is large and sparsely populated. Those factors are not adequately reflected in the standard spending assessment formula. Our argument is with the way in which taxpayers' money has been distributed since the basis was changed in April 1990 from the former grant-related expenditure assessment to the current SSA, in such a way that, for example, Hampshire has been able to amass huge reserves—£92 million as at 1 April last year compared with Shropshire's £7 million. I do not for one minute accept that that is simply a result of good or bad housekeeping.
Adjoining Powys, for example, can levy a council tax of less than £400 on a band D, against a comparable figure of more than £600 in Shropshire. The education SSA for a primary school child in Shropshire is £1,862, and for a secondary school child it is £2,482, against corresponding figures in the London borough of Southwark of £2,947 and £4,097. The leader of that authority, incidentally, is on record as saying that it is well satisfied with this year's revenue support grant settlement.
This argument, as the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) pointed out, has raged for four years. Every year, since 1990, Shropshire's position has become progressively worse, in spite of endless meetings with Ministers—including one with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself—mountains of correspondence and an enormous expenditure of time and effort. But all to no avail. I very much regret having been put in the position where, in the final analysis, all that I can now do to express the frustration and justifiable anger of my councillors and constituents is to vote against the order tonight.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will recognise that the fundamental problems intrinsic in the SSA formula have been accentuated by the imposition of capping, a feature of Treasury control that many of us had believed would never be applied other than to the most profligate of local authorities. The effects of capping are plain for all to see, but I shall rehearse some of them again in the hope that Ministers will now conclude that the time has come to end this erosion of local democracy and accountability.
Voters can vote for socialist councillors—of course, I regard both Labour and Liberal Democrats as being socialist—with impunity, knowing that the consequences of their actions will not result in dramatically increased council tax bills. Conservative councillors, on the other hand, have become demoralised, demotivated, and
936
ultimately, as evidenced in recent elections, defeated. They can also, as can be seen in Shropshire, be driven into a coalition with Labour and Labour Democrats in opposition to a Tory Government.
There is only one practical way forward: capping has to be abandoned. Education and social services have to become a charge against the national taxpayer, and all other local authority expenditure has to be exclusively at the expense of the council tax payer.
I look forward to the day when my Government accept, first, the principle of subsidiarity; and, secondly, the importance of vesting responsibility, and the authority to discharge that responsibility, in the same hands—ideally, the hands of unitary authorities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Some 30 minutes remain for Back-Benchers' speeches. Four hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. With a little co-operation, they all might do so.
6.14 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: It is disappointing that the Secretary of State for the Environment did not agree the re-determination of Barnsley council's budget in full. The £2 million relaxation of the cap will be only temporary relief. Barnsley has a good case for considerably more Government assistance, and I shall set it out in few moments.
Barnsley was capped at £150.625 million. In the face of the service implications of that capping, the council set a budget of £153.719 million. The budget was based on what it considered necessary to provide the local community with the essential services that it required. The cap adjustment, therefore, is £1.1 million short of what the council considered it needed to provide basic services.
My disappointment follows the Government's failure, it seems, to accept that Barnsley metropolitan borough council has special circumstances that set it apart, and to recognise that its problems will require more spending, not less, if they are to be tackled positively. Barnsley has intractable social, economic and environmental problems, which are directly related to the Government's speedy rundown—I emphasise that it was the Government's speedy rundown—of the coal industry, and the legacy that that has left behind. The statistics that I shall quote show clearly the problems that Barnsley metropolitan borough council has to face.
Since 1985, we have lost 21,000 mining jobs. The average wage in the mining industry is roughly £20,000 per annum. At today's prices, in wages alone, Barnsley has lost about £420 million from its local economy. That does not take into consideration the knock-on effect of that, or, indeed, the rates that have been lost from British Coal properties and from associated engineering properties that have since closed.
One third of households in Barnsley have at least one person suffering from a disabling disease. Between 1981 and 1991, there was a 19 per cent. decrease in employment in the Barnsley metropolitan borough council area. Since 1979, there has been a 230 per cent. increase in crime. In 1979, Barnsley was 25 per cent. below the

937
average rate of crime; in 1994, it was 13 per cent. above it. I believe that that points clearly to the relationship between unemployment and crime.
The country has benefited for more than 100 years from the wealth that coal miners in Barnsley and district have released from the ground. The Government now have a duty to put something back. There is an urgent need to repair the damage that has been caused to the community by the demise of the coal mining industry and the associated engineering industry, and to rebuild the local economy. That will increase social and economic opportunities among the local population. Unfortunately, Barnsley's spending needs have never been addressed in a proper way within a proper framework. Consequently, the needs of the community have not been assessed in a properly measured way. We suffered from a low standard spending assessment and the formula has not been sophisticated or sensitive enough to pick up Barnsley's spending needs. As a result, in the period 1990–95 services were cut by £35 million in Barnsley metropolitan district area. This year there is likely to be a further cut in services of about £10 million. That will result in the loss of 270 local authority jobs. I was told today that between 20 and 30 teachers may also lose their jobs.
The problems have been compounded by the rigidity of the capping regime. The Minister will know that although Barnsley received an SSA increase in the 1994 review, it was capped at 0.5 per cent. above the SSA level. Therefore the ceiling was very low. If the revised formula of 1994 had been introduced in 1990–91, Barnsley would have had a £156 million budget this year compared with the capped budget set originally by the Secretary of State at £150.4 million.
I spoke about Barnsley's special problems. Poverty is one such problem that the local authority has to confront. I shall give three statistics to show the House the horrendous problems that the authority has to face. In the past four years there has been a 71 per cent. increase in the number of children receiving clothing grants, and a 71 per cent. increase in the number of children on free school meals. One in three households in the Barnsley metropolitan area receives council tax rebates, and one third of those who are unemployed have been unemployed for more than a year.
Under the funding system Barnsley has been hit extremely hard. That is particularly true of social services and education, and the latter service clearly illustrates the point. In the period 1990–94, the number of teachers was reduced by 3 per cent., and Barnsley has one of the highest pupil-teacher ratios in the country. Discretionary awards have all but ceased; the school music service has been deleted; the school swimming programme has been stopped; and community education has all but disappeared. There is currently a £12 million backlog of school building repairs.
Barnsley has to bear the cost of supertram and the impact of that project is another local circumstance that is causing a great deal of concern. The South Yorkshire passenger transport authority levy on Barnsley metropolitan council to fund the supertram in 1995–96 displaces £1.326 million worth of the district council's services within the capping limit. The share of that for Barnsley taxpayers is £525,000. I understand that south Yorkshire authorities were given a ministerial assurance that the supertram project would not have an impact on
938
local taxation. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he intends to provide the assistance that he promised by way of revenue support grant.
Barnsley has had a raw deal over the past few years. Its proposed budget was unanimously agreed—I emphasise "unanimously agreed"—by all the political parties and by representatives of all sections of the community. The council has always steered a prudent line that has been acclaimed by the independent auditors. It works hard with its local partners. However, the Government need to recognise the circumstances that are peculiar to Barnsley and should meet their duty to the community by providing the funding that is necessary to stimulate the regeneration of the district.
6.24 pm
Mr. James Pawsey: I wish to make three swift points, the first of which relates to area cost adjustment. As it is currently drawn, that adjustment leads to serious anomalies, especially when one authority gets the benefit of the ACA and an adjacent one does not. That point is strengthened when we remember that in much of local government national pay rates apply. A teacher in Oxfordshire is paid precisely the same as one in Warwickshire, yet Oxfordshire gets area cost adjustment and Warwickshire does not. The area cost adjustment should be abolished.
Secondly, the standard spending assessment is unduly complex and certainly not understood. It leads to difficulties, for example, in the fire service and education, and it undoubtedly needs major simplification. I shall confine myself to capping. We should abolish the cap. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I was a local councillor for 21 years and for all that time there was no capping. It is a recent invention that has been in place for some 11 years and the time has come for it to be scrapped. We should restore a real measure of local democracy. Its abolition would substantially enhance and increase accountability and would improve the quality of councillors. But above all, it would allow local authorities to spend much more closely in accordance with perceived local needs. That is democracy in action. If local people wish to spend more on education, on teachers, they should be able to do that.
Mr. Tracey: Does my hon. Friend accept that the cries of "Hear, hear" from Opposition Members when he spoke about lifting the cap are rather cynical? In my area the Liberal-controlled council said, "Lift the cap", and blamed everything on central Government. But when there is a rumour that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might be about to lift the cap, it says that he wants to do so to stigmatise the local council.
Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his powerful intervention. I want the cap to be abolished, and if it is the buck will stop with the local authority. There will be no point in Opposition Members moaning and grousing about what the Government do or do not do because the buck will stop firmly with local authorities.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in the debate and I thank Opposition Members for giving me a little of their time. There is concern that irresponsible local authorities may go on spending sprees. That concern could be allayed by letting

939
them elect one third of councillors each year because there is nothing like an election to sharpen a councillor's mind. That is the answer to irresponsible local authorities.
6.27 pm
Mr. David Jamieson: I did not think that I would totally agree with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). He could have made his speech just as easily from the Opposition Benches. Perhaps he has something in mind that he has not told us about.
The debate is unusual because the vote will have a direct and profound effect on our constituents. There is a direct link between the vote and the fortunes of our constituents and schoolchildren, and it will also affect the vulnerable and the elderly who are in local authority care. The debate is being carefully watched by people throughout the country and especially by those within the areas of authorities that are being capped. I am sure that those people will use that experience in deciding how to vote in future.
The debate raises fundamental issues about the accountability of councils. I agree with the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth who, sadly, is now leaving the Chamber, that one can vote councillors in but also vote them out. If people like the high services and want to spend more money, let them carry on voting those councils in. If they do not like that, let them vote them out.
I shall contain my brief comments to matters that concern Devon and Somerset, two counties that have so much in common but that have been treated so unevenly by the Government. What is at issue is simple: do we accept Devon's figure, which is £4.4 million above what the Government say it should spend on its local services? Despite the attempts by Conservative Members—I am sad to see that no Conservative Members representing Devon are in the Chamber—to obscure so many of the issues, they are simple.
Taking our education budget for 1995–96 and including the teachers' pay award, inflation and increased pupil numbers, Devon would require another £9 million for a budget that, in real terms, would stay still; it is as simple as that. In 1994–95, Devon spent above its standard spending assessment; now it is told to spend at its SSA. We note in particular that the Secretary of State for Education said that this year's settlement was tough. The leaked memorandum, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred, and which came out earlier this year, admitted that there would be profound cuts to children's education if capping went ahead.
After meticulous scrutiny of its budget, Devon county council found total cuts of £28 million and set the budget at £596.5 million. All it wants to do is put £4.4 million of that back into its budget. It wants to put back some of the £9 million that it needs to stand still in education terms.
This year, £3.8 million is needed just for the extra pupil numbers and £5.2 million is needed for the teachers' pay rise. As has been pointed out, this year Devon lost £8.6 million of its community grant from the Government for statutory services which is it is obliged by them to provide. As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel)
940
said, Devon has just under 1 per cent. of its spending in reserves and in December 1994 it was told by the auditor that that position should be remedied.
Devon is an efficient authority. Those are not my words; they are the words of the auditors for several years running. Where will the cuts fall? Some Conservative Members have said that we can find some savings in administration. Only 3 per cent. of Devon's education budget is being used for administration. In Somerset, the figure is nearly twice that. Devon is one of the lowest spending authorities in the country in terms of administration—it lies 97th out of 109 local authorities. This year's budget will reduce further the 3 per cent. of money spent on administration in the schools budget. Cuts must therefore inevitably fall on schools. That will mean larger classes and a reduction in the number of teachers. We already know that 150 teachers will be made redundant and a further 200 may have to go.
In addition, making teachers redundant sucks more money out of the education budget just to pay redundancy money. Teachers are not standing in front of classes teaching children so that they can be idle. It is a sort of educational set-aside.
The cuts know no friends. I have had communication with a local grant-maintained school—the only one in my constituency. It too is suffering a cut in its budget of £64,000 this year. I have received, as I am sure many other hon. Members have, hundreds of letters, many of them from schools, governors, parents and the pupils and students themselves. One letter that I read, which was addressed to another hon. Member, was sent by the Cathedral school of St. Mary in Plymouth. The head teacher, Mrs. Susan Walsh, says that her small primary school is losing £17,000 this year. She is having to cut a catalogue of things. Her own deputy head teacher, who is aged just 51, is being forced into voluntary retirement early this year. The head is having to teach a full timetable so that she can keep class numbers below 39. She ends her letter by saying:
"Surely a caring listening government will put the welfare of schools as their first priority".
I agree with that and any Government who cared would do just that.
Why is Devon being capped and why is Somerset being allowed to go above the cap? Many similarities exist between the counties but there are also many differences. The case put by Devon was the most convincing and deserving that could have been put. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that, if Devon had been treated in the same way as Westminster council in relation to the SSA, it would be employing another 2,566 teachers this year, not sacking them.
Why has there been a difference? The reason is not in the factual evidence before us, so it must be a straightforward plain political decision. There is an essential difference and I know what it is. The reason for the difference is that Somerset Members, in presenting their arguments, lobbied and campaigned in a sensible, cross-party manner to get the cap raised.
I congratulate the Conservative Members from Somerset on working on a cross-party basis for the benefit of local people. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on his tireless campaign and I hope that he will join us in the Lobby tonight so that he can replicate the success in Somerset in Devon. The expenditure cap did not fit in either Devon or

941
Somerset. The difference is that the Somerset Tories were not prepared to wear it and in Devon the Tory Members saw the cap and put it on.
What about cross-party co-operation in Devon? The offer was there—the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is back with us. Tory councillors had the offer of joining the process of setting the budget, but they came into the budget meeting at the very last minute with what I can describe only as a back-of-an-envelope calculation, saying that the council could cut £1 million here, £1 million there and £2 million elsewhere.
Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. He has spoken already and we have just a few minutes. He said that money should be cut from highways, from social services and from the matching European money. If the money had been cut from the 5a and 5h funds, we would have lost a further £1 million from European funding. A cross-party delegation had a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Tyler) was there, so were Liberal Democrat and Labour councillors, but no Tory councillors or Tory Members were present.
Mr. Nicholls rose—
Mr. Jamieson: Had the hon. Member for Teignbridge been there, he would have heard powerful arguments put by Geoff Rees of the Devon Association of Secondary Heads and Eric Howard of the Devon Association of Primary Teachers as to why the cap needed to be raised this year.
Mr. Nicholls: rose—
Mr. Jamieson: What has been the response of the Tory Members and the hon. Member for Teignbridge, who is trying to intervene? It has been a catalogue of confusion, contradiction and misinformation, surpassed only by the Secretary of State for the Environment this evening.
In a debate earlier this year and earlier today, the hon. Member for Teignbridge said that Devon had taken on another 718 staff this year. He omitted to say, however, that most of that staff were taken on by schools because they had extra numbers to fill. Many of them were taken on to meet the statutory obligations that Devon has for care in the community. That is where the extra people came from.
Tonight the matter is in the hands of Tory Members. Their vote could overthrow the cuts. A vote in the Lobby tonight could affect every budget in every school in the constituencies. Tory Members in Devon have been speaking in their own region in one way—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman has had his time.
6.30 pm
Mr. Clive Betts: Last year in this Chamber, Sheffield was the only authority on which an order was placed and the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Generation was at least partially helpful in raising the cap by £3 million. This year the city has had a lower cap set in real terms than last
942
year and the Government have given us no leeway. When I challenged the Secretary of State for the Environment earlier, all he could say was that that was due to problems of financing, which were Sheffield's own problem and which were caused by the high cost of borrowing in the past. He knows, however, that for the building of our facilities in Sheffield, which are used by hundreds of thousands of people annually, we had a good financial deal in place and that was undermined by the Allerdale judgment—a court case that was in no way related to the local authority.
Last year, we explained that position to Ministers and they accepted that the authority needed time until the court case was resolved to refinance those facilities. They therefore lifted the capping limit. I went to a meeting with the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration along with colleagues from Sheffield city council a few weeks ago. The city treasurer explained to the Minister that as a result of the court case, he could not guarantee that the money from refinancing would be available for the authority to spend this year.
For the Secretary of State to say that the city would have £20 million extra this year, so it did not need to have its capping limit raised, was simply not correct. It is not what the city treasurer advised Ministers. It is not the case. For the Secretary of State to base a judgment on that fallacious information was extremely unfortunate. I hope that the Minister will correct it in his reply to the debate.
Sheffield is a low-spending authority. We have a standard spending assessment which is lower than the metropolitan average. We have expenditure of £747 per head. That is lower than the expenditure in cities of a similar size. We have a record of extremely good management in local government. That is the judgment of other people in local government, which I prefer to accept rather than that of Ministers.
In the early 1990s, in a poll of people in local government Sheffield came out as one of the best managed authorities. We have always had good reports from the district auditor. We invented and used cash limits before the Government had thought about them. We entered into partnership schemes with the private sector when Ministers were advising the private sector not to enter into them. We have always concentrated our expenditure on front-line services. That is why this year the council has done its best to protect education and social services. That protection will not be possible to sustain if the capping limit is not raised.
In the report "Paying the Piper" published by the Audit Commission, Sheffield came out second of all local authorities for the reductions that it had made in bureaucracy, administration and overheads, not merely in the past couple of years but since the mid-1980s. Indeed, since 1987 the city has cut 7,500 jobs. Some of those savings were beneficial in the sense that they brought about reductions in the costs of refuse collection. Yet we still have an excellent service. The cuts could be supported. I was not proud to be involved in other savings because they reduced local services to local people, contrary to the wishes of local electors expressed in local elections.
Sheffield has particular problems. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick) rightly referred to the cost of the supertram, which will also affect Barnsley, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has explained. The funding of

943
the supertram is absolute nonsense. The supertram is funded by central Government. The more that the Government spend, the less the council can spend on education and the lower the council tax is. That is crazy. I have to explain to people that their council tax goes down because of the funding of the tram that they can see running down the streets. That is a stupidity which even Ministers would find hard to explain to the electorate of Sheffield. I have certainly tried and failed. People look at me in blank amazement when I attempt to explain.
Let us take Sheffield's SSA for highways. When the streets were being dug up for the supertram, the Government left the monitors which count traffic flow in the same position. Of course, the monitors could not count any traffic because there was not any. That has cost the city council £800,000 in grant this year. That is a stupidity and Ministers know it. I have written to them three times and they have refused to do anything about it. They should be ashamed of a system which enables that to happen.
It is equally stupid that we are here today in the Chamber arguing about traffic counting and the detail of the financing of the supertram in Sheffield. It is nonsense that in a debate of less than three hours hon. Members will second-guess the views of hundreds of elected local councils throughout the country and the thousands of electors who went out to vote for them and substitute their views for local people's views.
I agree with the comments that were made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) at the beginning of the debate. The capping orders are a nonsense. They fundamentally undermine the democratic systems of Britain; they undermine local democracy; they bring into question the validity of local elections; they discourage people of quality and ability from standing for local government and remaining in it. That is something we try to avoid.
We are not debating capping only of the authorities in the capping orders. Everyone knows that the majority of other councils have set their budget within 1 per cent. of the capping limit that they have been given. It is effectively blanket capping of every local authority that we are debating.
Conservative Members said that the Audit Commission had examined the SSA system and given it a clean bill of health. That was not correct. The Audit Commission expressed many doubts about the SSA system. It said firmly that the system was for distributing grant between authorities, not for restricting expenditure and imposing caps. The Audit Commission has been clear in its opposition to the use of the SSA system in that way.
Nor are we talking about central Government expenditure tonight. The cap does not reduce central Government expenditure. All that it does is prevent the people of Sheffield, Barnsley, Newcastle, Norwich, Shropshire, Devon and all the other authorities from saying that they want to spend a little more of their council tax on local services, which are of benefit to them. For those reasons, I feel resentful this evening that Members of Parliament who do not live in my city and do not represent it will vote to impose the order and impose cuts on my constituents and the people of my city, who will have to suffer those cuts even though they did
944
not vote for them and do not want them. That is undemocratic. It is time that we got rid of this unjust and unfair system once and for all.
6.45 pm
Mr. Eric Illsley: This has been a pitifully short debate, given the importance of the order to local government and in particular to those who will lose their job as a result of the vote. The debate has served to highlight yet again the Government's absolute control over local authority spending and their denial of local accountability and democracy. That denial of local accountability was brought into sharp focus on 5 May when the Conservative party was overwhelmingly rejected in the local elections. Yet the Government still come here today with a capping order which is against the wishes of both the electorate and a majority of the Members of Parliament who have spoken this evening.
The Government have no effective mandate for local government. Their policies have been rejected by an electorate who are sick and tired of cut after cut in local services and who are incensed at the cuts which are being imposed on education and social services, with the consequent sackings of teachers, increases in class sizes and closures of day centres and social services facilities. The Secretary of State has no support anywhere for his capping proposals, which are discredited, undemocratic and unacceptable.
The capping powers have been debated on several occasions. As I have been allowed only seven minutes to reply to the debate, I do not intend to rehearse the arguments today. I maintain that the capping powers are discredited and ridiculed. They create unaccountability time and time again. The Government have refused to allow democratically elected councils to put their budgets to the electorate. It is time that the Government lived up to the press speculation and announced the abolition of capping, which has been flagged up. As we know from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), the aim of that might be to allow local authorities to increase their spending so that Conservative Members can say, "We told you so." The Government know that the reverse is the case. Most of the authorities that we are debating this evening are responsible, prudent authorities which have set responsible budgets.
Capping has increased the centralised control of local government finance. Now, 80 per cent. of local government funding is controlled by central Government. We have universal capping. We are debating only seven authorities this evening because most of the other authorities spent to the level of their cap. Most authorities now regard the capping level as the level to which they should spend.
The capping proposals are unfair. They are based on SSAs. I have spoken many times in the House on SSAs. They are a distortion of the needs of any local authority. The indicators are approximate. They are based on out-of-date information. They are discredited. They simply do not reflect need.
Last year, Barnsley was given a 7 per cent. increase in SSA, but then held at a spending level by capping. Even today, its capping level is only 0.5 per cent. above its SSA. The same problem applies to Newcastle. Its SSA gave it an extra £19 million of spending last year. It can spend only about £11 million of that. That is ridiculous.

945
The financial settlement this year has been extremely harsh. Local authorities were capped at 0.5 per cent. above their 1994–95 base budget. We can compare that to previous years. Hon. Members have referred to capping proposals of 12.5 per cent. above the SSA. There is a significant difference now in that SSAs and the capping regime are being used simply to cut services from local government.
Hon. Members from all parties have raised issues in relation to their own local authorities. I would like to emphasise one or two of the points that have been made and to make particular reference to the problems of the Supertram system, which affects Barnsley, my local authority, and Sheffield. Supertram displaces £1.3 million worth of Barnsley council services for a tram system which operates 20 miles away. How can that be fair? Barnsley has used up all its balances so it has reassessed its insurance cover and taken £700,000 from its insurance premiums to fund this year's settlement. The problems are not going to go away. Supertram will be there next year, as will the £10 million funding charges. Problems will recur and next year Barnsley will not be able to use balances or re-determine its insurance.
Hon. Members who represent Gloucestershire have referred to problems experienced by their council. We have heard, however, that the council tax could have been set at the same level as last year if the Gloucestershire budget had been approved. We have heard that Gloucestershire will be subject to a judicial review as a consequence of the cuts that it has had to make in funding for community care. Again, Gloucestershire, like Barnsley and Sheffield, has been required to make millions of pounds worth of cuts in previous years. For this year, Gloucestershire has had to made budget reductions of £22 million, yet the demand for community care has increased by 40 per cent.—all at a time when the authority is being referred to the courts.
In Newcastle, education and social services will be affected. Yet, under the budget which was proposed by the Newcastle authority, the council tax could have been reduced by £43. There will be cuts in the number of teachers employed by Newcastle. The library service will be affected and there will be cuts in the youth service and the money available for special educational needs.
Why has Devon been capped as opposed to Somerset—because Somerset had a better case than Devon in the Minister's office? Is that a consequence of all-party support? Should Conservative Members who represent Devon have accompanied Labour Members who represent Devon to have achieved a relaxation of their capping criteria? Is that why Somerset was preferred to Devon? The implications for Devon were well set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). He referred to problems in education, teachers' jobs and increased class sizes. He pointed out that administration costs in Devon were quite low. Devon has been treated unfairly.
The points made about Shropshire by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) were relevant. It has had £6 million cut from its budget. Sheffield has problems because of the funding of Supertram and faces an absolutely ludicrous traffic situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) made the point that a large day-time population causes particular problems for that authority.
946
I have made quite a rushed speech, but the main point, which, if anything, the Government should take on board, is that capping must be abolished.
6.53 pm
The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): Obviously, in such a short time, I cannot answer the detailed points raised in the debate, but I wish to answer some of the fundamental questions that have been asked. I shall start with the point that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) has just made, which was also raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), by my hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and by many other hon. Members: capping.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North said that it was at the heart of the debate, and he was right. We must be careful that we do not have that debate in too simplistic terms. There is sometimes a danger that the solution is seen as being a simple option. There is quite clearly an issue of the relationship between central and local government and the requirement of local decision-making; what one might call subsidiarity in its broader sense. My right hon. Friend mentioned Mr. Delors. If I may go a little further back, he would have been a Girondin rather than a Jacobin and I have no particular desire to play the Robespierre.
There is also a second question—
Mr. Dobson: He was decapitated. He was guillotined. [Laughter.]
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman forgets what he did before all that happened. That is what counts in politics, is it not? There is a second issue which we must address [HON. MEMBERS: "He was capped."] No, that was de-capping, I believe. We must address a second issue seriously.
Any Government will always want to have in mind the economic consequences of expenditure which constitutes 25 per cent. of all public expenditure. It is quite legitimate to say, "Well, that does not matter. We can leave that entirely to local determination." If people want to say that, at least it is honest and reasonable, but I wonder whether Governments of any hue would not wish to have some mechanism by which, when economic circumstances required a particular form of management, they were able to bring that expenditure within their view. The argument must take place and we must be sure, when we have that argument, that we are confident that we want local decisions to take place.
Let me talk about a slightly perverse point. Opposition Members said that perhaps we could make local democracy function more effectively by introducing elections by thirds. Local government already has the ability to seek elections by thirds. The choice is with it. Do we, as part of a campaign to hand more responsibility to local government, impose on local government a particular mechanism of elections? There is a certain conundrum at the heart of that, which must be addressed. There is no point in doing something which is illiberal and, dirigiste, in the interests of a system that we regard as moving towards something which is more liberal.

947
I have addressed that issue because it is at the heart of the debate. There is another issue at the heart of the debate—
Mr. Rendel indicated dissent.
Mr. Curry: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. It is at the heart of the debate.
If local authorities say, "The present situation is unacceptable because we are capped and cannot raise our money locally," they must be confident that if the circumstances change and they can raise what they need locally—we can argue about the way in which local consent could be obtained for that—they do not immediately start using the Government as an alibi and say, "Of course, all this is happening not because it is what we positively want but because we have not been getting enough grant." There is no point in pretending. Those issues will arise, and there should be a mature and reflective debate on the whole subject.
Of course the area cost adjustment is a difficult issue, but it is not good enough simply to say, "Abolish it." There are differentials in the total cost of employing people, which have to be addressed across the spectrum of local government. The simple abolition of the adjustment would lead to utterly unmanageable changes in grant allocation throughout the system, not least in many of the local authorities run by the Opposition parties.
I believe that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is being shortsighted and foolish in his constant derogatory commentary about the methods of distribution of Government grant. Whether he likes it or not, the method that delivers grant to Westminster is identical with that which delivers grant to many other local authorities, including Tower Hamlets and Hackney, which get more per capita than Westminster.
If the hon. Gentleman seeks to re-engineer that system specifically to do Westminster down, he will find himself in treacherous waters, defending to his leaders the consequences of the changes for some inner-city authorities. If he wants to take the charges for on-street parking away from Westminster, will he take from Bristol, Coventry and Plymouth the substantial revenues from their investments in city-centre property? There may be an argument for doing that, but he must be consistent and explain how he would do it. That, too, is at the heart of the debate.
Shropshire's standard spending assessment is £573 per head, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow that 20 counties have lower SSAs, including Hampshire, Surrey, Oxfordshire, East Sussex and West Sussex, all of which receive the area cost adjustment. So there is a complexity in the system, and one must be careful not to make too rapid a judgment on it.
I recall that we had the same passage of arms with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) last year, and I must tell him that the figure of £20 million that we specified for refinancing is in the budget because Sheffield told us that it was sufficiently likely for the arrangement to be incorporated in its budget. We had to operate on the budget that Sheffield put before us.
The settlement is tough; we do not deny that. I hope that, in this rapid winding-up, I have acknowledged that it raises fundamental issues. The debate on it must take
948
place, but I appeal to the House to recognise that the settlement cannot be debated in simplistic terms, and that wider issues connected with the management of the economy, as well as with local democracy, are involved. If we address those, we shall do a service to our electors.
It being Seven o'clock, the Deputy Speker put the Question, pursuant to Order [9 June].
The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 242.

Division No. 164]

[7.00 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Day, Stephen

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Alexander, Richard

Devlin, Tim

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Allason, Rupert (Torby)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arness, David

Dover, Den

Arbuthnot, James

Duncan, Alan

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Dunn, Bob

Ashby, David

Durant, Sir Anthony

Atkins, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Elletson, Harold

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Baldry, Tony

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Bates, Michael

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Batiste, Spencer

Evennett, David

Bellingham, Henry

Faber, David

Bendall, Vivian

Fabricant, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Booth, Hartley

Fishburn, Dudley

Boswell, Tim

Forman, Nigel

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Forth, Eric

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bowis, John

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Brandreth, Gyles

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bright, Sir Graham

French, Douglas

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gallie, Phil

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Gardiner, Sir George

Browning, Mrs Angela

Garnier, Edward

Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

Gillan, Cheryl

Budgen, Nicholas

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Burns, Simon

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Burt, Alistair

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Butcher, John

Gorst, Sir John

Butterfill, John

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Carrington, Matthew

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Carttiss, Michael

Hague, William

Cash, William

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Churchill, Mr

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Clappison, James

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Harris, David

Coe, Sebastian

Haselhurst, Alan

Colvinn, Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Congdon, David

Hawksley, Warren

Conway, Derek

Hayes, Jerry

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Heald, Oliver

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hendry, Charles

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cran, James

Hicks, Robert

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

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Horam, John

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

949

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

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

Richards, Rod

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Riddick, Graham

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Robathan, Andrew

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Hunter, Andrew

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jenkin, Bernard

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jessel, Toby

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sackville, Tom

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Shepherd, Richard (Albridge)

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

Sims, Roger

Knox, Sir David

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Soames, Nicholas

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Legg, Barry

Spink, Dr Robert

Leigh, Edward

Spring, Richard

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Sproat, lain

Lidington, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lightbown, David

Steen, Anthony

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Stephen, Michael

Lord, Michael

Stem, Michael

Luff, Peter

Streeter, Gary

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Sumberg, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Sweeney, Walter

MacKay, Andrew

Sykes, John

Maclean, David

Tapsell, Sir Peter

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Madel, Sir David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Maitland, Lady Olga

Thomason, Roy

Malone, Gerald

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mans, Keith

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Marland, Paul

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Marlow, Tony

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Tracey, Richard

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Tredinnick, David

Mates, Michael

Trend, Michael

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Merchant, Piers

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Walden, George

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Moate, Sir Roger

Waller, Gary

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Ward, John

Neubert, Sir Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Waterson, Nigel

Nicholls, Patrick

Watts, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wells, Bowen

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Whitney, Ray

Norris, Steve

Widdecombe, Ann

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wilkinson, John

Ottaway, Richard

Willetts, David

Page, Richard

Wilshire, David

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Patten, Rt Hon John

Wolfson, Mark

Pawsey, James

Wood, Timothy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Yeo, Tim

Pickles, Eric

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Powell, William (Corby)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Rathbone, Tim

Mr. Sydney Chapman and

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

950

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Ainger, Nick

Foster, Don (Bath)

Allen, Graham

Foulkes, George

Alton, David

Fraser, John

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Fyfe, Maria

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Galloway, George

Armstrong, Hilary

Gapes, Mike

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Garrett, John

Ashton Joe

George, Bruce

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Gerrard, Neil

Barnes, Harry

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Battle, John

Gill, Christopher

Bayley, Hugh

Godsiff, Roger

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Bell, Stuart

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bennett, Andrew F

Grocott, Bruce

Benton, Joe

Gunnell, John

Bermingham, Gerald

Hain, Peter

Berry, Roger

Hall, Mike

Betts, Clive

Hanson, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hardy, Peter

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Harman, Ms Harriet

Blunkett David

Harvey, Nick

Bradley, Keith

Henderson, Doug

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Heppell, John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

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

Hinchliffe, David

Burden,Richard

Hodge, Margaret

Caborn, Richard

Hoey, Kate

Callaghan, Jim

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hood, Jimmy

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Campbell-Savours, D N

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Cann, Jamie

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Chidgey, David

Hoyle, Doug

Church, Judith

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hutton, John

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Illsley, Eric

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ingram, Adam

Coffey, Ann

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cohen, Harry

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jamieson, David

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Janner, Greville

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Corston, Jean

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cox, Tom

Jowell, Tessa

Cummings, John

Keen, Alan

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

Darling, Alistair

Khabra, Piara S

Davidson, Ian

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davies, Bryan (Oldtham C'tral)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Lewis, Terry

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

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

Litherland, Robert

Denham, John

Livingstone, Ken

Dewar, Donald

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dixon, Don

Llwyd, Elfyn

Dobson, Frank

Loyden, Eddie

Donohoe, Brian H

Lynne, Ms Liz

Dowd, Jim

McAllion, John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

McAvoy, Thomas

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McCartney, Ian

Eagle, Ms Angela

Macdonald, Calum

Eastham, Ken

McKelvey, William

Etherington, Bill

McLeish, Henry

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Maclennan, Robert

Fatehett, Derek

McMaster, Gordon

Faulds, Andrew

McNamara, Kevin

951

MacShane, Denis

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Madden, Max

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Maddock, Diana

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Mahon, Alice

Primarolo, Dawn

Mandelson, Peter

Purchase, Ken

Marek,Dr John

Quin, Ms Joyce

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Radice, Giles

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Randall, Stuart

Martlew, Eric

Raynsford, Nick

Maxton, John

Rendel, David

Meacher, Michael

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Meale, Alan

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Michael, Alun

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Rogers, Allan

Milburn, Alan

Rooker, Jeff

Miller, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Ruddock, Joan

Morgan, Rhodri

Sedgemore, Brian

Morley, Elliot

Sheerman, Barry

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Short, Clare

Mowlam, Marjorie

Simpson, Alan

Mudie, George

Skinner, Dennis

Mullin, Chris

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Soley, Clive

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Spellar, John

O'Hara, Edward

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Olner, Bill

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Neill, Martin

Stevenson, George

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Stott, Roger

Patchett, Terry

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Pearson, Ian

Straw, Jack

Pendry, Tom

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pickthall, Colin

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pike, Peter L

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pope, Greg

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Timms, Stephen

952

Tipping, Paddy

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

Turner, Dennis

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Tyler, Paul

Wilson, Brian

Vaz, Keith

Winnick, David

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Wray, Jimmy

Walley, Joan

Wright Dr Tony

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wareing, Robert N

Watson, Mike

Tellers for the Noes:

Wicks, Malcolm

Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

Wigley, Dafydd

Mr. Stephen Byers.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

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

  ECONOMIC POLICIES (EUROPEAN COMMUNITY)
  That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 6th June 1995, relating to the Commission's Recommendation for the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community; and agrees with the Government that the emphasis on permanently low inflation and sound public finances, combined with structural measures to tackle the problem of unemployment, is to be welcomed.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.

Caribbean
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
7.14 pm
Sir Thomas Arnold: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise British policy towards the Caribbean. I shall focus on three issues this evening: first, the continuing problem of Cuba, not least in the light of legislation that is going through the United States Congress; secondly, Britain's constitutional relationship with the five dependent territories; and, thirdly, the difficulties that are clearly apparent with the export of bananas.
Before I deal with each of those issues in detail, I wish to propose an over-arching theme to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. The Caribbean covers a wide area. With the exception of Cuba, the population of most of the countries is small. Those countries are fragile and often find themselves in difficulty. They clearly need a lot of help and guidance. There is an overriding need for stability in the region. Many of the issues are complex and that complexity often leads to complications of some kind, as my hon. Friend knows only too well. Stability in the modern world does not mean a quiet life, even in the Caribbean, and the image that most people have of the Caribbean is far removed from the reality with which local residents must deal on a day-to-day basis. Stability therefore means a lot of hard work for those engaged in framing, executing and implementing policy. I urge my hon. Friend to promote a policy aimed at stability because I have doubts about the present policy, particularly with regard to the dependent territories, with which I shall deal later in my speech.
I draw the House's attention once again to Cuba, particularly the legislation that is going through the American Congress, which I regard as a retrograde step. That legislation is, I understand, making steady progress, although we cannot be sure exactly what form it will take by the time it emerges, or what the attitude of the United States Administration will be in the event of the legislation passing through Congress.
Before I go further, I wish to draw the House's attention to the declaration that I made in the Register of Members' Interests and make it clear that my host in Havana was a leading British business man, Mr. Michael Ashcroft, who is a keen supporter of the Cuban reform programme and who is engaged in business in Cuba.
On the subject of British business men in Cuba, I was extremely pleased to learn that British-American Tobacco and its chairman, Sir Patrick Sheehy, are now heavily engaged in investment in the Cuban economy. On a matter of more long-standing activity in Cuba, I should like to say how grateful I am personally for all the help and advice that I have been given by Mr. Nicholas Freeman, who has supported his Cuban business through good and difficult times, and who is arguably this country's foremost importer of Cuban cigars.
It is vital that the United States, in particular, should show a greater understanding of some of the issues involved in Cuba. I am a keen supporter of the reform process, and support just as keenly doing everything possible to improve human rights in Cuba. However, I doubt whether those two goals will be furthered in any
954
meaningful way by the legislation currently before the US Congress; on the contrary, that legislation is likely to make life much more difficult. For one thing, it appears to have little flexibility. It has no end date. Obviously, the provisions regarding expropriation and compensation can be regarded as a retrograde step because they open the basis of expropriation and compensation to much wider actions than have been envisaged historically.
I was very pleased that the European Commission, in the figure of Sir Leon Brittan, made strenuous representations to the United States Government at an early stage. On several occasions, Sir Leon drew attention to the difficulties that the legislation was likely to cause European Community countries. He said that he believed that the new legislation, if enacted and implemented, might lead to legal chaos by extending US jurisdiction to possible, and as yet unregistered, property claims by US citizens who have held Cuban citizenship at the moment of compensation.
Sir Leon said:
"I think that these collective provisions will interfere with European Union companies and individuals doing business in Cuba, to such an extent that a negative spill-over into the overall transatlantic relationship appears unavoidable. I also think that the approach taken in this legislation would not help a peaceful and orderly transition towards democracy in Cuba."
I agree with him about that.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to a statement issued by Mr. David Jessop, executive director of the Caribbean Council for Europe, in the US recently, in which he said:
"Attempts to prohibit the entry into the US of sugars, syrups and molasses from third countries unless it is certified that such products will not be imported from Cuba"
are to be deprecated. He said:
"The European Union and individual member states have already indicated that such measures violate international law, would be challenged under WTO rules and would lead to retaliation. In this and other contexts the bill runs counter to the US approach to free trade."
I strongly agree with Mr. Jessop about that. I hope that, even at this late stage, the United States Congress and then the United States Administration will reconsider before going ahead with that further tightening of the United States' embargo.
Cuba, with a population of 10 million, is such an important entity in Caribbean terms that instability in respect of Cuba only helps to promote a feeling of uncertainty and instability throughout the region. All of us, including the United States, should work towards a solution to the problem of Cuba. We know that it is a difficult one in terms of the United States. We know that it engenders very high, passionate feelings, not least in Florida and in Miami. However, far from intensifying difficulties, surely the sensible approach is to try to persuade the Cuban Government to speed up the process of reform, to do more in respect of human rights and gradually to bring about an improvement so that there can be greater confidence and then, using those confidence-building measures, to promote an understanding between the United States and Cuba, which could lead to the dismantling of the present legislation and the lifting of the embargo.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to say, in this short debate, what the Government are doing to further the representations that were made earlier

955
by the European Commission and, I believe, by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, especially in Washington this year.
Let me move on to discuss the position of the dependent territories. I am not an expert in the matters to which I shall refer, but I have followed developments in the dependent territories and I feel a certain unease. All is not well. I feel that so strongly that I urge my hon. Friend to consider carefully—and perhaps not give me an answer tonight—whether the time has come to set up a further inquiry to consider the relationship of our Government with the dependent territories, including the constitutional position and our attitude to the possibility of further political reform.
I have taken a long interest, in the House, in the position of dependent territories. Indeed, I instituted an Adjournment debate about the Falkland Islands and other dependent territories as long ago as 1982. Given the problems of the Caribbean, the five territories for which we are responsible require more understanding than they are receiving at present. One of the complaints is that the secretariat in Barbados has distanced the dependent territories even further from London. On this reading, the secretariat is too bureaucratic, cautious and slow. I do not know how much weight to give to that criticism, but I suspect that there is some truth in it. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on that point this evening and perhaps reflect on it further in due course.
The Government's policy is to promote self-sufficiency, but that clearly carries with it some considerable costs for the local governments, chief ministers and others as well as for our Government. The administration costs of the dependent territories are not negligible. In answer to a recent parliamentary question, I was told that those costs were about £20 million per year. We must consider that cost carefully in terms of value for money and whether our relationships are exactly as we would wish.
There is a feeling that the governors should consult the chief ministers about reserve powers more often than they appear to do. The chief ministers are not saying that those reserve powers should not exist, or that they should not be used if circumstances warrant it; however, they would like to have more say in how some of those powers are exercised. If we are to be creative and forward-looking and try to establish sensible arrangements that will take us into the next century in respect of the territories, we should establish an inquiry to examine the situation.
I shall not say what form I think that inquiry should take; the Government can decide perfectly well whether it should be a royal commission or something less grand. Perhaps a more informal inquiry would be appropriate. After all, what is sensible in one dependent territory may not necessarily be sensible in another.
What is interesting about the dependent territories in the Caribbean is that there is no great demand for independence. Therefore, we have to find ways and means, short of independence, of meeting the legitimate aspirations of the islands to govern themselves while at the same time remaining under the protection of the Crown and all that that affords.
I mentioned earlier the need for stability while recognising the problems of the islands. I think that those problems can be summed up in one word—jobs. The
956
islands need jobs, jobs and more jobs. Although some of the larger investors, such as Cable and Wireless, should be welcomed and are important and significant, the overall employment picture remains difficult. Unless that problem is addressed, there will be no stability in the Caribbean.
The Caribbean continues to face real problems with illegal drugs. That should concern us greatly. I was certainly appalled to hear—I accept that it is only a rumour—that voices in the Treasury are suggesting that we should move the dependent territories towards independence on public expenditure grounds. I think that that would be a very unwise step, given what we know and what the Governments of the dependent territories, including the chief ministers, know about the difficulties that they face with regard to the importation of illegal drugs and the flow of those drugs through the territories.
Banking in the dependent territories is something of a hotch-potch. Different arrangements are in place in different territories, although that is not a bad thing in itself. The whole business needs greater clarity. Time is passing, and although I understand the Government's desire to ensure that things are done properly and that there are no grounds for believing that money laundering, for example, is taking place, more work needs to be done as soon as possible.
The time has come for us to make up our minds about the dependent territories and their form of government. What should their future status be? What relationship should they have with Whitehall? It is fair to say that Ministers have been repeating a certain mantra for some time, and fresh thinking is required because the problems to which I have referred will not go away. There is some uneasiness and a feeling that a new relationship needs to be developed.
That brings me to the difficult issue of the regime for bananas. I have had correspondence and briefing papers from the Caribbean Banana Exporters Association about the "banana crisis", saying:
"This is a time of great anxiety for the Caribbean—and particularly for those states whose economies are largely dependent on their banana exports to Europe. Their traditional market in the European Union—essentially in the United Kingdom—is under serious threat from political campaigns both in the USA and within the European Union. For some, notably the Windward Islands, this could mean the loss of almost 60 per cent. of all their export income."
The association explains that Germany and some other member states, which hitherto had an unrestricted market, were opposed to the present system from the start and continues:
"More recently, at the behest of Chiquita, the world's leading banana trader, the USA launched proceedings against the European Union, threatening trade sanctions unless changes were made which would increase Chiquita's market share. This increase would in practice be at the expense of the Caribbean.
Last week the new European Commissioner for Agriculture, Dr. Fischler, on a visit to the USA, made the astonishing public statement that he personally did not like the EU banana regime and would be seeking a mandate from the Agriculture Council in July to negotiate changes to it with the USA. He mentioned in particular the need to review the quota and other mechanisms which currently protect Caribbean and other African Caribbean and Pacific imports."
The issue is extremely serious and I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear this evening that the Government strongly support Caribbean interests in this matter. There is still a potential blocking minority under the European

957
Union voting system, so we can stand firm by the present arrangements. In essence, I hope that the Government will give every signal that they intend to stand firm, in particular to avoid damaging arbitrary increases in the quota or changes to the preferential licensing arrangements.
I referred to the fragility of some of the Caribbean economies and the problems in respect of bananas illustrate that only too well. There are those who say that the situation is potentially dangerous and that the current United States threat will promote instability, further uncertainty and difficulties all round.
I recognise that some issues go way beyond the present position and touch on the whole nature of the European Community post-Lomé IV and the thinking on and relationship with the Caribbean region. Current thinking appears to favour specific regional agreements in which the Caribbean and central America will be treated in much the same way through advanced co-operation agreements. There are some difficulties with that approach. Above all, it is essential that whatever is decided should take account of the different sizes of the Caribbean economies.
France and Germany have already begun to consider post-Lomé IV relations with the Caribbean. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could say what work is in hand with regard to Britain's interests in the matter and what line he is taking in Brussels. After all, future policy for the Caribbean will be decided, I suspect, as much in Brussels as it will be here and in other EC capitals. That is the nature of the relationship into which we have entered with our EU colleagues. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend will outline the manner in which he proposes to negotiate in the Community on these problems. The difficulties of the banana-producing countries are real and urgent, and solutions are necessary.
To conclude, let me go back to the beginning and say that a policy that produces stability, however paradoxical it may sound, will be an active policy. Implementation will require a good deal of thought and care, not least because of the complexity of the issues.
I recognise that the difficulties surrounding Cuba are formidable, but if we do not face up to them, and if Britain does not have a clear, coherent policy, that will only magnify some of the other problems in the region. We have already seen what the Cuban refugee problem can mean in the case of the dependent territory of the Cayman Islands. My hon. Friend may be able to say a word about developments in that regard. I understand that the situation is now much better; I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation of that.
Above all, I should like to make it clear that I would like to see the Caribbean in an optimistic, settled frame of mind, with some of the problems to which I have referred this evening being attenuated by a mixture of wise policy and constructive, good government. The region needs help. for the reasons I have given. I know that the House and the Government want to do everything possible to bring that about.
7.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) for initiating this debate. The Caribbean is a diverse and exciting region, and we take it
958
very seriously. After all, we have long-standing friendships with all the Caribbean, and a quarter of the members of the Commonwealth are to be found there.
The Caribbean is a significant market, too. Taking trade and investment as a whole, the Caribbean is a large market for the United Kingdom, accounting for £1 billion of visible exports last year. Non-oil exports have risen from £400 million a few years ago to £700 million last year, and we have an estimated £2.7 billion-worth of investment in the region.
In addition to our trade links, we maintain close links in other ways with all the countries of the region—the human links represented by Caribbean communities in this country, for instance. There are continuing close associations in many areas such as law and education, and we give and receive close support to and from our Commonwealth colleagues in the Caribbean.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), chairman of the all-party Caribbean group, who is also present, could testify to the fact that the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean support us. I hope that we support them as well.
I shall say a little more about bananas later, but I think that Commonwealth colleagues would recognise that we have been in the forefront of seeking, in the EU, to represent their best interests when it comes to commodities such as rum; and we have been staunch defenders of the EU banana regime, not least because we see it as a way of helping to represent not just our interests but those of our friends in the Caribbean.
I am glad to say that our Commonwealth colleagues there give us support, too. We received close support from them recently in the United Nations. Two recent examples are the extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the CARICOM contribution to the solution of the Haiti crisis.
Traditionally, we have strong links with many countries in the Caribbean. Although they have mainly been with the Anglophone parts of the Caribbean, we are understandably paying increasing attention to the Hispanic-speaking countries.
Ms Diane Abbott: The Minister must be aware of the feeling in the Caribbean nations that, as Britain has become more involved with new friends in the European Union, it has become less concerned about the weakening of links with old friends in the Caribbean. I hope that he will accept that people of Caribbean origin in this country are very worried about Her Majesty's Government's policy on the Caribbean, and want the Government to use their influence in the United States to ensure that its Cuban policy is driven less by domestic electoral concerns and more by concern about the stability of the region.
Mr. Baldry: I think that the hon. Lady is mistaken. We have a close and continuing relationship with the Caribbean, and I do not believe that a single Caribbean country feels that Britain's attention to the region has lessened. Indeed, I think that most Caribbean Commonwealth colleagues recognise that Britain is unique in being a member of both the Commonwealth and the European Union. On many occasions—the recent negotiations on rum provide a straightforward example—that has enabled us to articulate the best interests of Caribbean Commonwealth colleagues in the European Union.

959
I shall deal with Cuba shortly. I do not think that hon. Members are likely to fall out on that subject, but I also do not think that any suggestion that Britain has other than a close and continuing friendship with the whole Caribbean region can be sustained. As my hon. Friend said, we still have some continuing and specific responsibilities for our five dependent territories in the region: Anguilla, the British Virgin islands, the Cayman islands, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos islands.
My hon. Friend raised three specific issues. The first was Cuba. The situation in Cuba is changing—for the better, we hope. A number of useful visits have been made by, for instance, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Technology. That was a welcome first visit. We hope that economic reform in Cuba will continue; we also hope that political relations will progress in tandem with our improving trade and investment links. While we have made some headway, we still have our differences, human rights and fundamental freedoms being areas of particular concern; but, despite those difficulties, we are making progress, and I hope that that encouraging trend will continue.
Because we do not believe in the desirability of isolating Cuba, we cannot share the views that lie behind the Helms-Burton legislation recently introduced in the United States Congress. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who asked about Cuba, has disappeared; if she were here, I hope that she would be reassured to learn that we are strongly opposed to the extra-territorial provisions of that legislation, and have supported the efforts of Sir Leon Brittan to bring home to the American Government the damage that the legislation could cause to world trade. The response of the US Administration clearly reflects the representations that we and our other partners have made.
As I said earlier, although our traditional links have been with the Anglophone part of the Caribbean, we are very conscious of the increasing importance of the Hispanic-speaking countries. For that reason, we not only pay more attention to Cuba, but—I am glad to say—have decided to reopen our embassy in the Dominican Republic.
I pay tribute to the sterling efforts of our honorary consul in Santo Domingo, Maureen Tejada, who has maintained our links with the country and facilitated the efforts of United Kingdom business men there, as well as looking after the increasing number of British tourists. We all owe her a great debt, and I am delighted that we shall soon send an ambassador to the Dominican Republic again.
I also pay tribute to Dr. Ian Court, our other honorary consul of note in the region—in San Juan, Puerto Rico—who has contributed significantly to the upsurge in our commercial relations with Puerto Rico.
I would also like to mention the work done by Margaret Guercy, our vice-consul in Port au Prince, who is currently in the United Kingdom on a well-deserved visit after the difficult times which Haiti went through last summer. We have recently sponsored an important visit to London by a leading figure in the new political scene in Haiti. We hope that the elections that are due to take place there will soon help to improve stability, because, as my hon. Friend said, what we all wish to see in the Caribbean region as a whole is stability.
960
The Caribbean dependent territories are all specific and all different. Taking them from west to east, the Cayman Islands has long since been weaned off direct aid and now has a higher GDP per head than Hong Kong or Singapore. However, the Turks and Caicos Islands are still dependent on British aid, although they have recently made considerable strides through the development of tourism and offshore finance.
As I will make clear in a moment, it is important that offshore finance should be properly regulated, or the results may prove counter-productive, as happened in the past. The situation in the Turks and Caicos is now much healthier than it was in the late 1980s, when, as some hon. Members may remember, there were a number of unfortunate difficulties.
Offshore finance and tourism have also been the making of the British Virgin Islands, which is now broadly self-sufficient and no longer reliant on significant United Kingdom aid. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Government of the British Virgin Islands, and in particular to the late Chief Minister, Lavity Stoutt, who sadly died recently and who did so much to encourage the development of his territory.
Anguilla has a population of only 9,000 and although it has also been successful, small islands such as these have special problems in providing essential Government services and maintaining the infrastructure for their development. That applies also to Montserrat, where our aid programme is making an important contribution.
By providing manpower and expertise in areas such as the budget, auditing, police and customs, we can improve the quality of government in the dependent territories. This is essential, because the future of the territories, whether they decide to move to independence or not—and we have made it clear that it is their decision—will inevitably depend on their being well run.
My hon. Friend asked whether I might undertake a review of the dependent territories. I think that the definitive text on our approach to the dependent territories was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar), one of my predecessors as Under-Secretary of State, who, in December 1987, said in reply to a written question:
"Following the concern expressed within the Commonwealth about the security of small states, and the suspension of ministerial government in the Turks and Caicos Islands, we have conducted a review of policy towards our five Caribbean dependent territories and Bermuda. We did so in the light of our commitment to the principle of self-determination and our determination to live up to our obligations under the United Nations charter, and our responsibilities for the good government and development of the dependent territories.
The review concluded that we should not seek in any way to influence opinion in the territories on the question of independence. We would not urge them to consider moving to independence, but we remain ready to respond positively when this is the clearly and constitutionally expressed wish of the people."
That is still exactly our position today.
My right hon. Friend continued:
"As a result of the review, we are, however, implementing a number of administrative measures to improve the effectiveness with which we discharge our obligations to ensure the good administration, and economic and social development of the dependent territories. The reasonable needs of the dependent territories will continue, as before, to be a first charge on United Kingdom aid funds."—[Official Report, 16 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 574.]

961
We have since then sought to make a number of changes to improve our relations with the dependent territories. For example, a little while ago, we instituted a dependent territories ministerial group. It is a ministerial group that meets regularly twice a year to discuss developments in the territories. A number of ministerial colleagues who are members of the group have visited the Caribbean and take an active interest in the dependent territories.
For example, in April my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General attended a meeting of the Attorneys-General of the five Caribbean territories and of Bermuda; and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department has recently been to Montserrat and Anguilla to examine some of the problems and requirements of the judicial system there.
As has been said, we also set up a regional secretariat for the Caribbean dependent territories based in Bridgetown alongside the British development division in the Caribbean. The secretariat concluded formal agreements with the majority of the Caribbean dependent territories to ensure that our aid is well planned and properly spent, and that it achieves value for money.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove suggested that the secretariat has tended to increase the administrative distance between London and the dependent territories. Having had the opportunity to visit all the Caribbean dependent territories and the regional secretariat in Bridgetown, I am bound to say that I cannot accept that suggestion.
I pay close attention to the maintenance—of direct and close links with Chief Ministers. Last October, I attended the annual meeting in Montserrat of Chief Ministers and Governors. At the end of this month—very shortly—I hope to see many of the Chief Ministers again in London.
In connection with that visit, we have encouraged the Commonwealth Development Corporation to organise an investment seminar, which I hope will help some of the dependent territories in their search for inward investment. I also intend to go to Brussels with the Chief Ministers and Governors to seek greater support from the European Union for our dependent territories in the Caribbean.
The Government have paid and continue to pay close attention to the needs of the dependent territories. I take this opportunity to thank the Governors and the heads of regional secretariats for their efforts. I also pay tribute to the work being done by Chief Ministers and others within the dependent territories to ensure the continuing prosperity of their own territories. However, we shall, of course, continue to ensure that our international obligations are adequately discharged at a reasonable cost to the British taxpayer, and that the contingent liabilities associated with these territories do not increase.
There are no plans to change the constitutional relationship between the Government and the Caribbean dependent territories. It is certainly not in the interests of good government to contemplate a further devolution of powers to Caribbean dependent territories. That would leave us with full responsibility, but without the power to discharge that responsibility properly.
My hon. Friend mentioned reserve powers. There is an enormous amount of misunderstanding about these powers, which are, by definition, powers in reserve for
962
the Governor to use if the Government of the dependent territory involved do not discharge their responsibilities properly. There should be no need to discuss the reserve powers with the Governor if a territory has been properly governed and run.
Of course, from time to time the dependent territories have problems that are wholly outside their control. My hon. Friend mentioned the problem of illegal migration. Two of the dependent territories have recently been affected by serious influxes of economic migrants.
Last summer, the Cayman Islands received almost 1,200 illegal immigrants from Cuba within a matter of days. That figure must be put against a resident population of only 30,000. I am glad that, as a result of the intense and humane efforts of the Governor and the Government of the Cayman Islands, and with the help of our partners in the United States, the figure has subsided significantly. Indeed, I think that almost all the economic migrants have left and gone elsewhere to settle.
I pay tribute to everyone in the Cayman Islands who helped to deal with that extremely difficult human problem sympathetically and in a humane way. It is a matter of some note that one could have had that influx of migrants without it attracting any press attention here or elsewhere, so well was it dealt with.
In the Turks and Caicos Islands, there have been several waves of illegal migration from Haiti. Just after Easter, we took action again, with the help of our United States friends, to try to curb the latest flow, but as long as conditions in Cuba and Haiti remain difficult, the potential problem is likely to remain.
The last substantive issue that my hon. Friend mentioned was that of bananas. Let me make it absolutely clear to him that we have taken, and will continue to take, an active role on that issue in Brussels and in Washington. It is an important issue. I held a meeting with the leaders of the four Windward Island countries mainly concerned, when I was in the Caribbean to attend the biennial conference of our heads of mission earlier this year. The Windward Governments have accepted the recommendations of a study funded with British aid money, which sets out a comprehensive strategy for restructuring the industry, to make production more efficient and competitive. That is beginning to happen in the Caribbean, for example, with Jamaican bananas. We are also working closely with the local European Union aid office to ensure that European Union funds available for restructuring, such as STABEX, are used to maximum effect.
We have worked hard to secure an increase in Belize's annual quota, and the 15,000 tonnes allocated in January are a step forward. But we are also supporting amendments to the banana regulation currently under discussion in Brussels, which would bring additional benefits to Belize and other Commonwealth Caribbean producers.
If bananas fail and if there is not sufficient economic diversification, there is always the danger that we shall start to see an increase in the trafficking and production of illicit drugs, so we must ensure that we do all that we can to help promote an environment that allows the Caribbean to prosper through equitable trading arrangements with us and north America.
Ms Abbott: The Minister, I hope, will not need me to remind him that, for many of the Leeward Islands,

963
bananas represent the greater part of their foreign exchange and are important creators of work, which is so important in creating social stability. The Minister talked about restructuring, but at the end of the day bananas from the Caribbean cannot compete on a level playing field with bananas from south America, because the plantations will always be at an advantage compared with the small family allotments in the Caribbean. What are the social consequences for the Caribbean of the collapse of the banana industry and the failure of Her Majesty's Government to support it?
Mr. Baldry: The hon. Lady has been in and out of this Adjournment debate like a yo-yo. I would be prepared to listen to her advice on the Caribbean a little more closely if she was at least able to tell the difference between the Windward and the Leeward Islands.
Ms Abbott: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Baldry: No.
We are also encouraging diversification in the Caribbean economies and are generous in our aid for that. I note that the new Prime Minister of Dominica, who was elected earlier this week, is a specialist in agriculture and, of course, we wish him and his new Government well. I take this opportunity to pay a public tribute to the achievements of his predecessor, Dame Eugenia Charles. The Commonwealth and Commonwealth meetings will be all the poorer for the loss of her presence.
One has to remember the dynamics of the situation that underlies the whole issue of bananas in the Caribbean. If access is reduced, farmers will go out of business, and the World bank has made some bleak forecasts in that respect. But the volume of bananas to be transported will also be reduced, and that will make their transport less economic, which will, in turn, increase the unit costs. Moreover, if fewer boats call, it will be more difficult to ship any alternative products, such as passion fruit, and the chances of a successful diversification strategy replacing the banana industry will be correspondingly reduced.
Those are the economic facts, and I do not think that anyone can be in any doubt as to why we support, and will continue to support, the EU banana regime and why we support, and will continue to support, Commonwealth Caribbean colleagues whose livelihoods are largely dependent on bananas. But they must recognise, as we recognise, that their banana industries have to become as efficient as possible.
We all recognise that we must maximise the potential for economic diversification in the region and, of course, there is much successful diversification in the Caribbean. One aspect of that is the growth of offshore banking and financial services, and the development of those services has made an enormous difference to the well-being of many people in the region. There are dangers that the opportunities provided by those services will be abused and will threaten them. We have paid special attention to that and a full-time expert is attached to our mission in Bridgetown, to advise on and improve the necessary safeguards.
All our Caribbean dependent territories now operate banking guidelines that are based on the Basle principles. We are discussing the introduction of legislation on regulatory co-operation and international businesses and
964
exempt companies. Our success in deterring shady dealing was amply demonstrated in recent months by the closure of the Guardian bank in the Cayman Islands and the anti-money-laundering operation that was mounted so effectively with the aid of the United States authorities and the diligence of the Governor in Anguilla. There is an increasing realisation that the key to building a sustainable and successful offshore financial industry is to have effective and transparent regulations.
There is always a suspicion that the financial regulations that every dependent Caribbean territory has to introduce are in some way tougher than those that are introduced by other such territories. That is not the case. We want to ensure that every dependent Caribbean territory has tough, proper financial regulations, so that there is only sound money in those islands and there is no suggestion of bad money coming to them. That must be in the interests of those territories and I am sure that they recognise that.
One of the reasons for the offshore financial industry suffering an unsatisfactory image in the past is that it can offer opportunities to drug dealers and other criminals to support their illegal operations. The cultivation of drugs in the Caribbean is not high despite the natural advantages of climate, but the area has become a significant conduit for the transport of drugs between the major sources of supply in south America and the major market for narcotics in north America and Europe. There have, for instance, been some very large seizures in the waters off the British Virgin Islands. We are providing considerable assistance to both independent and dependent territories in the region to combat that threat. The West Indies guard ship has played an important role in that connection, often co-operating with other Governments who have interests in the area such as the American, French and Dutch Governments.
At our suggestion, the United Nations international drugs control programme organisers will hold a workshop in the region later this year to agree further practical anti-narcotics measures.
There are many challenges ahead in the Caribbean, and probably the most important of them is to encourage good government. Without that, dependence on aid and drugs will be difficult to avoid. For example, it is better to have trade in bananas than unproductive aid that might be channelled into unsatisfactory activities such as drug trafficking or money laundering. The North American free trade area is a significant new factor in Caribbean trade. The key to the Caribbean's response will be the ability of all its diverse elements to overcome traditional differences. For that reason, we are watching with close interest the formation of the Association of Caribbean States.
We already give strong support to the Caribbean Community and Common Market, the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States and the regional security system. In that context, we have maintained a British military advisory and training team based in Barbados. We also maintain a naval presence in the Caribbean and the guard ship has played an important role not only in relation to the defence of Belize but recently in connection with the Haiti crisis. In London, we continue our grant to the West India Committee and I hope to see the leading members of that committee again next week.

965
I hope that I have answered all the questions of my hon. Friend. If the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington wishes to ask a final question, I should be glad to try to answer it.
Ms Abbott: The Minister was dismissive of my remarks earlier, but I am anxious that Her Majesty's Government, in their policy formulation in relation to the Caribbean, take the interests and genuine concerns of people of Caribbean origin living here as seriously as the interests of business people. I re-emphasise that there is a genuine concern and wish that we be taken seriously when we speak out about our relatives and interests in the Caribbean, just as business men are taken seriously.
Mr. Baldry: I am amazed that the hon. Lady should feel it necessary to make such a point. Let me take just one example: the Caribbean dependent territory of
966
Anguilla. I have probably seen far more members of the Anguilla community resident in the United Kingdom than people with business interests in Anguilla. As I made clear earlier, in this country, a large population of Caribbean origin obviously take a close interest in what takes place in the Caribbean and we pay considerable respect and attention to their views, but anyone who has any knowledge of the Caribbean, and particularly of the Commonwealth Caribbean, will recognise that the UK is, has been and continues to be at the forefront of being a friend to those countries.
The Caribbean is an important region to us. We have many friends there. It will continue to be an important region to us and I am confident that, as we go into the 21st century, we shall continue to have many friends there.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eight o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Service Personnel (Deaths)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been killed while training or engaged on non-combat duties in the last 10 years. [28225]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  1985: 208

  1986: 178

  1987: 191

  1988: 207

  1989: 255

  1990: 218

  1991: 191

  1992: 167

  1993: 169

  1994: 152

  Skilled Tradesmen
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action he is taking to ensure that skilled tradesmen in the armed forces have the opportunity to extend or maintain their skills by involvement in depot or major servicing and engineering where these are carried out by civilian businesses. [27915]

  Mr. Soames
  The armed forces continue to train and practise their tradesmen in the full range of skills required to support the operational task and deliver military capability. Where it is deemed essential that a number of these tradesmen attain and maintain depot level skills following the transfer of such work to the private sector, either an element of the work will be retained in service or appropriate contractual arrangements will be put in place with industry to second service personnel to enable them to receive the required skill enhancements.

  RAF Newton
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of RAF Newton. [29412]

  Mr. Soames
  As part of the wider changes to RAF ground training, a consultative document was issued on 28 March 1995 recommending the relocation of headquarters air cadets from RAF Newton to RAF Cranwell, its merger with headquarters university air squadrons and the reduction of RAF Newton to an enclave. My Department has consulted thoroughly with trade unions and relevant local authorities, and full and careful consideration has been given to all the representations received.
  596
  Following this work, I am satisfied that no issues have been raised which will call into question the viability of the proposals, which will achieve significant annual running costs savings. I have therefore decided that the proposals should now be implemented.

  Third-generation Anti-tank Guided Weapons System
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total Government expenditure on the TRIGAT long range anti-tank weapon. [28858]

  Mr. Freeman
  The total amount spent by the Ministry of Defence to 31 May 1995 on the TRIGAT long-range anti-tank programme is £210 million, at 1995–96 prices. This includes a proportion of the costs of the feasibility and project definition phases, which were combined for the long-range and medium-range TRIGAT programmes, as well as the costs of the current development programme.

  Defence Systems
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Patriot missile defence system. [28857]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Patriot missile defence system is one of the options being considered as part of the pre-feasibility study which I announced to the House on 18 October 1994,Official Report, column 239, to provide advice on systems, capabilities, time scales, costs and technical risk.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the medium extended air defence system; and if he will make a statement. [28844]

  Mr. Freeman
  The medium extended air defence system is one of the options being considered as part of the pre-feasibility study which I announced to the House on 18 October 1994,Official Report, column 239, to provide advice on systems, capabilities, time scales, costs and technical risk.

  Eurofighter 2000
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent discussions he has had with his German counterpart concerning Eurofighter 2000; [28842]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of political developments in Germany concerning the Eurofighter 2000; and if he will make a statement. [28843]

  Mr. Freeman
  My right hon. and learned Friend met his German opposite number on 28 May for discussions on a number of topics, including Eurofighter 2000. I am confident that Germany remains committed to the development of the Eurofighter 2000 aircraft.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28653]
  597
  Mr. Freeman
  An Act of Parliament is presumed not to bind the Crown unless the contrary intention is clearly stated, or there is a necessary implication that the Crown is to be bound. Crown immunity is being progressively reduced, as legislative opportunities arise. However, even in circumstances where the Crown is not bound by legislation, it is Government policy that it should comply as though the requirements apply to it, wherever appropriate.

  To list all areas in which Crown immunity may apply would involve disproportionate cost.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civil servants in his Department are currently working on matters related to the Scott inquiry; if a dedicated unit has been established; and what is the estimated cost to date of civil servants dealing with matters relating to the Scott inquiry. [28865]

  Mr. Freeman
  A Scott inquiry unit was established in the MOD in December 1992. There are currently two civil servants working in the unit. The approximate direct cost of the unit to date, including the cost of the provision of papers, is estimated to be £190,000.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what legal advice he has sought from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estimated cost of such legal expenses to public funds, and if he will make a statement. [28896]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government do not consider it right to publish the nature or cost of any advice which may have been given to individual witnesses to the Scott inquiry.

  This is a matter of confidence between them and any legal advisers they may have retained.

  Chinook Crash
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the findings of the inquiry into the Chinook crash on 2 June 1994.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I express to the widows and family members of those who died the Government's deep regret and condolences in their loss.

  I have this afternoon placed in the Libraries of both Houses a summary of findings of the inquiry into this tragic crash which claimed the lives of 29 people. After an exhaustive inquiry into all the circumstances, the possibilities of major technical or structural failure, hostile action or electromagnetic interference with navigation equipment were eliminated as possible causes. On all the evidence, it was concluded that the cause of the accident was that the two pilots had wrongly continued to fly towards the Mull of Kintyre below a safe altitude in unsuitable weather conditions. This constituted a failure in their duty and regrettably, therefore, it was concluded that both pilots had been negligent.

  I confirm that the MOD will pay compensation to the next of kin where this is due. Legal advice is that in the particular circumstances of this accident the
  598
  Government's legal liability to the passengers on board is limited by the terms of the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967 which derives from the relevant international conventions. The Government have, however, previously made clear their view that the limit of 100,000 special drawing rights—approximately £100,000—arising from these conventions is out of date. Accordingly the MOD will consider claims, in this case, above 100,000 SDR. In so doing, they will take account of the discussions already in progress within the civil airline industry about the right limit for airlines' liability. These discussions will inform, but not necessarily determine, the Government's decision on whether the Chinook passenger claims should be subject to an upper limit on compensation and, if so, at what higher figure.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his Department's definition of an air transport undertaking. [28869]

  (2) if the Chinook helicopter involved in the crash in the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994 was partaking in an air transport undertaking; and if he will make a statement. [28868]

  Mr. Soames
  The Chinook was on an air transport task from RAF Aldergrove to Fort George barracks, Inverness. The Ministry of Defence's understanding of an air transport undertaking is the movement by air of personnel and cargo within and between theatres of operation. The compensation rights of the families concerned, however, are not dependent on how the Ministry of Defence chooses to describe any aspect of this tragic accident.

  Inhumane Weapons Review Conference
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his aims at the United Nations inhumane weapons review conference in September. [28230]

  Mr. Freeman
  At the UN weaponry convention review conference in September and October of this year, the UK's main aim will be to work towards strengthening protocol II of the convention to impose stricter controls on the use of land-mines. Specific measures which we will be pursuing include: an extension of the scope of the protocol to cover non-international armed conflicts; new provisions on self-destruct mechanisms in anti-personnel mines, detectable mines, and the marking and mapping of minefields; provisions on the transfer of anti-personnel mines; and an effective verification mechanism.

  Compensation Claims
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 June,Official Report, column 192, if he will list the dates, units involved, and the injuries leading to the cases of compensation claims made against his Department in the last five years arising from the negligent discharge of weapons. [28867]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many written parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by his Department in each of the past five years; how many of these were not answered because the information(a) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, (b) was not held centrally and (c) was not normally disclosed; how many of these could now be answered due to computerisation, more effective and efficient operational systems or more open government; and if he will list each question along with the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it. [28520]

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

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of parliamentary questions, which would have been answered directly by him or his Ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28497]

  Mr. Baldry
  Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all matters concerning their agencies. Written parliamentary questions concerning matters which have been delegated to the chief executive of an executive agency in its framework document, normally receive a reply from the Minister to the effect that he or she has asked the chief executive to reply direct to the Member by letter. The chief executive's letter is published in Hansard after the Minister's reply.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which areas in Bosnia it is(a) possible or (b) not possible to post items from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [26885]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Due to operational difficulties caused by the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Post Office is unable to accept items of mail for onward delivery to any part of that country.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department are currently working on matters related to the Scott inquiry; if a dedicated unit has been established; and what is the estimated cost to date of civil servants dealing with matters relating to the Scott inquiry. [28863]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Three civil servants in the FCO are working full time on matters related to the Scott inquiry. Other FCO officials are involved, but not on a full-time basis.

  A dedicated unit was established in December 1992, and continues to exist.
  600
  The estimated cost to date of the unit dealing full time with the Scott inquiry is £164,027. It is not possible to quantify a figure for the other officials.

  Locate in Scotland, North America
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidelines he has issued to United Kingdom diplomatic and consular staff concerning the activities and work of Locate in Scotland in north America; what communication there has been with the United States Government following the public comments of the United Kingdom consul general in San Francisco on the work of Locate in Scotland and other inward investment agencies; what clarification the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has issued on the role of the United Kingdom inward investment agencies following those comments; and what discussions have been held as a consequence regarding a new policy towards United Kingdom inward investment agencies. [28700]

  Mr. Goodlad
  All overseas commercial posts have guidelines on co-operation with Locate in Scotland as well as the equivalent organisations for Wales and Northern Ireland. Together with the Invest in Britain Bureau and English regional agencies, these organisations are members of the Committee on Overseas Promotion, which co-ordinates the promotion of inward investment into the United Kingdom.

  No clarification of those guidelines, nor a change of policy, is necessary. The question of a communication with the United States Administration does not arise.

  Sex Tourism
  Ms Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the Government of(a) the Phillippines and (b) Thailand concerning possible measures to arrest the growth of sex tourism in those countries. [28840]

  Mr. Goodlad
  We regularly take opportunities to raise the issue of sex tourism with the Governments of the Phillippines and Thailand. I discussed child prostitution legislation with the Thai Government during my visit to Thailand in May.

  We also regularly discuss practical forms of co-operation between our law enforcement authorities within the framework of Interpol.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Indonesian police officers have received training under the UK military training and assistance scheme. [28906]

  Mr. David Davis
  The details of training given under the United Kingdom military training assistance scheme are confidential between Governments.

  Committee of the Regions
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names, together with the previous and present jobs, of the Committee of the Regions set up under the provisions of the treaty of Maastricht. [28702]
  601
  Mr. David Davis
  Biographies of all members of the Committee of the Regions may be obtained from the CoR press office, Rue Ravenstein 2, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the further measures which he proposes to take to demonstrate his concern about the abuse of democracy in Nigeria.

  Mr. Baldry
  We deplore the fact that there has been no progress towards democracy in Nigeria in the two years since the annulment of the presidential elections. We look to the regime to use the occasion of the presentation of the report of the national constitutional conference due on 27 June to initiate a credible timetable for a return to civilian democratic rule. We shall continue to keep our policy under review, together with our EU, Commonwealth and other partners.

PRIME MINISTER

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what communications he has received from Lord Justice Scott over the evidence he gave to the inquiry into arms for Iraq; on what dates the communications were sent to him; and what were the dates of his replies. [28860]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Members for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 12 June 1995,Official Report, column 373.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants in his Department are currently working on matters related to the Scott inquiry; if a dedicated unit has been established; and what is the estimated cost to date of civil servants dealing with matters relating to the Scott inquiry. [28862]

  The Prime Minister
  Within the Cabinet Office, the number of civil servants working exclusively on matters relating to Sir Richard Scott's inquiry is five, all of whom are members of a dedicated unit. The cost of the unit since December 1992 has been approximately £400,000.

  Former Prime Ministers (Payments)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what payments are available to former Prime Ministers; which of these cease immediately upon their death; which are phased out or continued for a fixed or indefinite period to allow their bereaved spouses to deal with duties following their death; and if he will make a statement. [28535]

  The Prime Minister
  Under the provisions of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Act 1991, former Prime Ministers are entitled to receive payment from the Consolidated Fund of half of the salary payable in respect of the office of the Prime Minister at the time of leaving office. This Act also increased the pensions of then former Prime Ministers to an amount equal to the new pension entitlement of the office of that time.602
  Payments cease on death, subject to arrangements for spouses and children based largely on the parliamentary pension scheme.

  On 1 April 1991, an allowance was introduced to assist former Prime Ministers with the continuing heavy burden of office and secretarial costs arising from their special position in public life. The allowance is similar in purpose and amount to the parliamentary office costs allowance but is paid in respect of public and not parliamentary duties. It ceases immediately on death, but a sum equal to one third of the annual amount is made available to the executors of the will to assist with the costs of winding up any office organisation.

  Terrorist Prisoners
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that no terrorist prisoners will be given special treatment in respect of early release; and if he will make a statement. [28629]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have already stated that prisoners convicted of terrorist offences are not political prisoners and must expect to serve their sentences in accordance with the law.

  Royal Family (Official Engagements)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the official engagements programmes of members of the royal family who receive funds from the civil list. [28611]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what advice is issued to Ministers by him and/or the Cabinet Office in respect of answering written questions tabled by right hon. and hon. Members which directly relate, appear to relate or which could be construed to relate, to their declared financial interests; and if he will make a statement. [28565]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no reason to believe that guidance is necessary on this matter.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 8 June,Official Report, column 271, regarding parliamentary questions, if he will list the dates on which his answers were subsequently clarified by means of written questions. [28852]

  The Prime Minister
  This is a matter of public record.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Amway
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many meetings he has had with representatives of Amway in the last three months. [28320]

  Mr. Heseltine
  None.

  Nigeria (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the non-lethal equipment which has been supplied to Nigeria by United Kingdom companies since December 1993; who was the United Kingdom supplier company of that equipment; what was the value of that equipment in current prices; what was the date an export licence was granted for that equipment; and under which military list specification the licence was granted. [26556]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I can add nothing to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 10 May,Official Report, columns 517–18. It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to disclose particulars of defence trade with other countries or details of export licences or applications for export licences.

  West African Countries (Defence Trade)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade to which west African countries goods defined as ML 6 in group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1992 No. 3092 and group 1 of part III of schedule 1 of SI 1994 No. 1191 have been exported since December 1993. [26555]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  It has been the policy of successive Administrations not to disclose particulars of defence trade with other countries.

  Electronic Batons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the companies to which export licences were granted for the export of electronic batons in 1992. [27660]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  No licences were granted for these goods in 1992.

  Water Rates
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will refer to the Office of Fair Trading the practice of water utilities demanding payment of water rates in advance of water being delivered. [28712]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have drawn the right hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of the Director General of Water Services, who is responsible for regulating the commercial activities of the water utilities in England and Wales.

  Consumers in Europe Group
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the grant for the consumers in Europe group in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [28306]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The consumers in Europe group is funded by the Department of Trade and Industry via its grant in aid to the National Consumer Council. The grant allocation to the CEG in each of the last five years was:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  156,466

  1991–92

  157,874

  1992–93

  175,749

  604

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  197,921

  1994–95

  1180,731

  Source:

  NCC annual reports—1 taken from NCC management accounts for 1994–95.

  Ms Clare Spottiswoode
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current civil service grade and salary of Ms Clare Spottiswoode, the Ofgas regulator. [27664]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Ms Clare Spottiswoode is not a civil servant. Her salary as Director General of Gas Supply was determined under the provisions of the Gas Act 1986.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when he intends to announce his decision as to the proposed new salary of Mrs. Clare Spottiswoode, the Ofgas regulator; [27665]

  (2) what (a) executive directorships, (b) potential executive directorships and (c) other financial interests the Ofgas regulator, Ms Clare Spottiswoode, has asked to be taken into consideration in making her application for a salary review. [27666]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Details of the revised remuneration package agreed with the Director General of Gas Supply, Ms Spottiswoode, were given in the answer to my hon. Friend the member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 13 June 1995,Official Report, columns 451–52.

  At present, Ms Spottiswoode does not hold any non-executive directorships.

  Private Mines
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list all private mining companies which have received grant assistance for investment with permission granted by the European Union Energy Commission under decision No. 2064/86/ECSC; and on what dates the grants were paid; [28855]

  (2) on what date grant disbursement was made to United Kingdom private mines listed in the European Union press release on 13 December 1994

  Mr. Page
  Having consulted my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, I confirm that all the private mining companies which have been authorised to receive investment aid under decision No. 2064/86/ECSC are given in the European Commission's press release dated 13 December 1994.

  Payments against the offers of grant are released by instalments depending upon the capital investment made and jobs created.

  Post Office (Crime Statistics)
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many(a) assaults on postal delivery workers and (b) thefts involving the Royal Mail took place in the SE3, SE7, SE10, SE13 and SE18 postal districts in each of the last five years. [27005]
  605
  Mr. Page
  In the interests of staff and mail security, it is Post Office policy not to disclose such information.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for South Hams, dated 27 February, about the inspection of radio equipment by British Telecom engineers; and what are the reasons for the time taken to reply. [27077]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Department has no record of having received my hon. Friend's letter. I suggest that he writes to me again and I will ensure that the matter he raises is looked into as speedily as possible.

  Compliance Cost Assessment
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) which organisations and companies his Department has consulted with regard to directive 76/768/EEC, as amended by the sixth amendment 93/35/EEC; what was the nature of the consultation; and what discussions have taken place on the cost to the industry of implementing the directive as amended, and the effect it will have on jobs and profitability of the companies involved; [28547]

  (2) if he will ensure that the draft regulations to implement in the United Kingdom directive 76/768/EEC, amended by a sixth amendment, directive 93/35/EEC, do not impose obligations not required by the directive; and when he hopes to publish the draft regulation on the cost of enforcement and the result of the compliance cost assessment investigations. [28533]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Preliminary consultations on the implementation of directive 93/35/EEC have taken place with industry, trade associations, Government Departments and animal welfare groups. Full consultation on draft regulations to implement the directive, together with a compliance cost assessment is planned for the autumn. It is not my intention to impose any obligations on companies beyond those introduced by the directive.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the economic impact of the increased level of resources which he has made available for export credits. [27050]

  Mr. Needham
  Since 1992, the ECGD has issued around £11 billion of guarantees for project and capital goods exports. This compares with around £6 billion of guarantees issued in the previous three years.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Listed Buildings, Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many textile mills in Yorkshire are currently being considered for listing; and if he will name them. [27390]

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are currently no proposals before me concerning the listing of textile mills in Yorkshire. English Heritage is, however, undertaking a national 606
  thematic study of textile mills. It has recently published the results of the study for the Greater Manchester area for public consultation and work is well under way in respect of mills in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many textile mills in Yorkshire are listed buildings; and if he will list them. [27391]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Until the statutory lists are computerised next year, a comprehensive list of textile mills in Yorkshire which are listed as being of special architectural or historic interest is not readily available. However, I have today placed in the Library a copy of a list of 106 mills and associated buildings in the country which are listed.

  Brodsworth Hall, Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will list those who have been officially invited to attend the opening of Brodsworth hall, near Doncaster in July. [28279]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Brodsworth hall, South Yorkshire, is to be opened formally on Wednesday 5 July following five years' extensive restoration. I have today placed in the Library a copy of the list of those who have been invited to the official opening.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will give the net value and percentage of the civil legal aid budget spent on(a) personal injury claims, (b) multi-party actions and (c) industrial injury claims for each year since 1991. [27988]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information on the cost of multi-party actions is not recorded separately and is, therefore, not available. The net cost and proportion of civil legal spent on personal injury claims and accidents at work in respect of all cases closed in each year since 1990–91 was as follows:

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  £ million

  All cases

  143.5

  198.3

  273.5

  363.8

  All personal injury

  cases

  8.6

  13.9

  22.3

  38.0

  Accidents at work

  2.9

  3.9

  5.4

  6.6

  Percentages

  Percentage of personal injury/all

  6

  7

  8

  10

  Percentage of accidents at work/all

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will refer legal aid claims for mucous membrane disease to the multi-party actions committee; and if he will make a statement. [27987]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It is the responsibility of Legal Aid Board to decide whether a case is suitable for referral to the board's multi-party actions committee. The board has decided that this case is not suitable.
  607
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he last met the Legal Aid Board to discuss multi-party action. [27989]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am in frequent contact with the board about various matters, including multi-party actions.

  Primary Legislation (Availability)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of primary legislation is readily available(a) to hon. Members and (b) to the general public in its current amended form. [27658]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Approximately one third of primary legislation is available to hon. Members and to the general public in its current amended form.

  Court Service
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if he will examine the reply from the courts agency to the letter from the right hon. Member for Worthing regarding the Court Service; and if he will investigate why a copy of the court judgment has still not been produced. [28711]

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

  Letter from M. D. Heubner to Sir Terrence Higgins MP, dated 14 June 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about the reasons why a copy of a court judgment has not yet been produced.
  Judgment in the case of Fake-v-Jarvis will be delivered by the Registrar in the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on Monday 19 June 1995.
  The Registrar very much regrets the delay which is due to a very heavy workload. As I explained when I wrote to you on 22 May I am currently considering ways in which the pressure on the Registrar can be alleviated.

  Local Courts Charter
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) how many copies of the publication "Looking at Local Court's Charter" were produced; [27431]

  (2) what was the cost to public funds of the publication "Looking at a Local Court's Charter". [27430]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The publication was developed by a group of senior managers in the Magistrates' Courts Service and 750 copies were produced at a cost of £11,241. Most have been distributed to the 105 magistrates' courts committees, who are responsible locally for the management of magistrates courts. The remainder is held by the Central Council for Magistrates' Court Committees against any further requests for copies.

  Civil Justice System
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when Lord Woolf's report on the civil justice system will be published. [29407]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Lord Woolf's interim report on his access to justice inquiry will be published tomorrow, and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rent Levels
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by region the average rent levels for local authority dwellings for each local authority in 1995–96; what were the increases on 1994–95 levels and the average figures for each region; and what was the average rent level for local authority dwellings for the whole of England for 1995–96 and the increase on the 1994–95 average level. [27011]

  Mr. Curry
  I have today placed in the Library a table showing provisional 1995–96 average weekly rents for each housing authority in England and averages for all regions and for England, together with the increases these represent on 1994–95 average rents.

  Sea Bathing (Hazard Notices)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will bring forward proposals to improve hazard warning arrangements at privately owned bathing beaches and adjacent waters in England and Wales; [27255]

  (2) If he will bring forward proposals to improve hazard warning arrangements for bathers in waters close to shore where trawling with nets is known to occur. [27526]

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 6 June 1995]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has no powers to deal with these matters. Local authorities can, subject to the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department make byelaws regulating boating activities within 1,000 m of the high water mark. Within the areas, for which they are responsible, harbour authorities can regulate navigation. Commercial fishing activities are regulated in England and Wales by local sea fisheries committees. Subject to the general law on liability, sea bathing is undertaken at the bather's own risk.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the list of possible special areas of conservation for(a) rivers, (b) active raised bogs, (c) intertidal areas straddling the land sea divide, (d) otter, lutra lutra, (e) great crested newt, (f) fan moss and (h) oligotropic waters in medio European and perialpine areas with amphibious vegetation will be published for consultation. [28451]

  Mr. Atkins
  Additional SSSI notification work is required before we can consult on riverine possible special areas of conservation, further active raised bog and
  609
  blanket bog sites and some intertidal areas. Additional scientific and survey work is currently in progress to identify suitable sites for the otter, great crested newt, freshwater pearl mussel and fen moss. The nature conservation agencies are also considering whether more sites are required to represent oligotrpic waters in medio European and perialpine areas with amphibious vegetation in addition to those on which we have already consulted. I hope that a further consultation exercise will take place later this year.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans there are for Orton Brick pit site in Peterborough to be proposed for submission as a special area of conservation under the EU habitats and species directive. [28450]

  Mr. Atkins
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his reply to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on 31 March 1995,Official Report, columns 834–35, the nature conservation agencies are in the process of carrying out further survey work before recommending possible special areas of conservation for the great crested newt to Government.

  National Rivers Authority (Powers)
  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if all powers, including reserve powers, currently available to the National Rivers Authority, will be transferred fully to the Environment Agency. [28250]

  Mr. Atkins
  The Environment Agency, which will be established by the Environment Bill currently progressing through our House, will carry out all of the current functions of the National Rivers Authority, together with the functions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and local waste regulation authorities. The powers available to the NRA will transfer to the agency subject to certain changes to reflect the broader functions of the agency, and to facilitate its effective operation through rationalisation of similar provisions between the existing regimes.

  Mr. Temple-Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the powers available to the National Rivers Authority under schedule 25 of the Water Resources Act 1991, to make bylaws on navigation without navigation authorities, will be transferred fully to the Environment Agency. [28249]

  Mr. Atkins
  Schedule 18 of the Environment Bill, which is currently before our House, transfers to the Environment Agency the byelaw-making powers of the NRA under schedule 25 of the Water Resources Act 1991 without change.

  Genetically Engineered Crops
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies are available to him on the environmental impact of genetically engineered crops designed to be resistant to herbicides; and what evidence there is of potential prejudice to the environment arising from their use. [28454]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, the release or marketing of genetically modified organisms, including GM crops resistant to herbicides, is subject to 610
  prior consent. Advice is given on applications for consent by an independent committee of experts, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which brings scientific knowledge to the Secretary of State on the impact of GM crops.

  Information is also available from research programmes on the release of GM crops carried out by the Department of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Office of Agriculture and Fisheries Department.

  Current scientific information and our experience to date has not given cause for concern in terms of adverse effects on the environment from the release of GM crop plants resistant to herbicides. We will continue to use such information and the advice of ACRE in the review of applications to release GM organisms, including herbicide resistant crops, in order to assess their environmental impact.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he proposes to issue under part II of the Environment Bill [Lords] in respect of contaminated land as to (a) the extent of clean-up required, (b) who will set the standards, (c) determining who owns what, (d) determining who cleans up what and (e) determining who pays for what; and if he will make a statement. [28243]

  Mr. Atkins
  Clause 54 of the present draft of the Environment Bill which amends the Environmental Protection Act 1990 gives powers to the Secretary of State to issue guidance related to contaminated land as follows:(References are to draft sections of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 as introduced in the House of Commons and amended in Committee).
  S.78A(2) Guidance on the manner of determining whether land is "contaminated land" within the meaning of the Act.
  S.78A(8) Guidance on what harm is significant and whether pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused.
  S.78B(2) Guidance on the inspection of an area and on the identification of contaminated land and special sites.
  S.78D(6) Guidance on remediation—what is to be done, standards of remediation, "reasonableness" in relation to cost and seriousness.
  S.78E(4) Guidance on determining the "appropriate person" on whom to serve a remediation notice where there are two or more persons potentially liable.
  S.78J(2) Guidance on the recovery of remediation costs and on hardship in this context.
  S.78K(4) Guidance to the Agency on inspection of special sites and termination of special site status.
  S.78NN Guidance on the exercise of the Agency's powers and duties.

  A draft of the guidance on the definition and identification of contaminated land has already been issued. That guidance will be revised in the light of comments received and along with the rest of the guidance listed above will be subject to wide formal consultation as required by clause 54 in creating draft section 78R of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In addition, section 78N provides for site-specific guidance from the appropriate agency.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will refer back the case for unitary status for South Hams to the Local Government Commission, following the referendum on the future of the district. [28545]

  Mr. Curry
  We are considering which districts should be reviewed afresh by the Local Government Commission and will announce our decision shortly.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of parliamentary questions which would have been answered directly by him or his Ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28493]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all matters concerning their agencies. Written parliamentary questions concerning matters 612
  which have been delegated to the chief executive of an executive agency in its framework document, normally receive a reply from the Minister to the effect that he or she has asked the chief executive to reply direct to the Member by letter. The chief executive's letter is published in Hansard after the Minister's reply.

  Housing and Homelessness
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the number of his Department's homelessness acceptances and (b) the number of houses in multiple occupation in each local authority area in England, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [28666]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  A table is in the Library giving the numbers reported by local authorities in England of homeless households for which they accepted responsibility to secure permanent accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act in 1994.

  Information on the numbers of houses in multiple occupation in each local authority is not available.

  Objective 1 Status, Merseyside
  Mr. Waring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the increase in employment on Merseyside to date as a result of its objective 1 status within the European Union. [28701]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is too early to tell. We are only just starting to receive grant claims from those carrying out capital projects. Monitoring and evaluation systems to inform the objective 1 partnership are being designed and put in place to provide information on outputs, including jobs.

  Government Offices for the Regions
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the indicative allocations to Government offices for the regions in respect of the second round of the single regeneration budget challenge fund. [29083]

  Mr. Curry
  The indicative allocations to Government offices for the regions for the first two years of round 2 of the challenge fund are shown in the table, expressed in terms of bands. These figures relate to the current total provision of £240 million for 1996–97 and 1997–98—that is, for £40 million in 1996–97 and £200 million in 199798. The sums available to support approved round 2 schemes in later years are subject to annual public expenditure decisions. The final allocations will depend upon Minister's decisions on the bids submitted for support in response to the bidding guidance issued on 12 April 1995, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Region

  £ million

  London

  60–65

  South East

  12–15

  Eastern

  3–5

  South West

  6–8

  East Midlands

  9–12

  West Midlands

  20–24

  Merseyside

  14–17

  North West

  28–32

  Yorks and Humberside

  30–34

  North East

  28–32

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out, on the latest available figures, by company(a) the money received from the sale of the Property Services Agency and (b) the cost of redundancy and early retirement following the sale of the agency. [28394]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding answer 14 June 1995]: Six Property Services Agency businesses were sold. The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Money received from the sale1

  £ million

  Building Management businesses (BM)

  (i) From purchases (including some phased payments)

  (ii) From recovery of trade debts3

  PSA Projects

  2-49.6

  55.0

  SE/S and W

  10.4

  69.4

  Scotland

  3.5

  11.2

  614

  (a) Money received from the sale1

  £ million

  Building Management businesses (BM)

  (i) From purchases (including some phased payments)

  (ii) From recovery of trade debts3

  Manchester

  -11.5

  17.9

  North East

  8.0

  13.7

  1 The Building Management businesses were sold on the basis of a net value of -2. Following post sale completion audits, the cash assets in the businesses were subject to adjustment to achieve this. Adjusting payments made by Government:

  PSA Projects: (not yet agreed)

  BM SE/S and W: £5.9 million

  BM Scotland: £0.7 million

  BM Manchester: £3.6 million

  BM North East: £2.8 million

  2 This reflects an additional payment made on the first anniversary of the sale to compensate the purchaser for a shortfall in the transferred staff numbers.

  3 The assets represented by the debts owed to the businesses were not sold to the purchasers of the businesses but were released by the Department separately.

  (b) Redundancy costs incurred by Government to aate within the agreed limits of its liability under the severance sharing schemes agreed to sale

  £ million

  Building Management businesses (BM)

  (i) Costs in making seconded civil servants redundant at the end of their secondments

  (ii) Contributions made to the privatised companies' costs in making transferred employees redundant

  PSA Projects

  34.7

  2.9

  South East

  24.7

  0.4

  S and W

  23.9

  0

  Scotland

  13.2

  0.3

  Manchester

  17.4

  1.2

  North East

  25.1

  0.8

  International Bodies (Meetings)
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will report on the outcome of the meetings of the Commission on Sustainable Development in April this year and of the governing council of the United Nations Environment Programme in May. [29351]

  Mr. Gummer
  I attended the high level segments of both meetings. The Commission on Sustainable Development reached agreement on the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on the protection and sustainable management of the world's forests. The CSD also provided ample evidence of the efforts being made across the world at national and local levels to implement agenda 21. A number of countries, including the United Kingdom, made presentations of their experience in developing a national strategy for sustainable development. Copies of the United Kingdom's report to the CSD were presented and copies have been placed in the Library.

  The governing council of the United Nations Environment Programme approved a refocused work programme and agreed to continue its mandate as the world's environment voice. The United Kingdom was instrumental in setting in train a review of UNEP's
  615
  governing structure. The executive director has been given the responsibility to produce options for reform to be considered at the next governing council in 1997. The United Kingdom also took the initiative in sponsoring a decision which invites UNEP to introduce green housekeeping measures and to urge the remainder of the United Nations system to follow its example.

TRANSPORT

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library(a) copies of report produced as part of the prior options reviews of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Driving Standards Agency and the Vehicle Certification Agency evaluating the performance of each agency during its first few years and (b) copies of the agencies' revised framework documents. [29349]

  Mr. Norris
  Copies of these documents have now been placed in the Library.

  Efficiency Scrutiny
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make an announcement about the report of the efficiency scrutiny of the Department of Transport's traffic area network. [29350]

  Mr. Norris
  The report of the efficiency scrutiny will be presented on 16 June. I will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Traffic Congestion, Newbury
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding the cost to the economy of traffic congestion in Newbury. [27051]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Rolling Stock
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the safety and structural integrity of the older rolling stock used on lines with third rail electrification following recent railway accidents in the south-east. [28321]

  Mr. Watts
  There is no question of older rolling stock being inherently unsafe. Part I of the report of the inquiry into the recent accident near Cowden, Kent, published last week, recommended a programme of research into the practicability of improving the crashworthiness of certain designs of rolling stock. British Rail is considering this recommendation and will respond to the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position on the replacement of rolling stock on Network SouthEast. [28449]

  Mr. Watts
  Following the series of Networker and Networker Turbo orders of recent years, 164 Networker Express vehicles are currently under construction by ABB for replacement of rolling stock in the former NSE area. I understand that, in response to BR's recent 616
  invitation to tender for further replacement vehicles, non-compliant responses were received. The three passenger rolling stock leasing companies, which are to be sold later this year, will seek commercial opportunities for the further replacement of stock as it becomes life-expired.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) of 23 March,Official Report, columns 318–19, if he has yet received from the franchising director the proposed criteria for determining appropriate service specifications for loss-making services; and if he will arrange for their publication in due course. [28836]

  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director is developing these criteria. When they have been approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Catamarans
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the evacuation procedures for ro-ro ferries and high-speed catamaran passenger craft using British ports. [28709]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the evacuation procedures for ro-ro ferries and high speed catamaran passenger craft using British ports.

  Evacuation procedures are, in principle, the same for all passenger ships. They commence with the general emergency alarm signal whereupon passengers and crew follow emergency instructions. For passengers these will include assembly at the muster stations and thereafter, if it is decided to abandon ship, further direction to the survival craft, wearing lifejackets. Thereafter, they will embark into survival craft—lifeboats and liferafts—in accordance with instructions.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers can be carried by the largest high-speed catamaran passenger craft operating from a United Kingdom port. [28708]

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

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the passenger capacity of the largest high speed catamaran operating from a United Kingdom port.

  The CONDOR II operates between Weymouth and the Channel Islands and can carry 674 passengers.

  Lorry Ban, London
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what evaluation he has undertaken of the likely effects on(a) night-time noise levels and (b) levels of particulate matter in the ambient air of his

  617
  Department's proposals to abolish the London night-time and weekend lorry ban. [28667]

  Mr. Norris
  The clear intention of our proposals to enhance the London lorry ban is to improve noise and emission levels. The extent of any improvement has not been formally assessed.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28645]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department and its executive agencies act on behalf of the Crown, and are therefore not bound except where there are statutory provision to this effect or necessary implication. Non-departmental public bodies for which I have responsibilities are not part of the Crown and do not benefit from Crown immunity.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many written parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by his Department in each of the past five years; how many of these were not answered because the information(a) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, (b) was not held centrally and (c) was not normally disclosed; how many of these could now be answered due to computerisation, more effective and efficient operational systems or more open government; and if he will list each question along with the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it.

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

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of parliamentary questions, which would have been answered directly by him or his Ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28495]

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

  Motorway Barriers
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what study his Department has made into the rival merits of steel and concrete as barriers in motorways; and if he will make a statement. [28295]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked its chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Sir Anthony Grant, dated 15 June 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question, asking the Secretary of State for Transport what study his Department has made into the rival merits of steel and concrete as barriers on motorways.
  618
  All steel safety fences and concrete safety barriers deployed on our network fully meet the performance requirements for vehicle restraints which are set down in the Manual for Contract Documents for Highway Works (MCHW). The criteria for their use are contained in Departmental Standards TD 19/85 and TD 32/93.
  A suitable design for concrete barriers which meets the performance requirements for high-speed motorways and trunk roads was not developed until 1989. There has not yet been sufficient length laid nor has sufficient time elapsed to enable a comprehensive appraisal to be made of their performance in service compared with steel. However, more concrete barriers are planned to be installed and we will continue to monitor their performance in service.

  Coastguard Service
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if incident reports of emergencies aboard North sea oil rigs have been marked not for public reference by(a) the Coastguard Agency or (b) his Department; [27891]

  (2) how many staff are employed at the auxiliary coastguard station in the Outer Skerries and how many of these staff are fully trained in cliff-rescue; [27879]

  (3) what assessment he had made of the improvements to safety which would be afforded by a dedicated operator covering the 2182 frequency if incidents involving man overboard are classified as a mayday situation; and if he will make a statement; [27889]

  (4) how the coastguard emergency trailer operated by the auxiliary coastguard station in the Outer Skerries is moved; and if the private vehicles owned by auxiliary coastguards are insured for moving the trailer; [27881]

  (5) if, during the incident off St. Kilda involving the vessel Aeolus there was an immediate scramble of search and rescue units; if the policy being advocated by Falmouth marine rescue co-ordination centre in respect of the number of hits validated was actioned; what delay occurred to the search and rescue response; if the mayday was received on the VHF distress frequency; and at what time the lifeboat was launched; [27885]

  (6) if he will list the incidents requiring coastguard assistance involving oil rigs in the North sea for each of the last five years; [27890]

  (7) what estimate he has made of how long it would take (a) to get a helicopter to the scene of the incident, (b) a lifeboat to get to the scene of the incident and be able to carry out a rescue and (c) for a qualified sector officer to arrive, following a vessel running around in the Outer Skerries; and what is the contingency plan when the helicopter cannot launch due to the severity of the weather; [27878]

  (8) whether the mayday message apparently received by a North sea oil rig in respect of the "Heather Bloom" incident off Shetland was passed on to the coastguard; and if he will make a statement; [27888]

  (9) how long it would take to muster a cliff rescue team for an incident that occurred in the Outer Skerries; [27880]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  619
  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions as these questions deal with operational matters, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.
  PQ 1929/94/95 HM Coastguard's situation reports are official working messages to bodies dealing with maritime emergencies. They are normally copied to Lloyds casualty information service. It is usual practice for these messages to be headed "for information not for publication" if the subject is an offshore installation. This is to avoid causing unnecessary anxiety to the relatives of those working offshore.
  PQ 1933/94/95 Two Auxiliary Coastguards form a Coastguard Initial Response Unit on the Outer Skerries. Neither are trained in cliff rescue since there are no cliffs as such on the islands.
  PQ 1936/94/95 HM Coastguard instigate the same immediate and full search and rescue response when a person is reported overboard regardless of whether the word "Mayday" or other radio proword such as "Panpan" (the urgency signal) are used.
  From 1 July 1995, HM Coastguard will take over direct responsibility for the 2182khz distress watch from British Telecom Maritime Services (BT MRS). The Distress Watch will be maintained at ten designated Rescue Centres. In addition, a further ten Rescue Centres will carry out a similar watch, with instructions to respond to distress, urgency or safety calls if no response is heard from one of the designated rescue centres. These watch arrangements will be at least as effective as those currently provided by BT MRS.
  PQ 1938/94/95 There is no Coastguard emergency trailer in the Out Skerries.
  PO 1941/94/95 Attempts to contact vessels in the area and to scramble the Coastguard helicopter were made immediately. No vessels responded initially, and the appalling weather conditions delayed the helicopter's take-off.
  The policy advocated by Falmouth MRCC was not actioned.
  No Mayday was received on the VHF distress frequency. No lifeboat was launched: it would have been inappropriate to do so. The nearest lifeboat would have taken over four hours to arrive on scene.
  PQ 1944/94/95 HM Coastguard was involved in providing assistance to offshore oil installations as follows:

  Year

  Number of incidents

  1990

  57

  1991

  54

  1992

  62

  1993

  71

  1994

  66

  1995 up to 22 May

  32

  Details of these incidents could only be listed at disproportionate cost.
  PQ 1951/94/95 The Sumburgh Coastguard helicopter will arrive within a maximum of 35 minutes by day and 65 minutes by night. The Lerwick RNLI lifeboat would take about 80 minutes to arrive. A Coastguard Sector Officer would not normally be required at the scene of an offshore incident. If a Coastguard officer were to attend they would be transported by helicopter or lifeboat: timings would depend on the circumstances.
  In the event that the Sumburgh-based Coastguard helicopter could not get airborne due to exceptionally severe weather conditions other search and rescue units would be tasked. RNLI Lifeboats are based at Lerwick and Aith in Shetland; other helicopters are available at RAF Lossiemouth, and in the Brent Field.
  PQ 1953/94/95 The distress message was passed to HM Coastguard in the normal manner, but with a 55 minute delay—not in any way attributable to HM Coastguard. Immediately upon receipt of the distress message Aberdeen Coastguard commenced search and rescue action. Five members of the HEATHER BLOOM'S crew were rescued from liferafts, but the vessel's skipper was tragically lost.
  620
  PQ 1954/94/95 On the infrequent occasions that a back up response team might be required this would take forty minutes by day and eighty five minutes at night.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the distress frequency on 2182 kHz; and if he will make a statement; [28126]

  (2) what were the staffing levels of coastguard services and the total budget given to coastguard services for rescue services, including equipment allowances in each year since 1979; and what was the cost in each year per person assisted; [28125]

  (3) how many incidents at sea were reported; and how many people were rescued by coastguard services in each year since 1986. [28124]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Ms Joan Walley, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions as these questions deal with operational matters, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.

  PQ 1979/94/95

  Calender year

  Total number of incidents

  Total number assisted rescued

  1986

  5,300

  8,960

  1987

  5,563

  8,867

  1988

  6,261

  11,132

  1989

  6,835

  11,466

  1990

  7,076

  13,474

  1991

  7,212

  13,048

  1992

  8,533

  14,628

  1993

  9,592

  17,106

  1994

  10,409

  16,627

  "Assisted" here means those persons remaining on board a vessel until the end of the incident. Those taken off the vessel or recovered from the sea by SAR services are "rescued". The figures quoted also include the number of incidents reported and the number of persons rescued on the shoreline for which Coastguard also has responsibility.

  PO 1982/94/95

  The distress watch on 2182khz is at present carried out by British Telecom Maritime Radio Service (BT MRS) under contract to the Coastguard Agency. The watch is carried out entirely satisfactorily. From 1 July the watch will be taken over by HM Coastguard. An independent technical assessment of the Medium Frequency equipment HMCG will use for the 2182khz distress watch was carried out by GEC Marconi. This assessment found that HMCG could provide a service at least as good as that provided by BT MRS. Some modifications to the existing equipment to improve coverage are currently being undertaken by HMCG. I am satisfied that the high standard of distress watchkeeping in the UK will be maintained.

  PQ 1981/94/95

  The information requested for the staffing levels of coastguard services is only readily available from 1983 and is detailed below:

  Year

  HMCG uniformed staff

  1983

  543

  1984

  544

  1985

  533

  1986

  523

  1987

  523

  1988

  510

  621

  Year

  HMCG uniformed staff

  1989

  489

  1990

  469

  1991

  484

  1992

  485

  1993

  482

  1994

  477

  1995

  460

  The information requested for Her Majesty's Coastguard budgets is available for 1990–91 onwards from our own records. A search of records held by the Department of Transport indicates that the budget figures for earlier years are not readily available.

  Year

  Total HMCG budget £000

  1990–91

  29,874

  1991–92

  33,778

  1992–93

  37,864

  1993–94

  38,951

  1994–95

  38,328

  1995–96

  40,086

  Year

  £ cost per person assisted/rescued

  1990–91

  2,235

  1991–92

  2,513

  1992–93

  2,483

  1993–94

  2,293

  1994–95

  2,400

  These figures are calculated on a notional basis by dividing the number of persons assisted/rescued by the total costs of HMCG; they do not include those of the other rescue services such as the RNLI and MoD.

  Ferries
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many similar exercises have taken place following the FEREX 86 ferry exercise; how many passengers were involved in each exercise and what proportion of them were able-bodied; how long it took for all passengers to reach the lifeboats in each exercise; and how long it took for each evacuation to be completed; [28707]

  (2) how many passengers were evacuated in the ferry exercise FEREX 86; how many of these were able-bodied and how long it took (a) for all the passengers to reach the lifeboats and (b) for the evacuation to be completed. [28710]

  Mr. Norris
  These are operational matters for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions as these deal with operational matters, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.

  PQ 2007/94/95 98 passengers were evacuated in the ferry exercise FEREX 86. All of the passengers were able-bodied.

  The controlled evacuation, testing a variety of exercise scenarios, took two hours to disembark the 98 passengers as each lifeboat and helicopter carried out detailed tasks in slow time in order to allow careful evaluation of the problems associated with the evacuation.

  Had the Master of "THE VIKING" been required to implement full evacuation procedures in a real emergency the evacuation could have been carried out in a shorter time.
  622
  PQ 2014/94/95 From records that are readily available the following ferry evacuation exercises have taken place since FEREX 86 (details of exercises from November 1992 were provided in reply to PQ 1811/94/95:

  FERREVAC

  SEALINK EXERCISE

  MANCHEX 88

  COMMON AIM 2

  SEAVAC

  MANCHEX 90

  LYONESSE 91

  MANCHEX 91

  CELTIC LIFT

  POLACAP

  SOLFIREX

  Information on these exercises is not available in the form requested.

  British Rail Rolling Stock
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of British Rail rolling stock was(a) less than five years old, (b) between six and 10 years old, (c) between 11 and 20 years old, (d) between 21 and 30 years old and (e) over 30 years old as of 1 January.

  Mr. Watts
  Information in the form requested is not readily available.

  British Rail Shares
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is his estimate of the loss of revenue to the Exchequer resulting from the special tax rules contained in paragraph 11, schedule 24 to the Finance Act 1994, as applied to the transfer of shares from the British Railways Board to a private franchise; [28668]

  (2) what is his estimate of the loss of revenue to the Exchequer resulting from the special tax rules contained in paragraph 8, schedule 24 to the Finance Act 1994, as applied to the transfer of shares from the British Railways Board capital gains tax group to a private franchise; [28669]

  (3) what is his estimate of the loss of revenue to the Exchequer resulting from the decision to exempt the transfer of shares from the British Railways Board to a private franchise from value added tax. [28670]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Shipping Companies
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the shipping companies in receipt of financial assistance from the Government. [27863]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is available only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets have been set for the Central Office of Information in 1995–96. [29536]
  623
  Mr. Horam
  The Central Office of Information has five key targets for the 1995–96 financial year. They are:

  (i) to break even in modified historical cost terms after recovering all costs, including interest on borrowings;

  (ii) to achieve a 3 per cent. reduction in unit cost of output in real terms, while maintaining suitable levels of quality;

  (iii) to equal or better the proportion of work delivered in accordance with client specification during 1994–95;

  (iv) to equal or better the proportion of work delivered on time during 1994–95; and

  (v) to achieve an average score of 7.9 out of 10 for the COI customer satisfaction index.

  Standards in Public Life
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish the Government's detailed response to the recommendations of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life to which he referred in his oral answer of 12 June,Official Report, column 495. [29156]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Before the summer recess, as I told the House on 18 May,Official Report, column 493.

  Investment in Science
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response the Government intend to make to the fourth report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee, "HL 36 Session 1993/4, on international investment in United Kingdom science". [29159]

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Government response to the House of Lords Select Committee's report is published today. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government are most grateful to the Committee for its thoughtful and detailed report.

HEALTH

  Health Visitors
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many health visitors there were in England and Wales for each of the last three years; and what is her estimate of the number for the current year. [27331]

  Mr. Sackville
  The latest available information relating to England is shown in the table.

  Health visitors in England as at 30 September of each year

  Number of health visitors

  1991

  10,380

  1992

  10,250

  1993

  10,190

  Note: Figures are whole-time equivalents rounded to the nearest ten. Source: Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Figures do not include health visitors who work as practice nurses.

  Information relating to Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Influenza Vaccination
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each family health services authority area what is the percentage of the elderly in receipt of influenza vaccination each year for the last five years. [27922]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she is taking to ensure that general practitioners promote the highest possible take-up of influenza vaccination by elderly patients on their lists; and what target she has set for influenza vaccination coverage for this group of patients. [27923]

  Mr. Sackville
  The chief medical officer will be reminding general practitioners in the next edition of "CMO's Update", which is circulated to all doctors, of the groups of patients for whom annual influenza immunisation is recommended and that now is the time to start planning, if they have not already done so. Further information will be issued in September.

  Influenza immunisation is recommended for those of any age who are at especial risk by virtue of underlying disease such as chronic heart or lung disease, and for those in residential accommodation. The aim is to increase uptake year by year, but no specific target for influenza vaccine coverage has been set.

  Blood Transfusion Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those blood transfusion services that have undertaken studies into the option of privatisation; what has been the result of their surveys; and if she will make a statement. [28258]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority, which is responsible for our blood services, has no plans to investigate the possibility of privatising any of its centres.

  NHS Authorities and Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons candidates for the post of(a) chairman, (b) non-executive director and (c) other management positions of health authorities and trusts are not obliged to disclose personal histories of (i) bankruptcy and (ii) criminal behaviour. [28255]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 26 April,Official Report column 552, and on 2 May, Official Report column 173. Candidates for appointment to national health service authority or trust boards are under an obligation to disclose information that might affect their eligibility for appointment, including any relating to bankruptcy and/or a criminal record.

  Temazepam
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to implement the recommendations in the report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, 1991, in respect of the control of the use of temazepam. [28282]
  625
  Mr. Bowis
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs made recommendations to Ministers regarding temazepam in July 1993 and I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council gave my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 10 May, column 756.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cinidren are currently in care because of the imprisonment of one or both of their parents. [28226]

  Mr. Bowis
  The most recent information available centrally relates to 31 March 1994, when it is estimated that 380 children were looked after by local authorities in England because one or both parents were in prison—on remand or sentenced.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will place in the Library a list of all contracts for non-clinical services worth £100,000 or more that have been awarded by national health service trusts under the compulsory competitive tendering process. [28999]

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

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many prescriptions were issued in 1993 and 1994 for each of the top 100 items; [28908]

  (2) if she will publish the list of the top 100 prescription items as sent to the Chester and Ellesmere Port community health council and the provisional 1994 data in the same form. [28909]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on dispensing volumes and costs for individual preparations is not made public for reasons of commercial confidentiality. Data are shared within the national health service and with clinical and scientific researchers on the understanding that they will not put information into the public domain which breaches the confidentiality guidelines in anyway.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the increase in the total net ingredient cost for the top 100 prescription items; and if she will make a statement. [28910]

  Mr. Malone
  The total net ingredient cost of the 100 prescriptions with the largest number of prescription items in 1993 was £909 million, and of the 100 preparations with the largest numbers of items in 1994, based on provisional figures, was £941 million. The preparations which comprise the top 100 vary from year to year.

  Ovarian Cancer
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to set up regular screening for women at high risk of ovarian cancer. [28639]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no immediate plans. A research programme at the Royal Hospitals national health service trust is currently being evaluated in a randomised trial involving 120,000 women which 626
  incorporates tumour markers as a primary screen followed by ultrasonography as a secondary test in women with abnormal tumour marker results. Another study is using ultrasound as a primary screening test. Any screening test must have high sensitivity and specificity and we welcome well designed trials of new and existing screening techniques which will help us decide upon appropriate national policies. When an effective test is available, we will consider the establishment of a national screening programme.

  Private Sector Employees
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many private sector employees have been seconded to work in(a) the NHS executive, (b) regional offices, (c) her Department and (d) elsewhere in the NHS. [28642]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are no private sector employees seconded to work in the national health service executive or regional offices. We do, however, have one such secondee elsewhere in the Department of Health. Statistics on private sector employees seconded to work elsewhere in the NHS are not available centrally.

  Children Act 1989
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list for each year since the implementation of the Children Act 1989 the number of child abuse investigations undertaken in total and the outcomes broken down into(a) court action under provisions of the Act, (b) entries on an at risk register, (c) informal supervision and (d) no further action. [28894]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information collected centrally relates only to those child abuse investigations that result in an initial stage child protection conference. Figures on children placed on registers—and associated legal status including court orders for those on registers at 31 March—and on those subject to initial stage conferences which did not lead to registration are published annually in "Children and young people on child protection registers, year ending 31 March 19XX, England", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Adoption
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the adoptions in 1993 were adoptions by step-parents. [27845]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 14 June 1995:
  PQ: 95/592 STEP PARENT ADOPTIONS
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about the number of step-parent adoptions in 1993.
  Of the 6,812 adoption orders made in 1993 in the magistrates courts, the county courts and the High Court, 3,202 (47%) were in favour of the step-parents.
  627
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many applications to adopt were made in 1993 in total; and how many of these were applications by step-parents. [27846]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mrs. Helen Jackson, dated 14 June 1995:
  PQ: 95/591 ADOPTION APPLICATIONS
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your question about the number of adoption applications made in 1993.
  The total number of adoption applications in the magistrates courts, the county courts and the High Court in 1993 was 7,813. Of these, 4,095 (52%) were made by step-parents.

TREASURY

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact of changes in the pound/ecu exchange rate on payment into(a) the EU budget and (b) the European development fund budget since 1992. [27045]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Broadly speaking, exchange rate movements increased our payments into the Community budget in 1993 but reduced them in 1994. The effect in the present year is expected to be small.

  The impact of changes in exchange rates on our payments into the European development fund depends on the timing of these payments.

  Single European Currency
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have been held about the implications of a single European currency for title in respect of foreign and gold reserves of individual EU member states; and if he will make a statement. [27046]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The treaty on European Union requires member states joining the monetary union to transfer part of their reserves to the European central bank, receiving in exchange an equivalent claim on the ECB. The precise arrangements for the ownership of foreign exchange reserves in stage three of economic and monetary union are among the many technical issues that will have to be decided during stage two.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to simplify VAT legislation. [27047]

  Mr. Heathcoat Amory
  I announced earlier today that Customs and Excise has set up a special team, as part of the Government's wider deregulation drive, to review its current legislation with a view to rationalising and simplifying it over the next three years.

  Personal Taxation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his plans for reform of personal taxation. [27048]

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his plans for the reform of personal taxation. [27055]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his plans for reform of personal taxation, and if he will make a statement. [27300]

  Sir George Young
  The Government remain committed to low rates of personal tax and will cut taxes again when economic conditions are right and public finances can afford it.

  Devaluation
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the pound has devalued since April 1992; and what assessment he has made of the adverse effects of the devaluation. [27049]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Sterling is currently 16 per cent. lower on a trade-weighted basis than it was in April 1992. Over the same period, the economy has grown by over 8 per cent. in real terms. But inflation has averaged just 3 per cent. This enviable combination of strong growth and low inflation is a result of the Government's sound monetary and prudent fiscal policies.

  Investment
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much investment by the machinery and equipment industries has changed within the past 12 months. [27052]

  Mr. Aitken
  Investment by machinery and equipment industries rose by almost 19 per cent. in real terms in the year to the first quarter of 1995.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the new regulations extending personal equity plans to corporate bonds will be introduced. [29408]

  Sir George Young
  The regulations extending PEPs to certain corporate bonds, preference shares and convertibles have been laid before Parliament today and will come into force on 6 July. [29408]

  Share Option Schemes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the value for money provided by share option schemes for(a) the individuals, (b) the companies concerned and (c) the United Kingdom.

  Sir George Young
  The assessment of the value for money provided by share option schemes is best made by companies and their shareholders.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Enright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has held in ECOFIN on European monetary union. [27056]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  EU economic and finance Ministers discussed various aspects of the technical preparatory work for stage three of economic and monetary union at their informal meeting in Versailles on 8 April. The European Commission's Green Paper on the transition to a single currency was discussed over lunch at ECOFIN on 22 May.

  Government Borrowing
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the guidelines for Government borrowing. [27057]

  Mr. Aitken
  The guidelines for Government borrowing were set out in the debt management report published by HM Treasury on 30 March 1995, which included the gilt funding remit issued to the Bank of England for 1995–96, and in the remit to the department of national savings for 1995–96, announced on 31 March 1995,Official Report at column 866.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the general Government borrowing requirement defined so as to exclude revenues from sales of land and buildings and privatisation receipts, as a percentage of gross domestic product for each year since 1979 until 1997–98. [28159]

  Mr. Aitken
  The table sets out the information requested:

  General government borrowing requirement (GGBR) excluding privatisation proceeds and net sales of land and buildings, as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)

  Percentage of GDP

  GGBR

  GGBR ex privatisation proceeds

  GGBR ex privatisation proceeds and net sales of buildings1 2

  1979–80

  5

  5

  5¼

  1980–81

  5¾

  5¾

  6

  1981–82

  3¼

  3¼

  4

  1982–83

  3½

  3½

  4¼

  1983–84

  3¼

  3¼

  3¾

  1984–85

  2¾

  3½

  4

  1985–86

  2

  2¾

  3¼

  1986–87

  1¼

  2½

  3

  1987–88

  -½

  ¾

  ½

  1988–89

  -2½

  -1

  0

  1989–90

  -1¼

  -½

  ½

  1990–91

  0

  ¾

  1½

  1991–92

  2½

  3¾

  4

  1992–93

  6¼

  7½

  7¾

  1993–94

  7¼

  8¼

  8½

  1994–95

  5½

  6½

  —

  1995–96

  3¼

  3½

  —

  1996–97

  2

  2½

  —

  1997–98

  1

  1¼

  —

  1 Outturn data for general government sales of land and buildings in 1994–95 is not currently available.

  22 Forecasts for sales of land and buildings by local authorities are not available.

  Housing Market
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further fiscal or other measures he plans to introduce to stimulate the housing market. [27059]

  Sir George Young
  We fully recognise the importance of encouraging a stable and health housing market. The best help that any Government can give the housing market is to deliver sustainable economic growth, based on low inflation and sound public finances. The Government are doing precisely that. Furthermore, the combined effect of changes in interest rates and mortgage interest relief since October 1990 has been to make the average mortgage holder £130 a month better off.

  Bank of England
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his relations with the Governor of the Bank of England. [27060]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Governor and I are both committed to achieving permanently low inflation.

  Inflation
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out his strategy for maintaining low inflation over the next three years. [27061]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I will continue to set interest rates in order to ensure that inflation remains permanently low.

  Executive Pay
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about pay levels and share options for executives within privatised industry. [27058]

  Sir George Young
  Remuneration is a matter for companies and their shareholders. The Greenbury committee is reviewing best practice for companies and we will consider the need for any Government measures, if appropriate, in the light of its conclusions.

  Monetary Union
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he was previously aware of the letters circulated by the inquiry on Britain and the single currency, a copy of which has been sent to him, advising that Lord Kingsdown had been invited by him to chair the inquiry; and if he will make a statement; [28348]

  (2) on what basis persons were selected by the Kingsdown committee on a single currency to give evidence; and if he was consulted by the committee on its stated desire to aim to produce a report which would have public appeal. [28349]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: The Action Centre for Europe's main activity is to commission and publish original papers by independent academic and other experts on key topics relating to the European Union, with a view to stimulating public discussion. ACE set up a working group on the implications of monetary union for Britain and the Kingsdown report, published on 8 June, records its findings. As a member of ACE I suggested to Lord

  631
  Kingsdown that as a former Governor of the Bank of England he would be well placed to chair an ACE working group. I was in no way involved in the drafting of the report, which reflects solely the views of the authors.

  Self-employment
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the main groups of workers which, according to statute law, are treated for tax purposes as self-employed but for national insurance purposes as employed; [28333]

  (2) in what circumstances a taxpayer may assume that a determination by the Inland Revenue that, according to case law, a person is self-employed may be taken as applicable to tax liability and national insurance contributions. [28341]

  Sir George Young
  There is no statutory definition of self-employment. Both the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security use criteria derived from the case law of the courts. They operate a common approach to employment status. This means that where one department has made a written decision following a full investigation of the circumstances, this will normally be accepted by the other department provided all the relevant facts have been accurately and clearly disclosed and the circumstances remain the same.

  The exceptions are as follows:

  (i) Section 314 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 deems that certain divers are treated as self employed for tax purposes. The normal case law approach applies for National Insurance.

  (ii) The Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations provide that particular groups of workers should be treated as employees whilst the Inland Revenue follow the normal case law approach. In these cases it may mean that the national insurance treatment differs from the tax treatment. The following groups of workers are affected:

  Office Cleaners

  Ministers of Religion

  Part time or visiting lecturers, teachers or instructors

  Persons employed by their spouse

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the differences between Inland Revenue leaflet IR56/N139 and previous leaflets since 1979 as they relate to the criteria for determining whether a person is employed or self-employed. [28340]

  Sir George Young
  Leaflet IR56/N139 has been updated on a number of occasions since its introduction in 1985. The latest version was published on 31 May 1995 and contains additional criteria relating to short-term engagements in the light of recent case law

  Public Sector Borrowing
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the impact on his forecasts of the public sector borrowing requirement in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 of a 0.25 per cent. annual reduction in the Treasury forecast of the rate of growth of United Kingdom gross domestic product for the aforementioned years. [28157]
  632
  Mr. Aitken
  [holding answer 14 June 19951: Tables 4.10 and 4.11 in the 1995–96 "Financial Statement and Budget Report" illustrate the sensitivity of projections for the public sector borrowing requirement to alternative growth paths.

  Retirements and Redundancies
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff of(a) the Treasury and (b) agencies for which the Treasury is responsible (i) took early retirement, (ii) took voluntary redundancy, (iii) took compulsory redundancy and (iv) were retired on medical grounds in (a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25418]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information for the Treasury is as follows:

  Voluntary redundancy

  Early retirement

  Severance

  Other early retirement

  Compulsory redundancy

  Medical

  1993–94

  5

  2

  11

  2

  3

  1994–95

  6

  10

  11

  0

  11

  1995–96

  114

  13

  11

  10

  11

  1 Figures for 1995–96 are those known at 1 May 1995. The Treasury is not responsible for any agencies.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual cost to the Department of staff leaving under redundancy or early retirement schemes to incorporate (i) added years lump sum payment (ii) redundancy payments (iii) pension payments including enhancements and (iv) any other special arrangements for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95, and projected for (c) 1995–96 and (d) 1996–97. [25637]

  Mr. Nelson
  Staff leaving the Treasury under redundancy or early retirement schemes are eligible for compensation payments under the principal civil service pensions scheme. The scheme distinguishes between early retirement, with immediate payments of pensions benefits, and early severance, with immediate payment of lump sum compensation and pension benefits preserved for payment at age 60. Individual payments are age, salary and service related.

  The cost to the Department of staff leaving under these schemes are a mixture of benefits payable immediately, which may include compensation lump sum and/or pension, plus cost arising over a longer term—for example, the annual compensation to staff under the age of 60. The table separately identifies these immediate and longer-term costs, so far as they can be determined.

  1993–94£

  1994–95£

  1995–96£

  Immediate costs

  Lump sum compensation

  130,302

  432,195

  827,534

  Enhancement to lump sum

  49,983

  64,050

  235,266

  Longer term costs

  Enhancement to pension1

  16,659

  21,346

  78,420

  Cost of paying pension per-age 60

  729,789

  949,143

  2,933,485

  1£ rate p.a.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the nature of the work involved in the steel bridging (phase 1) aid and trade provision project in Indonesia; what equipment and materials were supplied under the project; what is the location of the bridging; which Indonesian companies were involved; and what date the project was completed. [28298]

  Mr. Baldry
  Phase 1 of the steel bridging project was undertaken to help meet Indonesia's requirements for steel bridging on major roads.

  The equipment and materials supplied under the project consisted of 397 spans of 30.5m Bailey bridging, 80 tool kits, 397 sets of spare components, 30 sets of jacking equipment and 30 sets of erection equipment.

  The bridging is located in the following provinces: Irja, Maluku, Sulsel, Sulteng, Sultera, Sulut, DKL, Jakarta, Jabar, Jateng, Sumut, Sumbar, Sultra, Riau, Jatim, Aceh, Bengkulu, Kalbar, Kalsel, Kalteng, Kaltim and Sumsel.

  The roads and highways department of the Ministry of Public Works BINA MARGA—was responsible for project implementation.

  The project was completed in July 1988.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 574, on what date the case for the shortwave radio transmitters project in Indonesia was submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry to the sub-committee for aid and trade; on what date the project was approved by the sub-committee for aid and trade; and on what date the project was approved by the Minister for Overseas Development. [28330]

  Mr. Baldry
  The project was submitted to the sub-committee for aid and trade in November 1990. It was approved in the same month by both the SCAT and my right hon. and noble Friend, the Minister for Overseas Development.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the nature of the work involved in the steel bridging (phase 2) aid and trade provision project in Indonesia; what equipment and materials were supplied under the project; what is the location of the bridging; which Indonesian companies were involved; and on what date the project was completed. [28299]

  Mr. Baldry
  Phase II of the steel bridging project supplied demountable steel bridging for an on-going bridge repair programme. Approximately 5,000m of steel bridging and spares were supplied.

  The bridging is located in the following provinces: South Sulawesi, North Sulawesi, Central Sulawesi, East Kalimantan, West Kalimantan, Central Kalimantan, South Kalimantan, North Sumatera, South Sumatera, West Sumatera, Bengkulu, Riau, West Java, Irian Jaya and Maluku.
  634
  The roads and highways department of the Ministry of Public Works—BINA MARGA—was responsible for project implementation.

  The project was completed in April 1992.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 February,Official Report, column 704, to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), regarding the Indonesian tropical forest management project: sub 4, how many persons were trained at each of the training centres listed in his answer; what private sector bodies submitted personnel for training under the project; and who the Government engaged to carry out the training. [27833]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 14 June 1995]: Sub-project 4 (training) trains teachers who work at regional centres. One hundred and seventy five teachers have received basic instruction in methodology and curriculum development in Indonesia while a further 37 have received advanced training in the UK.

  Member companies of APHI—Indonesia Association Forest Business—also sent personnel for training under the project.

  The training of teachers is undertaken by LTS International Ltd in association with the University of Wolverhampton.

  Sarawak
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help he gives to schemes developing the use of rattan in Sarawak. [26335]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 13 June 1995]: Under the aid programme, we are helping the Government of Malaysia to develop a better understanding of the use of rattan in two main ways. Our support for the Forestry Research Institute of Malaysia includes research on the mapping and conservation of rattan. Under the UK/Malaysia memorandum of understanding on forestry, we are helping to establish forest management systems that include rattan and other non-timber forest products.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Homelessness
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons presented themselves as homeless to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each district council area in each of the last five years. [28217]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive whose chief executive has advised me that the figures are as shown in the table.

  Persons presenting as homeless to Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Council Area

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Antrim Borough

  65

  44

  140

  181

  211

  Ards Borough

  481

  461

  478

  412

  488

  Armagh District

  173

  147

  134

  241

  271

  Ballymena Borough

  237

  265

  286

  356

  389

  Ballymoney Borough

  113

  148

  127

  142

  103

  Banbridge District

  157

  139

  118

  133

  153

  635

  Persons presenting as homeless to Northern Ireland Housing Executive

  Council Area

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Belfast City

  2,501

  2,656

  2,558

  2,310

  2,428

  Carrickfergus Borough

  99

  148

  193

  161

  201

  Castlereagh Borough

  364

  350

  364

  290

  272

  Cookstown District

  166

  213

  131

  183

  146

  Coleraine Borough

  150

  142

  181

  199

  275

  Craigavon Borough

  265

  318

  303

  263

  266

  Derry City

  832

  771

  710

  858

  920

  Down District

  363

  491

  589

  439

  476

  Dungannon District

  152

  199

  186

  200

  197

  Fermanagh District

  192

  209

  224

  250

  304

  Lame Borough

  173

  191

  263

  267

  203

  Limavady Borough

  197

  222

  145

  206

  184

  Lisburn Borough

  803

  1,104

  968

  848

  860

  Magherafelt District

  96

  70

  91

  124

  129

  Moyle District

  65

  59

  57

  45

  59

  Newry and Mourne District

  421

  467

  656

  618

  551

  Newtonabbey Borough

  561

  567

  552

  452

  355

  North Down Borough

  211

  322

  239

  221

  222

  Omagh District

  223

  314

  318

  240

  277

  Strabane District

  127

  64

  88

  92

  128

  Total

  9,187

  10,081

  10,099

  9,731

  10,068

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the total cost to public funds in each of the past three years of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools; and what proposals he has to reduce this cost. [28219]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  1992–93: £922,906

  1993–94: £1,110,986

  1994–95: £1,260,932

  I am satisfied that the council's allocation are essential to enable it to carry out its responsibilities and I do not have any proposals at present to reduce its level of funding.

  Mental Patients
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to bring Northern Ireland legislation on the compulsory detention of mental patients into line with that in Great Britain following the Brian Doherty case; and if he will make a statement. [28221]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no plans at present to amend the Northern Ireland legislation relating to the compulsory detention of mentally disordered people. The Western health and social services board has set up an independent inquiry into the Brian Doherty case and its report will be studied closely to see what action may be necessary to prevent similar recurrences.

  HIV
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on programmes in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years aimed at preventing the spread of HIV; what proportion of these amounts was aimed specifically at homosexuals, bisexuals and lesbians; what plans he has to review the overall budget 636
  in the light of the increase in foreign tourism to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [28223]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available in the form requested. Measures to prevent HIV/AIDS are undertaken as part of a wider effort to promote sexual health.

  Expenditure by the Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland on the promotion of sexual health and the prevention of HIV/AIDS, and grants from the Department of Health and Social Services to voluntary agencies working in this area, were as follows in each of the past five years.

  1990–91: £140,703

  1991–92: £175,786

  1992–93: £242,100

  1993–94: £313,095

  1994–95: £279,752

  The Department of Health and Social Services published its strategy on HIV and AIDS in 1994. The strategy will be kept under review in the light of changing circumstances.

  Primary School Closures
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the decision first was taken to close Clare and Ballydougan primary schools and to replace Bleary primary school. [28366]

  Mr. Ancram
  A scheme to close Ballydougan primary school was approved in April 1966 and the school closed in August 1966. A scheme to close Clare primary school was approved in December 1970 and the school closed in April 1971. A proposal to provide a new replacement school for Bleary primary school was approved by my Department in November 1982.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the proposal that a new Bleary primary school to cater for those previously served by Clare and Ballydougan primary schools ceased to be classed as a rationalisation scheme. [28367]

  Mr. Ancram
  The capital scheme for the replacement of Bleary primary school has never been classified as a rationalisation scheme within my Department's school capital planning arrangements which were introduced in 1991.

  School Meals
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number and percentage of children receiving(a) free school meals and (b) parentally paid-for school meals in each of the last 10 years. [28378]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Pupils taking meals

  Pupils receiving free meals (percentage of pupil meals)

  Pupils receiving free meals (percentage of pupil meals)

  1984–85

  161,096

  93,974 (58)

  67,122 (42)

  1985–86

  160,435

  94,891 (59)

  65,544 (41)

  1986–87

  164,756

  98,233 (60)

  66,523 (40)

  1987–88

  165,387

  100,144 (61)

  65,243 (39)

  1988–89

  153,638

  73,458 (48)

  80,180 (52)

  1989–90

  155,769

  74,416 (48)

  81,353 (52)

  637

  Year

  Pupils taking meals

  Pupils receiving free meals (percentage of pupil meals)

  Pupils receiving free meals (percentage of pupil meals)

  1990–91

  164,194

  77,005 (47)

  87,189 (53)

  1991–92

  167,582

  80,882 (48)

  86,700 (52)

  1992–93

  178,271

  83,761 (47)

  94,510 (53)

  1993–94

  181,116

  85,327 (47)

  95,789 (53)

  Information Services
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the gifts declared by(a) the head of information services at the Northern Ireland Office and (b) all other press officers at the Northern Ireland Office. [28368]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  (a) A Panasonic RF B65D portable radio presented in July 1993 by Downtown Radio to the director. It is for official use within the information service and is held on the inventory of office equipment.

  (b) None.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what request has been made by the head of information services, Northern Ireland Office, for the monitoring of journalists' telephones. [28369]

  Sir John Wheeler
  None.

EDUCATION

  Education Assistance
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total current annual cost to public funds of the various Government schemes for sending children to private or independent schools. [27054]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's expenditure on the assisted places scheme and the music and ballet schools scheme—which provide means-tested fee remission for certain pupils attending participating independent schools—in England in the financial year 1994–95 was £101.5 million and £6.8 million respectively. Outturn capital and recurrent expenditure in the same year on the 15 city technology colleges—which are also independent schools—was £50.1 million. These figures do not include the purchase of places by local authorities, whether for pupils generally or for those with special educational needs, in independent schools or in nursery establishments. Questions about comparable provision elsewhere in the United Kingdom, or for the children of service men and diplomatic staff, are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State responsible for those areas.

  Minority Languages (GCSE)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to ensure that examining boards continue to offer minority languages at GCSE level, with particular reference to eastern European languages. [28478]
  638
  Mr. Forth
  GCSEs in modern foreign languages for courses starting in September 1996 will be subject to regulations and subject criteria published by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority in March 1995 and designed to align the GCSE with the requirements of the national curriculum.

  The Government have been mindful of the implications of the new GCSE criteria for the availability of syllabuses in the less-commonly studied languages, including those from Eastern Europe. The Secretary of State therefore agreed in principle that special arrangements could be made in certain cases, to give the examining groups scope to continue to offer a suitably wide range of language syllabuses.

  The SCAA is discussing with the examining groups the detailed arrangements that could be made for individual languages. The decision on what syllabuses to offer is ultimately one for each examining group. An announcement will be made shortly about the range of languages to be offered at GCSE.

  Christian Primary School, Croxteth
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on the current situation in respect of the proposals to provide a Christian primary school on the Croxteth county park estate in Liverpool. [28704]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend hopes to be able to announce a decision on these proposals in the near future.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the fees charged by each independent school for post-16 years education under the assisted places scheme in 1994–95; and what were the comparable figures for LEA schools, grant-maintained schools and Further Education Funding Council-funded colleges. [28706]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Tuition fees for sixth-form pupils supported by the Department's assisted places scheme in each participating school in the academic year 1994–95 are shown a table drawn from the Department's records, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. Comparable unit costs are not separately available for pupils aged 16 to 19 in local education authority maintained schools, grant-maintained schools or Further Education Funding Council-funded institutions.

  Advisory Group on School Improvement
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what will be the membership of the new advisory group on school improvement; and if she will make a statement. [29477]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 25 May a wide-ranging programme designed to raise standards in all our schools. The programme brings together the work of Government Departments and other agencies of central and local government, and also the resources of universities and schools. I will chair an advisory group which will carry this work forward. Its membership will be as follows:
  639

  Mr. Sandy Adamson—Director of Planning at the Funding Agency for Schools

  Professor Michael Barber—Professor of Education, Keele University

  Ms Julie Barton—Headteacher, Cambridge Special School, Hammersmith

  Mrs. Patricia Clarke—Headteacher, Avondale Park Primary School, Kensington

  Mrs. Pat Collarbone—Headteacher, Haggerston School, Hackney

  Mrs. Heather Du Quesnay—Director of Education, Hertfordshire

  Mr. Jim Rose—Director of Inspection, Office for Standards in Education.Mr. Brian Stevens—Director of External Relations at the British Bankers' Association.

  Ms Frankie Sulke—Head of Policy, Teacher Training Agency

  The group will assist in co-ordinating the work of the different agencies, and advise the Secretary of State on possible further action to improve schools. The members are appointed for one year, at which point the Secretary of State will review progress made.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of parliamentary questions, which would have been answered directly by her or her ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28487]

  Mr. Boswell
  Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all matters concerning their agencies. Written parliamentary questions concerning matters which have been delegated to the chief executive of an executive agency in its framework document normally receive a reply from the Minister to the effect that he or she has asked the chief executive to reply direct to the Member by letter. The chief executive's letter is published in Hansard after the Minister's reply.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many written parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by her Department in each of the past five years; how many of these were not answered because the information(a) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, (b) was not held centrally and (c) was not normally disclosed; how many of these could now be answered now due to computerisation, more effective and efficient operational systems or more open government; and if she will list each question along with the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it. [28506]

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

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total cost and the average cost per student of the BEd/BAQTS in(a) year one, (b) year two, (c) year three and (d) year four on courses in England and Wales. [27994]
  640
  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: The Teacher Training Agency has notified institutions in England of allocations totalling £104.9 million for the provision of courses of undergraduate initial teacher training in the 1995–96 academic year. This represents an average allocation of £2,610 for each full-time undergraduate place the institutions are contracted to provide. In addition, institutions receive course fees, covered for most students by mandatory awards. In 1995–96, classroom-based undergraduate courses will attract a fee of £750 and laboratory-based courses £1,600. Total fee income for undergraduate courses of initial teacher training is estimated to be £45.5 million, an average fee of £1,140. Courses are funded on the same basis for each year of study.

  These figures do not include the costs of student support.

  Questions about the funding of initial teacher training in Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total cost and the average cost per student of the PGCE courses in England and Wales. [27995]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 12 June 1995]: The Teacher Training Agency has notified institutions in England of allocations totalling £48.6 million for the provision of courses of full-time postgraduate initial teacher training in the 1995–96 academic year. This represents an average allocation of £2,850 for each full-time postgraduate place the institutions are contracted to provide. In addition, institutions receive course fees, covered for most students by mandatory awards. In 1995–96, postgraduate courses will attract a fee of £1,600. Total fee income for postgraduate courses of initial teacher training is estimated to be £27.2 million, an average fee of £1,600.

  These figures do not include the costs of student support.

  Questions about the funding of initial teacher training in Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General how many civil servants in his Department are currently working on matters related to the Scott inquiry; if a dedicated unit has been established; and what is the estimated cost to date of civil servants dealing with matters relating to the Scott inquiry. [28864]

  The Attorney-General
  Work on matters related to the Scott inquiry is undertaken by staff in my Department as part of their normal duties and it is not, therefore, possible to estimate the overall cost. The costs of staff in the Treasury Solicitor's Department providing legal services to client departments in connection with the inquiry are included in charges invoiced to departments. No dedicated units have been established in my Department.
  641
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General what legal advice he has sought from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estimated cost of such legal expenses to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [28897]

  The Attorney-General
  The Government do not consider it right to publish the nature or cost of any advice which may have been given to individual witnesses to the Scott inquiry. This is a matter of confidence between them and any legal advisers they may have retained.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28643]

  The Attorney-General
  The reference to Crown immunity in the question is understood to refer to legislation which does not apply to the Crown. There are no areas covered by such legislation for which I have responsibility.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Pets
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice was given by Her Majesty's Government during the consideration of policy relating to the Council of Europe proposals in regard to pet animals; and what is official policy on this matter. [27916]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom is not a party to the Council of Europe convention for the protection of pet animals, and no decisions have been taken on whether it would be right to accede to the convention. In deciding this issue, the Government will take full account, among other considerations, of the potential consequences of the resolutions agreed at the recent multilateral consultation of parties to the convention.

  Nuclear Bunkers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by location the nuclear bunkers that are still waiting to be disposed of; what is the estimated value of each bunker; and if he will list the money raised for each nuclear bunker that has been disposed of. [28264]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Regional government headquarters still to be disposed of and their values, assessed by the appropriate district valuer's office, are as follows:

  Assessed value £

  Shipton, North Yorkshire

  50,000 to 200,000

  Bedford

  270,000

  Ashdown Forest, East Sussex

  200,000

  Soar, Devon

  40,000

  Chilmark, Wiltshire

  District valuer's report awaited

  Bridgend, South Wales

  District valuer's report awaited

  642
  Sites at the following locations have been sold on the open market for the prices indicated:

  £

  Lincoln

  57,000

  Loughborough

  150,000

  Norwich

  165,000

  Brentwood, Essex

  151,001

  Wrexham, North Wales

  42,000

  Preston

  110,010

  Nantwich, Cheshire

  151,000

  A site in Staffordshire and a property in Basingstoke were returned to the Ministry of Defence and to Property Holdings respectively, at no cost. A property at Rugby has been auctioned by the Ministry of Defence for £250,584 and the sale of a property at Hexham, Northumbria, for £1,200,000 has been agreed but not yet completed.

  Rape
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of rape were(a) reported to the police, (b) reached court and (c) resulted in a guilty verdict in (i) 1985 and (ii) 1993. [28247]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information shows that in England and Wales some 1.842 rape offences were recorded by the police in 1985, and there were 844 prosecutions and 430 convictions for rape offences in that year. The corresponding figures for 1993 are 4,589 offences, 1,704 prosecutions and 465 convictions. Information for Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Police Complaints
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to repeal section 98 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of the impact of section 98 on the building of public confidence in the Police Complaints Authority. [28331]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have already announced their intention to amend section 98, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises, to allow the Police Complaints Authority discretion to publish such information as is reasonably necessary to inform the public of the outcome of investigations, without derogation from the principle of confidentiality between the authority, complaints and those that provide information.

  Driving without Insurance
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those people convicted of driving without insurance in each of the past three years have been(a) under 20 years of age, (b) between 20 and 30 years of age and (c) over 30 years of age; [28335]

  (2) how many people have been convicted of driving without insurance in each of the last three years. [28336]
  643
  Mr. Maclean
  The following table gives the available information which relates to the number of convictions for "using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks" in England and Wales for the years 1991 to 1993. Figures for 1994 are not yet available.

  Convictions for using a motor vehicle uninsured against third party risks

  Persons aged

  Year

  Total convictions

  Under 21

  21 and over

  1991

  225,910

  65,093

  160,817

  1992

  246,054

  62,434

  183,620

  1993

  281,136

  65,813

  215,323

  Television Licences
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of imprisoning television licence defaulters in the years 1985 to 1995. [28227]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. David Hanson, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the cost of imprisoning television licence defaulters in the years 1985 to 1995.
  Information on the cost of prisoners, according to their type of offence, is not collected centrally. On the basis of the number normally in custody —under 10—we estimate the costs of imprisoning these defaulters to be up to £200,000 a year.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were imprisoned in each of the last 10 years for the non-payment of fines relating to a television licence offence. [28228]

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

  Letter from B. Landers to Mr. David Hanson, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking how many people were imprisoned in each of the last 10 years for the non-payment of fines relating to a television licence offence.
  The information requested is given in the table. No information is available for the period before 1991 because the offence was not separately identified in the prison statistics.

  Receptions into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, for non-payment of fine imposed for using a television without a licence, 1991 to 1994

  Year

  Offence

  1991

  1992

  19931

  19941

  Non-payment of fine for using a TV without a licence

  394

  568

  825

  763

  1 Provisional information.

  Prison Assaults
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what ministerial approval was given to the Director General of the Prison Service to change the current indicator used for recording assaults by prisoners on prison officers and other inmates from one based on adjudications for disciplinary offences to one based on the seriousness of the assault; and what assessment he has made of the effect of the change on the assault figures. [28103]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The current key performance indicator for assaults in the Prison Service has not been changed. The Prison Service's business plan for 1995–96, which was approved by my right hon. and learned Friend, explains that the Prison Service is developing proposals for new indicators of its performance for introduction in 1996–97. These will include a new measure of serious assaults as a possible replacement for the current indicator which is based on proven adjudications for disciplinary offences relating to assault. Under the terms of the Prison Service's framework document, any such change in the service's key performance indicators will be subject to agreement by the Home Secretary, the director general, the Treasury and the Office of Public Service and Science. The Prison Service will, in any event, continue to collect information about all reported assaults on staff and prisoners and disciplinary proceedings relating to such assaults.

  Prison Accommodation
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlie the absence of a key target for the number of prisoners held two to a cell in cells designed for one person. [28080]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Mike O'Brien, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the absence of a key target for the number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one person.
  When the Prison Service became an Agency in April 1993, it was agreed that the most serious problem relating to overcrowding was the practice of 'trebling', which involved three prisoners sharing a cell designed for one person. As recently as 1987, over five thousand prisoners were 'trebling'.
  The targets set in relation to overcrowding have therefore been to eliminate trebling—which was achieved in March 1994—and to continue to avoid trebling.
  However, against the background of the rapid increase in the prison population—from a low of 40,600 in December 1992 to around 51,000 now—and the need to hold unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners close to the courts—which can result in sudden uncontrollable fluctuations in the prison population in local prisons—it is neither feasible nor realistic currently to set a target for reducing the number of prisoners held two to a cell designed for one person. It is, however, a continuing priority to keep overcrowding to a minimum and to eliminate it wherever practicable.

  Prisoners (HIV and AIDS)
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of HIV and AIDS have been reported in prisons in England and Wales in each year since 1986. [28005]

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

  Letter from A. J. Butler to Mr. Neil Gerrard, dated 15 June 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the number of cases of HIV and AIDS that have been reported in prisons in England and Wales in each year since 1986.
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Cases of HIV (including AIDS)

  Cases of AIDS

  1986

  148

  1

  1987

  75

  3

  1988

  61

  3

  1989

  54

  5

  1990

  59

  7

  1991

  26

  1

  1992–932

  51

  7

  1993–94

  27

  2

  1994–95

  23

  —

  1995–963

  3

  —

  1
  Figure understates position since 27 other cases were reported in the two years 1985 and 1986, but it is not possible to assign them to a single year.

  2 15 month period January 1992—March 1993 (to bring table in line with financial year).

  3 Figures for 1995–1996 are as at 30 May 1995.

  The table represents the number of new cases of HIV infection confirmed and reported by prison medical officers. The average number of cases in the prison system in England and Wales at any one time has varied between 30 and 70. There are currently 54 prisoners known to have HIV, confirmed and reported by medical officers in the system.
  These figures do not represent the totality of HIV infection in the prison system. Testing for HIV infection, as in the community, is carried out only with the consent of the prisoner.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Students
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make students living on student grants and loans eligible to receive a full council tax and rent rebate on the same basis as people on income support. [27939]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  In general it is the educational maintenance system which is designed to provide support for students, not the social security system, and we have no plans to change this. However, council tax benefit and housing benefit are available to students in specified vulnerable groups such as students with dependant children and those who are disabled.

  Income Support
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 5 April,Official
  646
  Report, column 1224, in respect of evidence of estrangement in the payment of income support to 16 and 17-year-olds, what changes his Department has requested in the practices operated by Benefits Agency officers; and what liaison he has had with the Department of Health in this respect. [28328]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Expanded guidance on dealing with claims under the severe hardship provision is expected to be issued to Benefits Agency offices shortly. The purpose of the guidance is to ensure consistency across the country in respect of the proper verification of claims. The guidance is being developed in consultation with the Department of Health.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reintroduce a mortgage benefit to assist low-income owner occupiers who are not eligible for social security help with mortgage interest payments. [28302]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There has never been a mortgage benefit for low-income owner occupiers and we have no plans to introduce one.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28651]

  Mr. Hague
  Crown Immunity applies to the Department of Social Security and all its next steps agencies in all instances where the Crown is not included in a particular piece of legislation. Examples of this occur in the Employment Protection Consolidation Act 1978 in respect of redundancy and the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 in respect of prosecution. Where the Crown is not so included it always endeavours to follow the legislation. The Crown is included in much legislation—for example the Data Protection Act 1984—and much employment legislation. The Department also has duties by virtue of social security legislation. Whenever a new piece of legislation is drafted, the question of whether the Crown should be included is always considered.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the implications of the proposed revisions to housing benefit entitlement to those with special needs; and if he will make a statement. [28895]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 12 June,Official Report, column 420.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's latest calculation of the proportion of GDP that will be spent on his Department in 1998, 2000 and 2005, assuming no change in DSS eligibility. [27041]
  647
  Mr. Hague
  The proportion of GDP that will be spent by the Department of Social Security is forecast to be:

  1997–98: 11.7 per cent.

  2000–2001: 11.5 per cent.

  The information is not available for 2005.

  (i) These figures assume constant unemployment and Departmental administrative costs and are in 1994–95 prices.

  (ii) Source: Financial Statement and Budget Red Book The 1995 Social Security Departmental Report The Growth of Social Security

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what legal advice he has sought from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estimated cost of such legal expenses to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [28898]

  Mr. Lilley
  The Government do not consider it right to publish the nature or costs of any advice which may have been given to individual witnesses to the Scott inquiry. This is a matter of confidence between them and any legal advisers they may have retained.

  Self-employment
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidelines, excluding case law, are used by the Contributions Agency to determine whether a person is employed or self-employed. [28339]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Liability to pay a particular class of national insurance contribution is determined by reference to the law on national insurance, which generally distinguishes between employees and self-employed persons by reference to contract of service. However, the law does not define contract of service. The Contributions Agency has no legal power to determine employment status, but will investigate, consider and advise individuals and business as necessary. When doing so the agency relies on tests which have emerged from the case law of the courts over many years and applies these to the facts of the individual case concerned. These are the only guidelines which the agency uses formally to advise whether someone is employed or self-employed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Non-human Primates
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the maximum number of non-human primates which may be quarantined within a facility; and what is the ratio of trained staff to primates at any given location and time who are capable of dealing with a filovirus outbreak. [26670]

  Mrs. Browning
  The maximum number of non-human primates which may be quarantined within a facility depends on the size of the facility. Each facility has a superintending veterinary surgeon or doctor who is required to inspect the animals at least once a week and to report any deaths in quarantine to the Ministry. Guidance on how to handle non-human primates safely has been prepared by the Medical Research Council and has been issued to all quarantine facilities authorised to 648
  keep non-human primates. I have placed a copy of the guidance, which is entitled "The Management of Simians in Relation to Infectious Hazards to Staff", in the Library.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has on catches in each International Council for the Exploration of the Seas sub-region by each EU member's fishing fleet for each of the last five years. [27218]

  Mr. Jack
  Information on the uptake of quota by each member state, by stock, is provided monthly by the Commission to member states. This information is broken down by total allowable catch for each stock, whether it be by ICES sub-area or group of sub-areas. Copies of recent end year figures, as compiled by the Commission, are being placed in the Library.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what catch records were decided when catch shares were allocated in the ICES sub-regions; if the United Kingdom submitted catch estimates for each EU nation; if each nation submitted its own estimates; and how differences in estimates were reconciled. [27217]

  Mr. Jack
  The allocation keys for member states were established by reference to the catch records for the years 1973 to 1978. Each member state was responsible for its own catch records. The keys were finally established in 1983 after six years of negotiation.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what money is available to each local authority to cover the expense of implementing EC directive 93/99; and from which fund it is provided; [28374]

  (2) what is the average cost of retraining an unqualified trading standards officer to the level required by EC directive 93/99; [28376]

  (3) what is the estimated total of (a) retraining costs and (b) redundancy costs for environmental health officers and trading standards officers affected by EC directive 93/99; [28372]

  (4) how much money was (a) available to and (b) used by each local authority from the revenue support grant specifically aimed at food safety in each of the last five years; [28375]

  (5) what is the average cost of retraining an unqualified environmental health officer to the level required by EC directive 93/95; [28377]

  (6) what is the estimated number of environmental health officers and trading standards who will be affected by EC directive 93/99. [28373]

  Mrs. Browning
  Following the passage of the Food Safety Act 1990, £30 million which was indexed-linked, was added to the revenue support grant on a continuing basis to cover the extra costs arising to local authorities in discharging their responsibilities under the Act. The duties arising from the implementation of EC directive 93/99 are part of those responsibilities. The sum is not
  649
  ring-fenced and it is therefore for each local authority to decide upon the exact allocation of its share of the sum towards food law enforcement activities. Directive 93/99 does not impose any new training requirements for trading standards officers and environmental health officers engaged on food work. The level of training required for their assistants who are also authorised officers under the Food Safety Act, and the associated costs, will be determined by their individual employing local authority. It is not envisaged that there will be any redundancies in either profession. The exact numbers of officers in each profession involved in food control are not held centrally.

  Sheep Dip
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research funded by his Department in developing alternatives to organophosphorus sheep dip in each of the last 10 years. [28300]

  Mrs. Browning
  The information requested is as follows:1985–86 to 1991–92
  Nil
  1992–93 to 1994–95
  Immunological approach to the control of sheep scab. Pesticide reduction by developing tests to monitor resistance in sheep scab mites and other ectoparasites.
  1995–96
  Immunological approach to the control of sheep scab. Non-chemical methods for the control of ectoparasites.

  Genetically Engineered Crops
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies are available to him of the environmental impact of genetically engineered crops designed to be resistant to herbicides; and what evidence there is of potential prejudice to the environment arising from their use. [28453]

  Mrs. Browning
  Under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, the release or marketing of genetically modified organisms, including GM crops resistant to herbicides, is subject to prior consent. Applications for consent are required to be accompanied by a risk assessment. Scientific advice is given on applications by an independent committee of experts "The Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment".

  Information is also available from research programmes on the release of GM crops carried out by a number of Departments.

  Available scientific information, experience to date and independent expert advice have not raised concern in terms of adverse effects on the environment from the release of GM crop plants resistant to herbicides. We will continue to rely on such information and the advice of ACRE in the review of applications to release GM organisms, including herbicide resistant crops, in order to assess their environmental impact.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what legal advice he has sought from solicitors or barristers in respect of draft conclusions reached by the Scott inquiry; what is the estimated cost of such legal expenses to public funds; and if he will make a statement. [28899]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government do not consider it right to publish the nature or costs of any advice which may have been given to individual witnesses to the Scott inquiry. This is a matter of confidence between them and any legal advisers they may have retained.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what communications he received from Lord Justice Scott over the evidence he gave to the inquiry into arms for Iraq; and what were the dates and the dates of his replies. [28866]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) and for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on 12 June,Official Report, column 373.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Creation Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) how many people attended and left the enterprise allowance scheme in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27455]

  (2) if he will list the numbers leaving the youth training 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; [27516]

  (3) if he will list the numbers leaving the community enterprise programme and community programme as an actual number and as a percentage of total leavers for each year of that operation, including those who left before completion of the schemes; 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; [27524]

  (4) how many people attended and left the training opportunity scheme, in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27445]

  (5) how many people attended and left the job training programme, in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27447]

  (6) how many people attended and left the training for work scheme, in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27449]
  651
  (7) how many people attended and left the youth training scheme, in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27451]

  (8) how many people attended and left the business start-up scheme in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27457]

  (9) if he will list the numbers leaving the youth opportunities 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 reemployment 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; [27514]

  (10) if he will list the numbers leaving the business enterprise support scheme 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; [27530]

  (11) if he will list the numbers leaving the employment training scheme 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; [27526]

  (12) how many people attended and left the business enterprise support scheme in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27456]

  (13) if he will list the numbers leaving the training for work scheme 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; [27513]

  (14) if he will list the numbers leaving the enterprise allowance scheme 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; [27529]

  (15) how many people attended and left the youth training scheme in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27452]
  652
  (16) if he will list the numbers leaving the job training 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 willlist the type and level of qualification each leaver obtained, including those who failed to obtain any qualification at all; [27525]

  (17) how many people attended and left the community enterprise programme and community programme in each year of their operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27446]

  (18) how many people attended and left the employment training scheme in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27448]

  (19) how many people attended and left the youth opportunities programme, in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme; [27450]

  (20) if he will list the numbers leaving the youth training scheme 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; [27515]

  (21) if he will list the numbers leaving the training opportunity scheme 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 if he will list the type and level of qualification each leaver obtained, including those who failed to obtain any qualification at all; [27523]

  (22) if he will list the numbers leaving the business start-up scheme, 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 to 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. [27505]

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

  Employment Subsidy Schemes
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the numbers leaving the temporary employment subsidy scheme 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 to 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
  653
  each leaver obtained, including those who failed to obtain any qualification at all; [27506]

  (2) if he will list the numbers leaving the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, 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 to 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; [27508]

  (3) if he will list the numbers attending and leaving the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, for each year of its operation, including those who left before completion of the scheme; [27518]

  (4) how many people attended and left the temporary employment subsidy scheme in each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme. [27458]

  Mr. Paice
  The temporary employment subsidy scheme and the temporary short-time working compensation scheme provided subsidies to firms with the objective of preventing redundancies. It was not paid in respect of individual workers, so it is difficult to identify people directly supported by the programme. Given the objective of the scheme, there was no evaluation carried out of particular individuals who were subsidised, and there is no information available on what happened when the subsidy ended. I will write to the hon. Member to give further information on the programme.

  Job Release Scheme
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the numbers leaving the job release scheme, as an actual number and a s 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 to 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; [27507]

  (2) if he will list the numbers attending and leaving the job release scheme, for each year of its operation, including those who left before the completion of the scheme. [27517]

  Mr. Paice
  The aim of the job release scheme was to reduce the labour supply by subsidising the early withdrawal from the labour force of people who were approaching state pension age. As the objective was early retirement, no consideration was given to what happened to people after their allowance ended. I will write to the hon. Member to give further information on the programme.

  Sixteen and Seventeen-year-olds
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons aged 16 and 17 years were(a) not in full-time education training or employment in each quarter since January 1988, (b) in full-time employment in each quarter since January
  654
  1988 and (c) in full-time training in each quarter since January 1988. [28120]

  Mr. Paice
  The information is contained in the following table. Figures are not available on a quarterly basis before spring 1992. Annual figures are available from spring 1988 to spring 1991, but they are not on the same basis as those from spring 1992 onwards.

  16 and 17 year olds in Great Britain—1988–941

  Not seasonally adjusted, thousands.

  (a) Not in employment, training or full-time education2

  (b) In full-time employment excluding government employment and training programmes3

  (c) Government employment and training programmes4

  Spring 1992

  116

  141

  129

  Summer 1992

  173

  161

  125

  Autumn 1992

  127

  148

  135

  Winter 1992–93

  103

  132

  123

  Spring 1993

  102

  108

  118

  Summer 1993

  156

  132

  111

  Autumn 1993

  129

  122

  127

  Winter 1993–94

  106

  120

  128

  Spring 1994

  103

  111

  106

  Summer 1994

  137

  138

  95

  Autumn 1994

  106

  132

  102

  Source: The Labour Force Survey.

  1 All estimates relate to young people aged 16 and 17 at the time of the survey.

  2 The figures comprise all those aged 16 and 17 who were not in full-time employment, not on a government employment or training programme, mainly youth training and who were not full-time students.

  3 Includes unpaid family workers.

  4 The labour force survey is known to undercount those on Government employment and training programmes.

  Training Expenditure
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total expenditure on(a) employment training and (b) youth training in the year 1994–95 within the Yorkshire and Humberside area; and how many (i) males and (ii) females were on such schemes. [28256]

  Mr. Paice
  The latest figures available show that the total expenditure in Yorkshire and Humberside for 1994–95 for(a) training for work was £40,262,235 and for (b) youth training youth credits was £70,599,174.

  Employment training was replaced by training for work in April 1993.

  The latest figures available for 1994–95 show that the number of (i) males who participated in training for work was 24,925 and in youth training youth credits was 16,649; the number of (ii) females who participated in training for work was 9,516 and in youth training youth credits was 13,096.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish each month a set of employment figures analysed in the same way as the monthly unemployment figures. [28338]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have no plans to extend the range of information about employment which is currently published monthly.

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the administration cost of the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC for the year 1994–95; and what the figures were in previous years. [28272]

  Mr. Paice
  The administration costs of the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council in 1994–95 will be stated in the TEC's annual accounts, which will be published shortly. Its administration costs were £1,903,000 in 1993–94 and £1,820,000 in 1992–93.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects to award the Barnsley/Doncaster TEC a three-year licence; and if he will make a statement. [28257]

  Mr. Paice
  As I informed the House and the hon. Member by letter on 29 November 1994,Official Report, column 639, the Barnsley and Doncaster training and Enterprise Council was one of the first 12 TECs to complete the process of meeting the rigorous standards set for the award of a three-year licence. The TEC's licence is effective from April 1995.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many successful placements the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC achieved for the year 199495; if he will give the number by trade; and what the figures were for previous years. [28273]

  Mr. Paice
  Information is not available on the number of short-term work placements trainees undertake as part of training. However, the training and enterprise council's information on the number of job outcomes from both youth and adult training shows: 3,734 job outcomes in 1994–95; 2,855 in 1993–94 and 2,937 in 1992–93. This information is not collected by trade.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the percentage change in the proportion of women as(a) chairs, (b) chief executives and (c) board members since the inception of the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC; and if he will make a statement. [28259]

  Mr. Paice
  The Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council board has had one female director throughout its existence, apart from the period February to August 1992. TECs are private limited companies and are free to appoint directors, including chairmen, as long as they meet the criteria set out in the agreement between the TEC and the Employment Department.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the names he holds of potential(a) chairmen and (b) chief executives for Barnsley and Doncaster TEC. [28263]

  Mr. Paice
  The appointment of a chairman or chief executive for the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council would be a matter for the TEC board, and the Department does not hold names of potential candidates.

  International Labour Organisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the United Kingdom's affiliation fee to the International Labour Organisation is normally paid; and when he expects it to be paid in the current year. [28580]
  656
  Miss Widdecombe
  The United Kingdom's subscription to the International Labour Organisation is normally paid before the end of the calendar year to which it applies. The current year's subscription should normally therefore be paid by December 1995.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the cost to public funds of the Confederation of British Industry delegation attendance at the International Labour Organisation annual meeting in the current year. [28581]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost to public funds is estimated to be £18,000.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what will be the cost to public funds of the Government delegation's attendance at the International Labour Organisation annual meeting in the current year. [28582]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost of sending the Government delegation to the International Labour conference this year is estimated to be £22,000.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if the 16 hours per week that students on benefit are allowed to study while being supervised by a tutor under the jobseeker's allowance can be averaged out over a number of weeks. [28160]

  Miss Widdecombe
  People claiming jobseeker's allowance will be able to undertake part-time courses provided they remain available for, and actively seeking, employment. In the case of courses funded by the Further Education Funding Council, the threshold will be 16 guided learning hours per week. This is designed to allow the same number of people to study while claiming benefit as do so now.

  A number of detailed issues are still being considered. One of these is the question of whether the number of guided learning hours will be averaged out over a period. Our proposals will be laid before the House in regulations.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list(a) the profits or losses incurred and (b) the reserves of each training and enterprise council in each of the last three years. [28859]

  Mr. Paice
  The following tables list(a) the profits or losses incurred and (b) the accumulated reserves of each English training and enterprise council at the end of the financial years 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94.

  The figures are those shown in the audited statutory accounts lodged at Companies House.

  The turnover of individual TECs varies considerably therefore comparison between TECs is not possible.

  Post tax operating surplus

  £000

  TECs by region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  County Durham

  2,818,075

  2,595,107

  1,263,515

  Northumberland

  1,262,703

  1,233,752

  1,453,797

  Teesside

  3,838,000

  3,388,000

  1,554,000

  657

  Post tax operating surplus

  £000

  TECs by region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Tyneside

  2,818,000

  (883,000)

  (989,000)

  Sunderland (Wearside)

  293,924

  512,381

  370,585

  Merseyside

  CEWTEC

  1,974,732

  603,311

  (411,813)

  Merseyside

  3,012,181

  1,191,532

  428,632

  QUALITEC

  741,670

  312,509

  201,263

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  1,720,642

  847,848

  1,772,780

  Manchester

  2,936,887

  (880,942)

  1,433,075

  METRO

  188,000

  108,000

  (141,000)

  Oldham

  570,321

  83,406

  (259,844)

  Rochdale

  399,262

  597,651

  578,626

  South and East Cheshire

  1,124,823

  420,244

  (197,045)

  Stockport and High Peak

  1,833,580

  655,247

  45,430

  Cumbria

  1,187,739

  110,772

  (198,587)

  ELTEC

  370,271

  1,338,587

  238,653

  LAWTEC

  3,150,027

  (236,657)

  1,180,674

  NORMID

  1,511,822

  (418,902)

  777,119

  Yorks and Humber

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  2,688,055

  1,012,208

  (821,000)

  Bradford

  1,773,485

  1,524,888

  (297,068)

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  465,421

  (1,574)

  834,291

  Humberside

  2,952,198

  2,258,408

  (143,476)

  Leeds

  2,352,648

  2,160,436

  112,973

  North Yorks

  2,104,000

  936,000

  917,000

  Rotherham

  1,485,797

  1,134,336

  602,442

  Sheffield

  2,340,235

  883,000

  1,144,000

  Wakefield

  2,118,035

  668,301

  746,481

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  1,335,932

  220,801

  (456,586)

  CAMBS

  560,998

  34,280

  341,593

  Essex

  3,037,484

  742,805

  (794,405)

  Greater Peterborough

  754,539

  661,071

  (70,137)

  Hertfordshire

  863,034

  1,199,133

  (242,716)

  Norfolk and Wavemey

  1,279,837

  (411,789)

  789,939

  Suffolk

  1,234,110

  473,259

  (1,455,366)

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  844,000

  98,000

  314,000

  Leicester

  2,709,000

  1,888,317

  895,230

  Lincolnshire

  1,225,370

  1,328,872

  1,225,284

  Northamptonshire

  1,867,401

  109,609

  (736,276)

  North Derbyshire

  653,113

  87,828

  259,345

  North Nottinghamshire

  1,494,000

  (376,000)

  839,556

  South Derbyshire

  3,510,586

  611,343

  (431,000)

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  2,217,000

  (1,606,000)

  (281,000)

  Central England

  992,591

  347,027

  (80,710)

  Coventry/Warwick

  9,899

  7,122

  (463,109)

  Dudley

  411,480

  801,744

  65,377

  HAWTEC

  978,862

  702,859

  (653,609)

  Sandwell

  917,391

  788,829

  (67,510)

  Shropshire

  598,942

  703,807

  321,804

  Staffordshire

  1,399,654

  1,717,636

  1,297,000

  Walsall

  988,580

  941,491

  (1,036,329)

  Wolverhampton

  1,032,122

  379,147

  (512,000)

  South West

  Avon

  1,925,855

  1,647,961

  1,303,000

  Devon/Cornwall

  3,187,000

  121,000

  (1,956,000)

  Dorset

  1,171,204

  53,973

  (276,063)

  Gloucester

  1,574,830

  666

  294,534

  Somerset

  388,152

  711,143

  446,747

  Wiltshire

  849,313

  251,265

  1,044,849

  London

  AZTEC

  1,289,656

  411,486

  832,308

  CENTEC

  148,575

  757,876

  1,530,114

  CILNTEC

  550,812

  1,610,046

  227,611

  LETEC

  (483,267)

  1,138,517

  2,604,868

  North London

  1,153,445

  1,851,198

  (259,730)

  North West London

  438,984

  424,679

  548,329

  SOLOTEC

  896,400

  2,530,966

  1,631,150

  South Thames

  1,292,463

  2,318,842

  (1,292,021)

  West London

  162,104

  1,000,929

  348,466

  658

  Post tax operating surplus

  £000

  TECs by region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  South East

  Hampshire

  1,884,488

  1,430,483

  (185,061)

  Isle of Wight

  479,142

  161,087

  134,138

  Kent

  3,542,667

  2,231,284

  (836,301)

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  360,889

  99,326

  218,407

  Heart of England

  962,649

  860,611

  72,551

  Surrey

  693,092

  967,259

  1,164,642

  Sussex

  3,253,000

  1,875,000

  14,000

  Thames Valley Ent.

  2,719,118

  643,002

  1,175,025

  Grand total

  109,389,029

  56,704,639

  20,050,441

  Accumulated reserves

  £000

  TECs by region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Northern

  County Durham

  3,987

  6,582

  7,845

  Northumberland

  2,463

  3,696

  5,150

  Teesside

  5,796

  9,186

  10,738

  Tyneside

  5,369

  4,486

  3,497

  Sunderland City (Wearside)

  2,002

  2,514

  2,885

  Merseyside

  CEWTEC

  1,976

  2,579

  2,167

  Merseyside

  3,018

  4,210

  4,638

  QUALITEC

  743

  1,055

  1,257

  North West

  Bolton/Bury

  2,013

  2,861

  4,633

  Manchester

  4,258

  3,377

  4,810

  METRO

  411

  519

  378

  Oldham

  1,373

  1,456

  1,196

  Rochdale

  489

  1,087

  1,665

  South and East Cheshire

  1,999

  2,419

  2,222

  Stockport and High Peak

  2,126

  2,782

  2,827

  Cumbria

  2,888

  2,999

  2,800

  ELTEC

  2,122

  3,364

  3,602

  LAWTEC

  3,154

  2,917

  4,098

  NORMID

  1,512

  1,093

  1,870

  Yorks and Humber

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  2,981

  3,993

  3,172

  Bradford

  1,907

  3,432

  3,135

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  830

  828

  1,662

  Humberside

  2,934

  5,193

  5,049

  Leeds

  3,564

  5,724

  5,837

  North Yorks

  3,417

  4,353

  5,270

  Rotherham

  1,731

  2,865

  3,467

  Sheffield

  3,274

  4,157

  5,301

  Wakefield

  2,441

  3,110

  3,856

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire

  1,335

  1,556

  1,099

  CAMBS

  588

  622

  964

  Essex

  4,294

  5,037

  4,243

  Greater Peterborough

  871

  1,532

  1,462

  Hertfordshire

  1,442

  2,641

  2,398

  Norfolk and Waverney

  2,573

  2,161

  2,951

  Suffolk

  2,511

  2,984

  1,529

  East Midlands

  Greater Nottingham

  846

  944

  1,258

  Leicester

  2,709

  4,597

  5,492

  Lincolnshire

  1,225

  2,553

  3,779

  Northamptonshire

  1,867

  1,977

  1,355

  North Derbyshire

  661

  749

  1,008

  North Nottinghamshire

  1,644

  1,289

  2,129

  South Derbyshire

  3,494

  4,106

  3,675

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  2,818

  1,212

  931

  Central England

  993

  1,340

  1,259

  Coventry/Warwick

  2,195

  2,203

  1,739

  Dudley

  412

  1,214

  1,279

  HAWTEC

  976

  1,679

  1,025

  Sandwell

  917

  1,706

  1,639

  Shorpshire

  600

  1,304

  1,625

  659

  Accumulated reserves

  £000

  TECs by region

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Staffordshire

  4,071

  5,789

  7,086

  Walsall

  1,398

  2,340

  1,303

  Wolverhampton

  1,032

  1,411

  899

  South West

  WESTEC Avon

  1,926

  3,071

  4,374

  Devon/Cornwall

  7,286

  7,407

  5,451

  Dorset

  2,794

  2,848

  2,572

  Gloucester

  1,575

  1,575

  1,870

  Somerset

  1,035

  1,746

  2,193

  Wiltshire

  862

  1,110

  2,155

  London

  AZTEC

  1,521

  1,932

  2,765

  CENTEC

  149

  906

  2,437

  CILNTEC

  551

  2,161

  2,388

  LETEC

  (483)

  655

  3,260

  North London

  1,153

  3,005

  2,745

  North West London

  439

  864

  1,412

  SOLOTEC

  908

  3,439

  5,070

  South Thames

  1,292

  3,611

  2,319

  West London

  162

  1,163

  1,511

  South East

  Hampshire

  3,248

  4,679

  4,493

  Isle of Wight

  718

  879

  1,014

  Kent

  3,543

  5,774

  4,938

  Milton Keynes/North Bucks

  578

  677

  896

  Heart of England

  1,563

  2,424

  2,496

  Surrey

  696

  1,663

  2,828

  Sussex

  3,281

  5,230

  5,244

  Thames Valley Ent.

  3,327

  3,970

  5,145

  Grand total

  150,374

  206,572

  226,730

WALES

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the Welsh population speaks Welsh. [28442]

  Mr. Richards
  Some 21.5 per cent. spoke Welsh in 1992 according to the 1992 Welsh social survey. Further information is available in "1992 Welsh Social Survey: Report on the Welsh Language", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will lay before Parliament guidelines for the preparation of language schemes under the Welsh Language Act 1993, and if he will make a statement. [28475]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend has approved the draft guidelines prepared by the Welsh Language Board without amendment and they were laid before Parliament on Friday 9 June.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many written parliamentary questions were tabled for answer by his Department in each of the past five years; how many of these were not answered because the information(a) could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, (b) was not held centrally or (c) was not normally disclosed; how many of these could now be answered now due to computerisation, more effective and efficient operational systems or more open government; and if he will list each question along with
  660
  the name and constituency of the right hon. or hon. Member who originally tabled it. [28505]

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

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of parliamentary questions, which would have been answered directly by him or his Ministers prior to the establishment of executive agencies, are now referred to the chief executive of such an agency. [28485]

  Mr. Redwood
  Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the policy of their agencies and accounting officer for financial regularity. Written parliamentary questions concerning matters which have been delegated to the chief executive of an executive agency in its framework document, normally receive a reply from the Minister to the effect that he or she has asked the chief executive to reply direct to the Member by letter. The chief executive's letter is published in Hansard after the Minister's reply.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the amount of public funds spent in promoting the designation and protection of special areas of consultation in coastal and intertidal areas for the last three years in constant prices; what is his estimate for such spending during the next three financial years; if funding for special areas of consultation within coastal and intertidal areas will permit the United Kingdom to adhere to the European habitats and species directive; and if he will make a statement. [28211]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Marine and intertidal special areas of conservation have not been separately funded. For the purpose of disseminating information relating to these areas, the Countryside Council for Wales had convened meetings of relevant authorities and interested parties and has issued a separate information booklet about marine areas during the recent consultation exercise.

  The funding is sufficient to enable the UK to adhere to the European habitats directive.

  Tir Cymen
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what public funds are spent on the Tir Cymen for each available year since its inception; and what is the planned spending for the next three available years, giving the figures in constant prices. [28212]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The spending on Tir Cymen since its inception in 1992 is as follows:

  1992–93: £600,000

  1993–94: £2,100,000

  1994–95: £3,400,000

  1995–96: £4,000,000 (estimated)

  It is not possible at this stage to estiamte levels of expenditure on the scheme after the current financial year.

  Mr. Cynog Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the results of the Tir Cymen scheme; if all farmers in Wales will be eligible to take part in the Tir Cymen scheme once responsibility is transferred from the Countryside Council for Wales to the Welsh Office; and if he will make a statement. [28213]
  661
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The pilot phase was launched in July 1992 and is planned to run for five years. A decision on the future of the scheme will follow a thorough evaluation exercise later in its term.

  Conservation Sites
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will indicate what person or body will be given the responsibility for identifying and overseeing the conservation of sites of international importance following implementation of reorganisation plans for the Countryside Council for Wales. [28214]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This function will continue to be the responsibility of the Countryside Council for Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales recently made available an additional £100,000 for this purpose.

  Wet Grassland
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the area of wet grasslands in Wales for the latest available five years; what estimates he has made of the area of wet grassland for the next five years; what plans he has to encourage farmers to(a) conserve existing wet grassland and (b) recreate former grasslands; and if he will make a statement. [28215]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Annual statistics are not available, but figures can be derived from the Welsh phase 1 habitat survey and from a vegetation survey of the Welsh uplands carried out in the 1980s. Marshy grassland is generally widely distributed throughout lowland and upland Wales where soil moisture levels permits the development of juncus and molina pastures. There are approximately 24,000 hectares of this habitat present in lowland Wales, with a further 40,000 hectares in the uplands. Farmers are encouraged to conserve and recreate wet grassland through entry into an environmentally sensitive area, Tir Cymen or habitat scheme.

  First impression of the numbers of farmers applying to join the habitat scheme indicate that large areas of wet grassland habitat will be both maintained and enhanced in future.

  Agricultural Land
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made in(a) hectares and (b) acres of the amount of rural land lost to agriculture or conservation since 1965 at five-yearly intervals, indicating this as a percentage of (i) the area of land used for agriculture and (ii) the total land surface of Wales. [28216]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No estimates of the amount of rural land lost to agriculture or conservation are available centrally. Estimates of the change in the total amount of land used for agriculture are shown in the following table:662

  Net change in agricultural land

  Net change in

  Net change as a percentage of

  (a) hectares

  (b) acres

  (i) land used for agriculture

  (ii) the total area of Wales

  1965–70

  -35,425

  -87,534

  -2.1

  -1.7

  1970–75

  -11,100

  -27,430

  -0.7

  -0.5

  1975–80

  17,130

  42,329

  1.0

  0.8

  1980–85

  1,323

  3,269

  0.1

  0.1

  1985–90

  -658

  -1,626

  -0.0

  -0.0

  1990–941

  -4,206

  -10,393

  -0.2

  -0.2

  1 Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations have been made to him by the board of the Countryside Council for Wales requesting additional moneys to ensure it meets its statutory obligations; and if he will make a statement. [28476]

  Mr. Redwood
  I am satisfied, as is the Countryside Council for Wales, that it has sufficient funds to fulfil its statutory duties. Written requests for additional funding were made on 27 February and 9 March. These requests were discussed fully in a meeting I held on 24 May with the chairman and chief executive of the Countryside Council for Wales. At the meeting, I asked the council to further reduce its overheads and to come forward with imaginative schemes using new technology to encourage home working. I have said that £325,000 of capital is available for a suitable scheme. In addition, I have also made available an extra £200,000 for new work to be undertaken on the EC habitats directive and on a study into the effects of overgrazing in Wales. The council has agreed to reduce its overheads by £1.96 million this year.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made about the likely costs of a Welsh Assembly; on what assumptions such work has been based; and if he will place a copy of all studies in the Library. [28892]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department did not work out the costs of the proposals for a Welsh Assembly—I did. The Welsh Office has told me what the costs of employing people at the Welsh Office are.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what work the Welsh Office has undertaken on a Welsh Assembly since 1979; and if he will place a copy of all studies in the Library. [28891]

  Mr. Redwood
  No studies or other substantive work on the possibility of a Welsh Assembly have been carried out by the Welsh Office since 1979.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy of his calculation of the cost of a Welsh Assembly in the Library. [28893]
  663
  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the information I put out in my press notice last Friday, 9 June 1995.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what independent advice his Department has sought on the costs of a Welsh Assembly. [28890]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department has taken no independent advice on the costs of the current proposals for a Welsh Assembly.

  EstateCare Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the proposed feasibility study for the privatisation of the EstateCare Group of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority was submitted to him; and if he will make a statement. [28635]

  Mr. Redwood
  The report by Touche Ross was submitted to my Department on 1 June 1995.

  NHS Performance Tables
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the cost of(a) the publication and (b) the official launching of the NHS performance tables on 4 July. [28636]

  Mr. Redwood
  The estimated expenditure on publishing and launching the 1995 NHS performance tables is £23,000.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 8 June,Official Report, columns 289–90, what representations he has had from the Member of the European Commission responsible for regional development concerning the use of (a) grant-in-aid and (b) the regional development fund in resourcing the Welsh Development Agency; if he will place a copy of the correspondence between the Commission, the Welsh Development Agency and himself on this issue in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [28664]

  Mr. Redwood
  The chairman of the Welsh Development Agency has received a letter from an official of the European Commission asking a number of questions about the agency's participation in European development programmes. The Commission has been informed that my Department will be replying to these inquiries in due course. Subject to the agreement of the Commission, I shall arrange for a copy of its letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Crown Immunity
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all areas within(a) his Department, (b) agencies under his Department's control and
  664
  (c) organisations for which he has ministerial responsibility to which Crown immunity applies; what consideration he has given to removing this; and if he will make a statement. [28647]

  Mr. Redwood
  An Act of Parliament is presumed not to bind the Crown unless the contrary intention is clearly stated, or there is a necessary implication that the Crown is to be bound. Ministers and civil servants will not necessarily share the Crown's immunity from criminal prosecution.

  The Government policy on Crown immunity, as set out in Cm 1599, "The Citizen's Charter—Raising the Standard", is that Crown immunity is being progressively reduced as legislative opportunities arise. In the meantime, Crown bodies are expected to behave as though they were bound by regulations.

  Prescription Pricing
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the corporate structure and legal basis proposed under the bid by the Prescription Pricing Authority (England) to supply the prescription pricing service in Wales via the current market testing exercise. [28856]

  Mr. Redwood
  The Welsh Health Common Services Authority has invited the Prescription Pricing Authority and four other organisations to submit bids to supply prescription pricing and checking services in Wales. Bids are expected later this month. It is for the PPA to satisfy WHCSA that it has the legal basis to take on this work and I understand that WHCSA has asked the PPA to confirm this.

  Psychiatric Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date each of the health authorities and trusts responsible for community services last supplied information to him pertaining to the regular medical audit of psychiatric services. [28659]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department does not monitor audit activity to this level of detail. Medical audit is a professionally led activity, and is an issue for NHS trusts and local purchasers.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how frequently he requires the psychiatric services of each community health care trust and health authority in Wales to be submitted to medical audit; and how frequently he requires each trust and authority to apply comprehensive information to his Department for that purpose. [28660]

  Mr. Redwood
  Hospital doctors are required to regularly review and audit their activities. In addition, health authorities and NHS trusts can agree on programmes of audit and reflect that agreement in their contracts. NHS trusts are not required to submit information of this kind to the Department, although the Department does support projects that promote effective audit.

  University Hospital of Wales—A48 Link Road
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for meeting councillors and officers of South Glamorgan and Cardiff city council to discuss the funding arrangements for the Eastern avenue flyover access directly into the University hospital of Wales site, Heath, Cardiff. [28661]

  Mr. Redwood
  My officials are continuing discussions with the relevant parties.

  EC Urban Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had concerning the number of applications he will be forwarding from Wales to the European Commission under the urban initiative; when he expects a further round of urban initiative applications; and if he will make a statement. [28638]

  Mr. Redwood
  None. At present, I have no plans to invite additional applications for the urban initiative. The European Commission requested one bid for Wales and I have selected Swansea city council's application for Townhill. Negotiations have commenced and approval is currently scheduled for July.

SCOTLAND

  Antanas Gecas
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors led the Lord Advocate not to pursue the prosecution of Antanas Gecas. [25621]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not the normal practice of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to disclose the names of individuals who may have been under investigation. Allegations that persons living in Scotland were responsible for war crimes committed during the second world war were investigated by a specialised Crown Office unit formed in 1991. The results of those investigations were reported to Crown counsel, who decided in 1994 that there was not at that time sufficient available evidence for a criminal prosecution in any of the cases reported to it. That remains the position.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what external legal advice has been(a) sought and (b) received in respect of parliamentary approval for the payment of practice management expenses by GP fundholders. [27016]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 June 19951: No such advice was sought or received.

  A76
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the volume of traffic on each identifiable stretch of the A76 for comparable periods during the past five years. [27377]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the following table. It has been supplied from records extracted from various automatic traffic counters 666
  located on the route in question. Due to the nature of the counting "regimes" of Dumfries and Galloway regional council and of Strathclyde regional council, which manage the counters on behalf of the Scottish Office, there is little continuous counting. The table therefore does not contain data for all stretches for all years and reflects some seasonal variation. However, examination of some of the more permanent sites suggest that the variation is not significant. The Scottish Office published in October of last year a pamphlet on the on-going A76 route action plan.

  Annual average daily flows

  "Route "and Counter location

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Dumfries-Thomhill

  A76 north of A75

  —

  17,776

  —

  18,258

  18,929

  A76 Newbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,011

  A76 Monks Lodge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,499

  A76 N/W of Auldridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,632

  Thornhill-Carronbridge

  A76 S/E of Carronbridge

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,807

  Carronbridge-Cumnock

  A76 Mennock

  —

  —

  2,737

  3,401

  2,111

  A76 Reyhill Farm

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,017

  A76 Gateshead Cottages

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,899

  A76 Polshill

  3,653

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cumnock-Kilmarnock

  A76 Little Heateth

  7,532

  7,005

  —

  —

  —

  A76 Cumnock bypass (S of A70)1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,701

  A76 Cumnock bypass (N of A70)1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5,371

  A76 south of Mauchline1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,856

  A76 north of Mauchline1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,438

  A76 Bellfield to A7191

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,127

  1 Figures based on 12 hour counts (factored up to provide annual average daily flows) carried out in October 1994.

  Prisons
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of receptions of young people to prison for 1994 shown by(a) sex, (b) age, (c) offence, (d) institution and (e) whether remand or sentenced. [27673]

  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 Mr. Michael Connarty dated 15 June 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of receptions of young people to prison for 1994 by sex, age, offence, institution and whether remand or sentenced.
  Table 1 enclosed with this letter shows remand receptions by sex and by establishment. Information on the types of offences allegedly committed by—or the individual ages of—those received on remand is not collected centrally.

  667
  Information on sentenced receptions is shown in the age groups under 16, 16–17 and 18–20 (where appropriate). Tables 2A and 21 set out information in relation to direct receptions from court and Tables 3A to 3L in respect of receptions for final default. As regards Tables 2A and 3A on females, the only all female establishment is Cornton Vale. In addition to the female receptions shown in these tables there were five others: one direct and three fine defaulter receptions to Dumfries and one fine defaulter reception to Inverness. Sentenced receptions are defined as follows. Where a person has several custodial sentences imposed on him by one court in one day this is counted as a reception. However, where custodial sentences are imposed on a person by two or more courts in one day, two receptions are recorded. Also, if a person is reconvicted while serving a custodial sentence and a further custodial sentence is imposed, this is also regarded as a reception.
  Remand and sentenced receptions cannot be added together to produce a total receptions figure due to some double-counting. For example, if an individual is first received untried or convicted awaiting sentence and is subsequently awarded a custodial sentence, there will be two receptions relating to this individual's time in prison—appearing both as a remand and sentenced reception.
  As the information requested is rather lengthy I have arranged for a copy of the tables to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of prison receptions in each year from 1990 by sex and offence. [27670]

  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.

  Direct receptions to Scottish penal establishments by crime and offence, 1990–19941

  Crime/offence

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Total crimes and offences

  9,751

  519

  9,729

  578

  11,022

  562

  11,818

  678

  11,491

  713

  Total crimes: sub total

  7,038

  427

  7,099

  479

  7,880

  464

  8,511

  561

  8,131

  603

  Non-sexual crimes of violence: sub total

  1,001

  32

  933

  24

  1,134

  18

  1,361

  25

  1,241

  25

  Homicide

  66

  5

  56

  1

  74

  4

  76

  4

  77

  5

  Serious assault etc.

  557

  20

  560

  16

  682

  6

  717

  15

  612

  11

  Handling offensive weapons

  14

  0

  17

  1

  19

  0

  56

  0

  126

  4

  Robbery

  340

  4

  275

  4

  335

  4

  489

  4

  396

  3

  Other

  24

  3

  25

  2

  24

  4

  23

  2

  30

  2

  Crimes of indecency: sub total

  203

  9

  176

  8

  162

  8

  186

  9

  210

  6

  Sexual assault

  78

  1

  67

  0

  68

  0

  69

  0

  64

  0

  Lewd and libidinous practices

  98

  0

  84

  1

  75

  1

  90

  0

  129

  0

  Other

  27

  8

  25

  7

  19

  7

  27

  9

  17

  6

  Crimes of dishonesty: sub total

  5,021

  351

  5,110

  406

  5,594

  402

  5,654

  476

  5,487

  498

  Housebreaking

  1,858

  11

  1,823

  16

  1,842

  14

  1,878

  15

  1,782

  17

  Theft by opening lockfast places

  262

  2

  358

  1

  352

  2

  409

  1

  551

  1

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  368

  0

  435

  3

  596

  0

  648

  0

  594

  0

  Other theft

  1,871

  307

  1,800

  351

  2,018

  355

  2,029

  416

  1,852

  433

  Fraud

  209

  9

  192

  14

  171

  7

  181

  22

  163

  31

  Other

  453

  22

  502

  21

  615

  24

  509

  22

  545

  16

  Fire-raising, vandalism etc.: sub total

  149

  9

  118

  6

  149

  7

  162

  6

  173

  2

  Fire-raising

  29

  2

  27

  1

  31

  3

  38

  2

  43

  1

  Vandalism etc.

  120

  7

  91

  5

  118

  4

  124

  4

  130

  1

  Other crimes: sub total

  664

  26

  762

  35

  841

  29

  1,148

  45

  1,020

  72

  Crimes against public justice

  356

  10

  385

  20

  441

  15

  643

  20

  481

  33

  Drugs offences

  297

  16

  368

  14

  375

  14

  493

  25

  521

  38

  Other

  11

  0

  9

  1

  25

  0

  12

  0

  18

  1

  Total offences: sub total

  2,713

  92

  2,630

  99

  3,142

  98

  3,307

  117

  3,360

  110

  668
  Letter from Mr. E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Michael Connarty, dated 15 June 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of prison receptions in each year from 1990 by sex and offence.
  I attach two tables which provide the information in relation to sentenced receptions, showing direct receptions from court and receptions for fine default separately. Sentenced receptions are defined as follows. Where a person has several custodial sentences imposed on him by one court in one day this is counted as a reception. However, where custodial sentences are imposed on a person by two or more courts in one day, two receptions are recorded. Also, if a person is reconvicted while serving a custodial sentence and a further custodial sentence is imposed, this is also regarded as a reception.
  Information on the types of offence allegedly committed by those received on remand is not collected centrally, but remand receptions were as follows:
  Remand and sentenced receptions cannot be added together to produce a total receptions figure due to some double-counting. For example, if an individual is first received untried or convicted awaiting sentence and is subsequently awarded a custodial sentence, there will be two receptions relating to this individual's time in prison—appearing both as a remand and sentenced reception.

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Male

  14,323

  12,360

  12,722

  12,478

  13,985

  Female

  845

  767

  824

  934

  937

  Total

  15,168

  13,127

  13,546

  13,412

  14,922

  1 Information for 1994 is provisional.

  669

  Direct receptions to Scottish penal establishments by crime and offence, 1990–19941

  Crime/offence

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Miscellaneous offences: sub total

  2,063

  88

  1,939

  99

  2,274

  96

  2,388

  114

  2,366

  108

  Petty assault

  566

  24

  560

  25

  566

  36

  681

  36

  749

  36

  Breach of the peace

  1,290

  59

  1,214

  70

  1,541

  58

  1,496

  74

  1,391

  71

  Drunkenness

  91

  2

  68

  0

  88

  1

  124

  0

  123

  0

  Other

  116

  3

  97

  4

  79

  1

  87

  4

  103

  1

  Motor vehicle offences: sub total

  650

  4

  691

  0

  868

  2

  919

  3

  994

  2

  Reckless and careless driving

  43

  2

  24

  0

  59

  0

  63

  0

  67

  0

  Drunk driving

  85

  1

  133

  0

  145

  0

  119

  0

  110

  0

  Speeding

  1

  0

  2

  0

  3

  0

  7

  0

  5

  0

  Unlawful use of vehicles

  505

  0

  518

  0

  650

  2

  720

  3

  807

  1

  Vehicle defect offences

  2

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Other

  14

  1

  13

  0

  11

  0

  10

  0

  4

  1

  1Information for 1994 is provisional.

  Fine defaulter receptions to Scottish penal establishments by crime and offence, 1990–19941

  Crime/offence

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Total crimes and offences

  6,455

  380

  7,295

  614

  7,792

  547

  8,878

  738

  8,174

  701

  Total crimes: sub total

  3,104

  273

  3,434

  427

  3,649

  395

  3,895

  543

  3,502

  473

  Non-sexual crimes of violence: sub total

  42

  1

  41

  3

  63

  3

  63

  3

  89

  4

  Homicide

  0

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  2

  0

  2

  0

  Serious assault etc.

  17

  1

  12

  0

  29

  1

  27

  0

  39

  3

  Handling offensive weapons

  14

  0

  18

  0

  12

  0

  14

  2

  30

  0

  Robbery

  9

  0

  6

  0

  15

  0

  15

  0

  15

  0

  Other

  2

  0

  5

  2

  4

  2

  5

  1

  3

  1

  Crimes of indecency: sub total

  10

  99

  14

  151

  15

  143

  12

  242

  8

  162

  Sexual assault

  0

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  4

  0

  Lewd and libidinous practices

  8

  1

  4

  0

  5

  0

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Other

  2

  98

  9

  151

  8

  143

  8

  242

  1

  162

  Crimes of dishonesty: sub total

  2,538

  160

  2,753

  233

  2,805

  219

  2,937

  270

  2,456

  257

  Housebreaking

  510

  1

  573

  4

  484

  5

  511

  5

  428

  9

  Theft by opening lockfast places

  184

  3

  205

  2

  191

  2

  195

  2

  198

  0

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  135

  1

  172

  4

  227

  2

  198

  3

  169

  3

  Other theft

  1,302

  129

  1,397

  183

  1,439

  180

  1,586

  213

  1,240

  194

  Fraud

  148

  12

  121

  25

  132

  11

  134

  22

  125

  45

  Other

  259

  14

  285

  15

  332

  19

  313

  25

  296

  6

  Fire-raising, vandalism etc.: sub total

  175

  3

  203

  6

  208

  7

  218

  7

  260

  3

  Fire-raising

  7

  0

  6

  0

  6

  1

  2

  1

  2

  0

  Vandalism etc.

  168

  3

  197

  6

  202

  6

  216

  6

  258

  3

  Other crimes: sub total

  339

  10

  423

  34

  558

  23

  665

  21

  689

  47

  Crimes against public justice

  184

  9

  230

  31

  299

  18

  297

  16

  365

  29

  Drugs offences

  150

  1

  187

  3

  257

  5

  261

  4

  318

  18

  Other

  5

  0

  6

  0

  2

  0

  7

  1

  6

  0

  Total offences: sub total

  3,351

  107

  3,861

  187

  4,143

  152

  4,983

  195

  4,672

  228

  Miscellaneous offences: sub total

  2,486

  102

  2,856

  170

  2,856

  138

  3,393

  180

  2,928

  202

  Petty assault

  495

  14

  492

  23

  463

  17

  621

  26

  505

  26

  Breach of the peace

  1,710

  69

  2,011

  102

  2,102

  95

  2,469

  132

  2,103

  152

  Drunkenness

  161

  6

  177

  4

  136

  3

  180

  3

  168

  2

  Other

  120

  13

  176

  41

  155

  23

  123

  19

  152

  22

  Motor vehicle offences: sub total

  865

  5

  1,005

  17

  1,287

  14

  1,590

  15

  1,744

  26

  Reckless and careless driving

  72

  1

  74

  0

  87

  1

  74

  0

  86

  0

  Drunk driving

  155

  1

  193

  2

  244

  1

  220

  2

  250

  0

  Speeding

  10

  0

  9

  0

  14

  1

  25

  1

  23

  0

  Unlawful use of vehicles

  579

  2

  652

  13

  864

  9

  1,177

  10

  1,308

  25

  Vehicle defect offences

  14

  0

  19

  0

  15

  0

  20

  0

  29

  0

  Other

  35

  1

  58

  2

  63

  2

  74

  2

  48

  1

  1Information for 1994 is provisional.

  670 671
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the prison population in Scotland in each year since 1990 by sex and offence. [27674]

  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 Mr. E. W. Frizzell to Mr. Michael Connarty dated 15 June 1995:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your Question about the prison population in Scotland in each year since 1990 by sex and offence.
  Information by offence is not available in relation to the average daily prison population. Details of offence type are only collected on reception following sentence. The table below provides information on the average daily prison population by sex for the years 1990–1994.

  Average daily population in Scottish penal establishments by sex

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Total

  1990

  4,587

  137

  4,724

  1991

  4,696

  143

  4,839

  1992

  5,099

  158

  5,257

  1993

  5,466

  171

  5,637

  1994

  5,408

  177

  5,585

  Miscarriages of Justice
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of alleged miscarriages of justice his Department has considered in each of the last 10 years; and what action has been taken in each case. [27990]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of cases in respect of which representations were received by my right hon. Friend are as follows:

  1984: 54

  1985: 43

  1986: 61

  1987: 61

  1988: 46

  1989: 60

  1990: 39

  1991: 54

  1992: 58

  1993: 52

  1994: 30

  Eighteen cases are at present under consideration. Seven cases were referred by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Court of Appeal under section 263(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975. Petitions were refused in all other cases.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of alleged miscarriages of justice he has referred to the Court of Appeal in each of the past 10 years; and with what result. [277991]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has referred seven cases, relating to eight persons, to the Court of Appeal during the past 10 years. The number of cases in each year and the outcome of the subsequent appeals are set out in the table:672

  Year of referral

  Number of cases referred (persons)

  Outcome of appeal

  1984

  —

  —

  1985

  —

  —

  1986

  1(1)

  Conviction quashed

  1987

  —

  —

  1988

  1(1)

  Conviction quashed

  1989

  1(1)

  Conviction quashed

  1990

  —

  —

  1991

  1(2)

  Appeals dismissed

  1992

  1(1)

  Amended verdict of guilty Substituted

  1993

  2(2)

  Appeal dismissed/appeal Abandoned

  1994

  —

  —

  Rape
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of rape were(a) reported to the police, (b) reached court and (c) resulted in a guilty verdict in (i) 1985 and (ii) 1993. [28245]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information on the number of cases of rape reported to the police is not collected centrally. The available information is given in the following table:

  Number of offences of rape recorded by the police, persons called to court where the main charge was rape and those with a main charge of rape proved in Scotland1

  Year

  Number of offences recorded by the police

  Persons called to court2

  Persons with a charge proved2

  1985

  248

  76

  39

  1993

  339

  78

  40

  1 Cases of attempted rape are included in the above table but cases of assault with intent to rape or ravish are not included.

  1 For persons called to court and with a charge proved only those cases where the main charge was rape are included in the table; all recorded cases of rape are counted even where rape is not the main offence.

  Sheriff Courts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the current position in relation to the review committee chaired by Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson into how the programming of business in the sheriff courts could be improved. [28574]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Following an initial report on the programming of business in the sheriff courts, a number of pilot schemes have been introduced and the results of these, with the implications for court programming of new legislative provisions, are shortly to be reviewed by the group under the chairmanship of Sheriff Principal Gordon Nicholson QC.

  Hire Vehicles
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what legislation and regulations govern the operation of public hire vehicles at Scotland's airports; what measures are in place to ensure that operators and/or
  673
  drivers cannot, by whatever means, refuse to transport passengers on the grounds that the journey is too short or too local; and if he will make a statement. [28527]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Taxis and private hire vehicles operating at airports may require a licence from the appropriate district or islands council under sections 10 to 23 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and a permit under airport byelaws drawn up by the airport operator. The terms and conditions of the licences and permits may vary accordingly to area. If the hon. Member has a particular area in mind he may wish to pursue the matter with the relevant authorities. In the case of Glasgow airport, the authorities would be Renfrew district council and the British Airports Authority.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of(a) revenue support grant and (b) aggregate external finance allocated to each district council on a per capita basis in the current financial year; if he will explain the formulae which resulted in this calculation; and if he will make a statement. [28537]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is set out in the following table. An explanation of how the amounts payable to each authority in 1995–96 were determined is set out in the report to the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1995, copies of which are in the Library.

  1995–96 RSG1 Per capita £

  1995–96 AEF1 Per capita £

  Berwickshire

  120.26

  121.82

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  110.93

  112.38

  Roxburgh

  127.58

  129.46

  Tweeddale

  127.89

  129.34

  Clackmannan

  137.42

  139.62

  Falkirk

  127.10

  128.91

  Stirling

  161.04

  162.64

  Annandale and Eskdale

  97.95

  99.33

  Nithsdale

  111.59

  113.17

  Stewartry

  95.82

  97.07

  Wigtown

  131.55

  133.85

  Dunfermline

  116.86

  118.50

  Kirkcaldy

  127.98

  129.96

  North-East Fife

  130.78

  131.85

  Aberdeen City

  134.25

  135.70

  Banff and Buchan

  119.12

  120.35

  Gordon

  111.20

  111.90

  Kincardine and Deeside

  105.90

  106.55

  Moray

  131.08

  132.43

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  135.23

  137.02

  Caithness

  132.16

  133.69

  Inverness

  113.16

  114.61

  Lochaber

  167.18

  168.88

  Nairn

  111.98

  113.56

  Ross and Cromarty

  172.68

  174.32

  Skye and Lochalsh

  206.15

  207.69

  Sutherland

  177.94

  179.46

  East Lothian

  134.24

  135.82

  Edinburgh City

  181.59

  183.88

  Midlothian

  124.24

  125.58

  West Lothian

  134.32

  135.80

  Argyll and Bute

  228.63

  230.58

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  95.62

  96.05

  Clydebank

  155.73

  158.51

  Clydesdale

  136.71

  138.12

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  120.99

  121.91

  674

  1995–96 RSG1 Per capita £

  1995–96 AEF1 Per capita £

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  138.82

  140.96

  Cunninghame

  147.82

  149.67

  Dumbarton

  127.01

  128.82

  East Kilbride

  126.97

  127.43

  Eastwood

  77.07

  77.53

  Glasgow City

  221.66

  225.40

  Hamilton

  146.23

  148.10

  Inverclyde

  175.00

  177.35

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  129.27

  131.22

  Kyle and Carrick

  124.75

  126.46

  Monklands

  159.27

  161.74

  Motherwell

  146.96

  149.23

  Renfrew

  136.72

  138.68

  Strathkelvin

  118.29

  119.20

  Angus

  112.93

  114.34

  Dundee City

  163.97

  166.75

  Perth and Kinross

  126.87

  128.32

  1 The per capita figures have been calculate General for Scotland's mid-1993 estimates of total population.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed Her Majesty's Government's policy on the concepts of democracy and accountability with the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Homes; what was the result of these discussions; and if he will make a statement. [28569]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the board of Scottish Homes from time to time to discuss a range of issues. I shall next be meeting the board on 4 September. Scottish Homes is accountable to my right hon. Friend and, through him, to the House.

  Johnstone Bypass
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many road accidents have occurred on the Johnstone bypass since it was opened; how many of these accidents have been fatal; how many have involved serious or critical injury; what assessment he has made of the reasons for the incidence of accidents on this stretch of road; what plans he has to take measures to reduce the potential accident risk; what discussions he has had with Strathclyde regional council on this subject; and if he will make a statement. [28528]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There have been 10 accidents, involving 15 casualties, on the Johnstone bypass since it opened to traffic in May 1993. Four accidents resulted in six fatalities and five accidents resulted in nine serious or slight injuries. Responsibility for the Johnstone bypass, including all road safety matters, rests with the local roads authority, in this case Strathclyde regional council. I understand that the regional council is actively monitoring the route and has already made a number of modifications to reduce the risk of accidents on the road.

  Health Trusts and Boards
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what age restrictions exist on membership of health trusts and boards. [27596]
  675
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no formal age restrictions on membership of health boards and NHS trusts.

  Public Offices
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to set uniform age limits for the holding of all public offices appointed by him. [27597]

  Mr. Lang
  I have no such plans. Appointments are made on merit and suitability, regardless of age.

  Gateside School for the Deaf
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the importance of the role performed by the Gateside school for the deaf in Renfrewshire and its future. [28556]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Gateside school makes a valuable contribution to provision for the special educational needs of hearing-impaired children in Strathclyde region. The management of all its schools, including Gateside school, is in the first instance a matter for Strathclyde regional council. After local government reorganisation, it will be for the new Renfrewshire council, and for the other two councils whose schools are currently served by the staff based at Gateside school, to determine how to discharge their statutory duties towards children with special educational needs resulting from hearing impairment in their areas. I am sure that the new councils will recognise the advantages offered by existing and new opportunities for effective and efficient co-operation.

  Raymond Gilmour
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of the application on behalf of Raymond Gilmour for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy; and when he expects to reach his conclusion. [28557]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies of 6 March,Official Report, columns 86–87 and of 21 April, Official Report, column 215. Inquiries into the matters raised on Mr. Gilmour's behalf are continuing.

  Ferguslie Park Partnership
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) names, (b) civil service posts, (c) designations and (d) specific duties of each member of staff who (1) is or (2) has been seconded by the Scottish Office on a whole-time or part-time basis to the Ferguslie park partnership or any of its offshoots or associated companies, trusts, bodies or organisations since its establishment; and if he will make a statement. [28560]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Two members of Scottish office staff are presently on secondment to the Ferguslie park partnership and a further two have completed period of secondment at the partnership. Their details are as follows:676

  1.

  (a) D. R. Dickson

  (b) Unified Grade 5

  (c) Chief Executive of the Partnership from 1 August 1989 to 31 August 1992

  (d) to manage the implementation of the regeneration strategy for Ferguslie Park

  2.

  (a) A. M. Burnside

  (b) Unified Grade 5

  (c) Chief Executive of the Partnership from 28 August 1992 and continues in post

  (d) continuing management of the implementation of the regeneration strategy for Ferguslie Park

  3.

  (a) A. C. M. Baker

  (b) Senior Executive Officer; Unified Grade 7

  (c) Depute Executive from 26 March 1990 to 15 November 1992; Economic Director from 16 November 1992 to 24 October 1994

  (d) implementing strategies for regeneration of Ferguslie Park; managing and developing the Partnership Training and Employment Initiative

  4.

  (a) J. M. Mitchell

  (b) Higher Executive Officer

  (c) and (d) No specific designation. Short term assignment from February to July 1995.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of States for Scotland if he will list all contracts awarded by(a) Ferguslie park partnership and (b) his Department or any other body to which he appoints, to FCB Securities, or its parent, associated or predecessor companies since 1988, or for the latest year for which the information is available; if he will specify the projected and actual value of each contract; and if he will make a statement. [28563]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of the contracts are as follows:

  Awarding body

  Company contracted and nature of contract

  Projected value of contracts in 1995–96 (excluding VAT) £ Thousand

  The Ferguslie Park Training, Economic and Enterprise Development Company Ltd.

  FCB Securities security services (since 1989)

  25.0

  (a) Ferguslie Park Community Centre Ltd.

  FCB Securities security services (since spring 1995)

  50.5

  (b)

  FPCH Limited accountancy services (since autumn 1993)

  3.0

  (a) Craigielea Pre-5 Centre Limited

  FPCH Limited wage administration (since spring 1993)

  1.0

  (b)

  FCB Securities security services (since spring 1993)

  4.0

  Scottish Hospices
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the national lottery on fund raising by Scottish hospices; and if he will make a statement. [28558]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish partnership agency for palliative and cancer care is keeping this under review. A representative of the Scottish Office attends meetings of the agency.

  Security Companies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received(a) supporting and (b) opposing the registration of security companies; and if he will make a statement. [28559]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received no specific representations on this issue. As

  Chief Executives of the New Councils

  New Council

  Salary 1 April 1995 £

  Chief Executive

  Current position

  Aberdeen City

  80,000

  Mr. Douglas Paterson

  Director of Education, Grampian Regional Council

  Aberdeenshire

  80,000

  Mr. Alan Campbell

  Chief Executive, Grampian Regional Council

  Angus

  73,000

  Mr. Sandy Watson

  Chief Executive, Tayside Regional Council

  Argyll and Bute

  68,000

  Mr. James McLellan

  Director of Administration, Argyll and Bute District Council

  Clackmannanshire The

  58,000

  Mr. Robert Allan

  Chief Executive, Clackmannan District Council

  Dumbarton and Clydebank

  73,000

  Mr. Michael Watters

  District Secretary and Director of Legal and Administrative Services, Dumbarton District Council

  Dumfries and Galloway

  80,000

  Mr. Ian Smith

  Chief Executive Dumfries and Galloway Regional Council

  Dundee, City of

  80,000

  Mr. Alex Stephen

  Chief Executive, City of Dundee District Council

  East Ayrshire

  73,000

  Mr. David Montgomery

  Senior Deputy Director of Education, Strathclyde Regional Council

  East Dumbartonshire

  73,000

  Mr. Cornelius Mallon

  Chief Executive, Strathkelvin District Council

  East Lothian

  65,000

  Mr. John Lindsay

  Depute Chief Executive and Director of Finance, East Lothian District Council

  East Renfrewshire

  65,000

  Mr. Peter Daniels

  Chief Executive, Clydesdale District Council

  Edinburgh, City of

  93,000

  Mr. Tom Aitchison

  Chief Executive, Lothian Regional Council

  Falkirk

  76,000

  Mr. Walter Weir

  Chief Executive, Falkirk District Council

  Fife

  89,000

  Dr. John Markland

  Chief Executive, Fife Regional Council

  Glasgow, City of

  96,000

  Mr. John Anderson

  Depute Chief Executive, Strathclyde Regional Council

  Highland

  84,000

  Mr. Arthur McCourt

  Assistant Chief Executive, Tayside Regional Council

  Inverclyde

  68,000

  Mr. Graeme Bettison

  Senior Depute Director of Administration, Grampian Regional Council

  Midlothian

  62,000

  Mr. Trevor Muir

  Chief Executive, Midlothian District Council

  Moray

  62,000

  Mr. Anthony Connell

  Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Administration, Grampian Regional Council

  North Ayrshire

  76,000

  Mr. Bernard Devine

  Chief Executive, Cunninghame District Council

  North Lanarkshire

  89,000

  Mr. Andrew Cowe

  Managing Director, Renfrew District Council

  Orkney Islands

  58,000

  Mr. Ronald Gilbert

  Chief Executive, Orkney Islands Council

  Perthshire and Kinross

  73,000

  Mr. Harry Robertson

  Chief Executive, Perth and Kinross District Council

  Renfrewshire

  80,000

  Mr. Thomas Scholes

  Senior Depute Director of Finance, Strathclyde Regional Council

  Shetland Islands

  58,000

  Mr. Malcolm Green

  Chief Executive, Shetlands Islands Council

  Scottish Borders

  73,000

  Mr. Alastair Croall

  Depute Chief Executive, Borders Regional Council

  South Ayrshire

  73,000

  Mr. George Thorley

  Assistant Chief Executive, Strathclyde Regional Council

  South Lanarkshire

  89,000

  Mr. Alastair J. H. MacNish

  Depute Director of Social Work, Strathclyde Regional Council

  Stirling

  65,000

  Mr. Keith Yates

  Assistant Chief Executive, Central Regional Council

  West Lothian

  76,000

  Mr. Alex Linkson

  Chief Executive and Director of Finance, West Lothian District Council

  Western Isles

  58,000

  Mr. Brian Stewart

  Chief Executive, Western Isles Islands Council

  Sources:

  Local Government Staff Commission and Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee for Local Authority Services.
  678
  the hon. Gentleman will know, the Home Affairs Select Committee has recently published a report on the private security industry. Although the report applies only to the security industry in England and Wales, we will give careful consideration to its conclusions and recommendations.

  Unitary Authorities (Chief Executives)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the (i) name, (ii) salary and (iii) previous occupation of each chief executive so far appointed by unitary authorities in Scotland; if he will list those unitary authorities which have still to appoint; and if he will make a statement. [28561]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Chief executives—strictly speaking, heads of paid service—have now been appointed to all of the new Scottish councils. The information requested, including that for the three islands areas, is listed in the following table:

  Illicit Drugs
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what immediate action he proposes to take to deal with the introduction of new forms of illicit drugs; what resources he will make available to the relevant authorities to stop the use of such drugs at an early stage; what action will be taken against these convicted of dealing in this trade; and if he will make a statement. [28562]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 provides a framework for controlling new or existing drugs liable to be misused. Substantial resources are being committed to action against drug misuse across a range of services, thus facilitating the concerted and vigorous response recommended in the report of the Scottish drugs task force, led by my noble and learned friend the Minister of State. Those convicted of trafficking in drugs will be sentenced by the courts according to the nature of the offence and the class of drug involved.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about progress on construction of trunk road schemes during 1994–95 and those schemes the Government propose to start in Scotland in the next three years. [29410]

  Mr. Lang
  We continue to make good progress towards the achievement of a safe, high quality trunk road network providing benefits to the whole of Scotland. The programme I am announcing today continues our strategy of upgrading the key routes of major economic importance to Scotland's future and the emphasis we have directed to upgrading the A74 to motorway, the completion of the central Scotland motorway and near-motorway network, and the upgrading of the A1.

  The schemes with an estimated cost of more than £3 million each which, subject to schemes satisfying the usual value-for-money criteria, with satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and the necessary preparatory work, are expected to start between April 1995 and March 1998 are:

  M6: Paddy's Rickle to Cleuchbrae

  M8: Newhouse to Shotts

  M8: Bailiston to Newhouse phase 1

  A9: Logie Easter to Garrick Bridge

  A830: Loch Nan Uamh to Polnish Bridge

  A96: Kintore bypass

  M8: Newbridge interchange

  Al: Haddington to Dunbar

  A830: Arisaig to Kinsadel

  A68: Dalkeith bypass

  M77: Fenwick to B764 (Floak)

  M90: Halbeath interchange

  This is an ambitious programme requiring substantial levels of investment. The schemes have a total cost of more than £330 million. The Government see an increasing role for private sector finance and management skills in the trunk road business and, accordingly, I have decided that the M6 Paddy's Rickle to Cleuchbrae project will be subject to a tender competition to identify a private consortium to design, build, finance and operate this scheme, which will include taking over the maintenance
  680
  responsibility for the entire length of upgraded road between Millbank and the Scottish border. That tender competition will start in the summer and it will be a major opportunity for the private sector to increase its involvement in the trunk road business. It shall ensure that the full upgrade of the motorway will be complete by 2000. I am exploring with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport how this strategy might also address the completion of the remaining section of the M6 south of the Scottish border.

  My decision to invite the private sector to design, build, finance and operate the scheme is a significant example of how the attraction of private finance can complement public provision. We shall continue actively to explore the potential for further opportunities.

  We shall also seek tenders for the first phase of the Baillieston-Newhouse project on the M8 to upgrade and widen the sole remaining non-motorway section of the Edinburgh to Glasgow route in line with long-standing commitments. The three successive phases of the scheme will be complete by 2002. The M8 is the principal link between Scotland's two major cities, and several areas of significant industrial and commercial importance are situated along it. The overall condition of this vital artery must be considered most carefully to ensure that it continues to be able to cater for the ever increasing demands made of it. We shall in the course of this year initiate a detailed study to examine a robust strategy for its refurbishment and upgrading. As a first step in this process, we shall shortly seek tenders for a major contract to reconstruct and upgrade the section between Shotts and Newhouse.

  Our programme now includes the commitments I made in relation to the network around the firth of Forth in my announcement earlier this year on the "Setting Forth" proposals—the improvements to the junctions at M8 Newbridge and M90 Halbeath.

  Our major construction activity is directed by our primary objective to upgrade Scotland's internal and external motorway links, which are vital to the continuing success of our economy. This is complemented by our continuing commitment to the improvement of the trunk road network elsewhere. During the next three years, I shall devote resources totalling well over £200 million to a range of improvements and continuing maintenance, which will improve the service offered to travellers and increase road safety. The interests of local communities near trunk roads are also being directly addressed in this programme. During the coming year, the work will see important local improvement schemes on the Al south of Dunbar, the A90 between Perth and Dundee and the A7 south of Hawick, all as part of route action plans carefully designed to put resources where they will secure the greatest benefit. The A76 Kilmarnock to Dumfries route and the A77 will also benefit from such improvements, including traffic calming measures and village gateways. We continue to develop schemes and measures to address urgent needs throughout the network including the A75 and the A96.

  I wish also to report on the substantial progress we have made during 1994–95. Fifteen schemes—each with a cost of more than £3 million—were either completed or under way, representing a total investment in excess of £380 million. They include nine separate schemes contributing

  681
  to the upgrade of the A74. More than two thirds of the upgraded M74 will be open to traffic by the end of this year. Construction of the M8 extension between Newbridge and the Edinburgh city bypass scheme is also well advanced and should be open this year. Construction also continues on the privately financed Skye bridge, scheduled to open in the autumn, the M77 and the A1 Tranent to Haddington.

  The schemes completed in 1994–95, and their costs, were as follows:

  M74—Maryville to Fullarton road: £44 million

  A830—Morar bypass: £9 million

  M6—Cleuchbrae to Dinwoodie Green: £24 million

  M6—Dinwoodie Green to Muirhouse: £19 million

  M6—Muirhouse to Water of Milk: £39 million

  M6—Water of Milk to Ecclefechan: £27 million

  M6—Ecclefechan to Eaglesfield phase 1: £15 million

  As I announced recently, we are also proceeding with the proposals set out in "Competing For Better Roads", which aim to improve the delivery of maintenance across the trunk road network, through the introduction of private sector management expertise, financial skills and innovative contractual methods.

  Taken altogether, this package is very good news indeed for Scotland's road industry and for the users of Scotland's trunk roads.

  Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if any assistance will be given to domestic consumers when separate charges for domestic sewerage are introduced in 1996–97. [29411]

  Mr. Kynoch
  At present, local authority expenditure on domestic sewerage is one of the items which make up a householder's council tax bill. It is not easy for householders to work out how much they pay towards the service. That is why we are publishing a leaflet about water and sewerage costs in 1995–96, following the leaflet sent out last year. The leaflet will be distributed to all householders during the next few weeks.
  682
  The cost to households for domestic sewerage will be clearer from 1 April 1996, when there will be a separate charge set by the new water and sewerage authority that delivers the service. Only those connected to the public sewerage system will be liable to pay.

  As stated during the passage of the Local Government Etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, we intend to see that the change in the financing of domestic sewerage will not of itself produce any increase in the aggregate of council tax and water services bill between 1995–96 and 1996–97. Accordingly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make regulations under section 81 of the 1994 Act to reduce charges for domestic sewerage set by the three new public water and sewerage authorities in 1996–97. This transitional relief scheme will be financed by an adjustment to the level of aggregate external finance funding of local authority expenditure. The amount of help we will give will be shown on individual consumers' bills. The full charge will be phased in over a period of time.

  Medical Negligence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all current alleged medical negligence cases against the NHS by(a) type of allegation and (b) length of time waiting for settlement. [23303]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 May 1995]: The number of medical negligence cases against the NHS currently totals 1,195. Information on the type of allegation is not collected centrally.

  The length of time since the currently outstanding cases were lodged is as follows:

  Time period

  Number of cases

  Within the last 17 months

  412

  2 years

  298

  3 years

  198

  4 years

  106

  5 years

  83

  6 years

  46

  7 years

  26

  8 years

  8

  9 years

  8

  10 years

  9

  12 years

  1

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

Cuba: US Trade Policy
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Bill currently being considered by the United States Congress.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we have lobbied hard both unilaterally and with our European Union partners and others against the proposed legislation. Recent amendments to the Helms Bill appear to go some way to meet our concerns about the extraterritorial aspects. We shall continue to lobby to ensure that all our concerns are met.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that extremely helpful Answer, but is she aware that many organisations and people in this country who have long been concerned about Latin America consider that the United States policy towards Cuba has been flawed for a very long time and that this piece of legislation is a classic example of that? Furthermore, is it not to their great credit that Her Majesty's Government are maintaining excellent relations with Cuba and that our current trade with that country is developing extremely satisfactorily?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend's view. The original Helms Bill contained elements which were objectionable in view of UK trading interests. We shall study the new version carefully and if that new version seeks to extend the US embargo to others, we shall take appropriate action. We have always believed that constructive engagement with Cuba is the best way to encourage reform. I am delighted that there was a growth of 90 per cent. in our trade with Cuba between 1993 and 1994, although it was from a very low base. I am glad to say that not only did my noble friend Lady Young lead a 37-strong delegation to Cuba this February, but that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry will visit that country with businessmen this September.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to take our concerns directly to President Clinton, who holds a possible veto in this matter? However, in the event of that draconian and non-productive Bill becoming law, will Her Majesty's Government advise UK individuals and companies to ignore the effect, as with the Torricelli Bill?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot promise the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, that I shall see President Clinton. I do not know whether he would see
1888
me. However, I can promise the noble Viscount one thing: should those Bills be passed, we would consider making a further order under the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980. That would counteract any extraterritorial provisions in such legislation. We shall take action if those Bills go through without being amended sufficiently.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the rather colourful jacket that she is wearing today, President Clinton would most certainly be able to see her? Is the Minister further aware that everything that she has said today carries the full support of the Opposition? Does she agree in particular that it is already deeply offensive that too many aspects of extraterritorial jurisdiction have been applied by successive American Administrations, without having them added to by this further proposal which seems to run completely counter to the rules of the World Trade Organisation? Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I do not know whether it is the fact that I am wearing a red jacket that is leading to me getting such approval from the Opposition Front Bench. All that I can say is that I am glad that we are at one on this sensible view that we have taken. Our bilateral aid memoire to the United States Administration showed that there would be a prima facie breach of the US GATT obligations if that Bill were to become law. We continue to lobby with other European Union states, Japan, Canada, Mexico and other US trading partners. The French presidency of the European Union has written, as has the European Commissioner. We shall continue that lobbying because we believe that it is only sensible so to do.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government's attitude deserves widespread support? May we hope that in the future American policy not only on Cuba, but on Ireland and in Palestine, will pay greater regard to the views of her allies and less to her ethnic minorities?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords. I very much agree with the noble Lord. I hope also that the battle that we fought, and won, with regard to American policy towards Vietnam will in future lead America to take more notice of the views of her allies because, with regard to Vietnam, and a number of other places in addition to those mentioned by the noble Lord, I believe that a little help from her allies might help the United States to have a more consistent policy.

Motor Vehicle Exports
3.7 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing Lord Orr-Ewing asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many motor vehicles have been exported from the United Kingdom during the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, during 1993 561,355 motor vehicles were exported from the United Kingdom.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that Answer will give the country a very good feeling? We have made tremendous progress, possibly because Japan found this country a very good base for its production for western Europe. Is it not true that not only does western Europe now take 55 per cent. of our exports, but that we are even exporting cars to Japan? Is not that a fact?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to what is indeed a great achievement. In 1984, we exported 86,000 cars to Europe; in 1993, we exported 465,000 cars. In 1984, we exported 883 cars to Japan; in 1993, we exported 17,557 cars. It is not without interest that over 1,000 cars are exported from Nissan in Sunderland each year back to Japan.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would have been a greater achievement if that industry had continued in British ownership?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it may have escaped the noble Lord that almost all large motor manufacturing companies are multinational companies.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the economic policy which the Government are pursuing is responsible for the huge increase in exports, not only of motor cars, but in every other export field?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely correct. That would not have happened had it not been for the policies carried out by Her Majesty's Government, particularly with regard to privatisation and getting out of the web of nationalisation with all its restrictions. Despite the fact that the party opposite has done away with Clause IV, it hangs on to nationalisation as much as it can. My noble friend is entirely correct.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, now that the Minister has got that out of his system, will he complete the picture by telling us how many cars were imported during the year in question?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord thought that I had got it out of my system. That was merely the beginning. I am more than happy to give the noble Lord version two if he asks the right question. It is only because my noble friend was sensible enough to ask a question for which I was not prepared that I was entirely happy to give the answer I did. The fact is that a number of vehicles are imported. In 1984, 1,020 vehicles were imported from Japan. The figure is now 999,000, which is less. That is a matter which will appeal at least to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, will my noble friend say how many motor sport products are exported?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, 40 per cent. of British motor sport sales are exports. The annual revenue in that respect is £1 billion. Some 50,000 people are employed.
1890
It is an extraordinary fact, I think, that in the Indianapolis 500 motor races last year every car but one was built in Britain.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, while I am very happy to hear the good news, will the Minister confirm that much of it relates to the fact that the Prime Minister wants to be at the heart of the European Union? Does that remain the policy?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an extraordinary question coming from the noble Lord. The answer is yes.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may say how pleased I am to hear the Minister revealing the caring side of his nature by looking up the figures for his noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, which are published and freely available. He could have looked them up in the Library. When he was looking them up for his noble friend did he notice in which year car exports from this country were at a maximum? Will he confirm that the figure was over 800,000 in 1969? Does he care to recall which government were in power that year? Would he also like to notice a later figure when exports were at their absolute minimum, which was 1986? Would he like to reflect upon which government were in power in that year?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is not a bad try from the noble Lord. As he has just ribbed my noble friend for asking questions to which he could know the answer, I cannot think why the noble Lord, Lord Peston, asks me questions to which he knows the answers.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that he complimented, quite rightly, the management which helped to create those figures but that the engineers and skilled workmen, with the essential agreements brought about by their trade unions, also deserve a mention?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord always asks the most anodyne of questions. The answer is that I agree with him.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to acknowledge the growing contribution of this country's newly reconstituted motor cycle industry, notably Triumph, which is exporting as many motor cycles now as it can make?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for making a contribution of considerably greater help than the one made by his noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie who seems to have vanished now that he has divested himself of his question.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the last figure he gave I think the decimal point had slipped three times? He is not alone in that. Winston Churchill and Alec Home both had trouble with their damned dots.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall have to look at Hansard. I am not aware of a decimal point dropped or moved three places. I am greatly disturbed by what my noble friend says, hut I am not referring to the question he asked.

PowerGen: Sale of Shares
3.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they will not set up a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the recent sale of their shares in PowerGen Plc.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Henley): My Lords, there is no case for a public inquiry. The Treasury is pursuing the further work suggested by the Stock Exchange concerning the circumstances surrounding the GENCO 2 sale. Sir Terence Burns will respond in substance to the Stock Exchange and the response will be published.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. There are some worrying aspects about the sale. Does the Minister agree that, because the Treasury is an interested party in this matter, a public inquiry would be more in keeping with open government and be seen to be more independent and more rigorous, and would ensure that all aspects of the matter were aired?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is being over-simplistic. Matters relating to this issue have been explained by the Government on a number of occasions, and in particular by my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary, who informed the House of those matters last week. As I said in my original Answer, the Stock Exchange wrote to the Treasury and suggested that a Treasury inquiry would be appropriate. That is why the Treasury is taking forward urgently the work suggested by the Stock Exchange. We have asked a senior official within the Treasury, who was not associated with the original work, to carry out that inquiry. As I said in my first reply, we will publish the response when we send it to the Stock Exchange.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the case that the Question shows that the noble Lord who asked it was suffering from that most distressing and almost universal complaint of "inquiryitis"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on how he wishes to ask his Question. But people often jump to the idea of having a public inquiry at far too early a stage. As I said, a proper inquiry will be conducted by the Treasury and the results of that inquiry will be published.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I bought some of these shares. Is the Minister aware that, since the original issue price, the shares have agreeably gone up in value, and that the only people who have suffered are the speculators who expected to make a very quick profit on the first few days of trading? They did not. But now all who, like myself, bought them as a long-term investment are extremely satisfied with the agreeable increase in price.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. I should like to congratulate him on his financial acumen.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, does the Minister recall that, in his Statement to another place on 9th June, Sir George Young stated:
"We took financial and legal advice on 3 March about the possibility that Professor Littlechild might make an announcement.… The advice that we received was that no change was required to the prospectus"?—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/95; col. 422.]
Will the Minister confirm that the legal advice was received from the firm of Slaughter and May? Will he tell the House whether, as I am reliably informed, before receiving the opinion of Slaughter and May, the predominant legal opinion in the Treasury was that the prospectus should be changed?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be well aware, we do not comment upon our legal advice.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, will the Minister answer the second part of my question? Before the receipt of independent legal advice, was the predominant legal opinion within the Treasury that this prospectus should be changed? Is that true or false? Yes or no?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my answer does not change. We acted on legal advice.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister telling the House that the Government are like the former servant who brandished an open testimonial which said, "During his period of service with me, Mr. So and So has discharged his duties entirely to his own satisfaction"?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Earl makes a very silly point. As I made clear, we are responding to the Stock Exchange, which suggested that an internal inquiry by the Treasury would be appropriate.
Lord Richard: My Lords, are the Government saying that there is something wrong with the sale of these shares, but that the Government are not to blame because of the advice that they received, or are they saying that there is nothing wrong with the sale of the shares?
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have made it clear that we believe that we have acted absolutely appropriately on all occasions, but we have been asked by the Stock Exchange to conduct an inquiry. As it has so asked us, we have said we will. We are doing it in the manner in which the Stock Exchange has asked us to do it.

NHS Prescriptions: Cost to Patients
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total cost of National Health Service prescriptions; and, of this total, what is the proportion which are free and what is the value of patients' charges made for each of the last three years.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, in the three years up to 31st March 1994 the total cost to the National Health Service in the United Kingdom of prescriptions for family health services was £3,626 million, £4,089 million and £4,491 million respectively. The income from the charges was

1893
£259 million, £290 million and £318 million and over 80 per cent. of prescription items were dispensed free of charge.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He said that more than 80 per cent. of prescription items are free but today many prescription items cost more under the National Health Service than they cost to buy over the counter. Furthermore, prescription items are free for anyone over the official retiring age, which does not apply to dental charges. In view of those facts, is it not time that the whole question of who pays, and at what cost, should be looked at again? That would give us the benefit of prescribing new, improving and expensive drugs rather than seeing a great deal of public money spent on drugs which cost less than the money paid by the health service.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to undertake such a review. It is important that some 80 per cent. of items are prescribed free of charge. Nevertheless, the money received from charges is substantial and the National Health Service can put it to good use. Particular items might cost less than the National Health Service prescription charge and it is open to the individual to acquire them by way of private prescriptions. However, I counsel those who consider taking that route to examine carefully whether at the end of the day it would be cheaper for them.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the anomaly whereby patients with certain medical conditions which require continuous replacement therapy—for example, diabetics and people with thyroid deficiency—but who are not exempt from prescription charges for any other condition can obtain free of charge not only the drugs that they require for their qualifying medical condition but tranquillisers and so forth, whereas other patients who are suffering from conditions which need continuous treatment—for example, those with high blood pressure—can obtain no drugs free of charge? Does not the Minister believe that it is time for a review of the whole system?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, no. Clearly, the situation is not without its complications but I would not suggest that we should be extending the range of conditions to which exemption applies. Those who have a medical condition may wish to take advantage of the prescription prepayment certificates. Those in the United Kingdom who have done so have, on average, recouped their outlay approximately three times over. I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise that, if one tried to exempt those items required only for the treatment of the qualifying condition, an extremely complicated set of arrangements would follow, with whitelists and blacklists and doctors having to make difficult decisions about whether the particular prescription was attributable to the qualifying condition.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, we have heard that some drugs cost less to buy over the counter than on prescription and the fact that a patient can ask for a private prescription prepayment certificate. Would it not
1894
be easier for the pharmacist to be given the right to dispense the prescribed item at its correct price instead of charging the prescription price?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as I have indicated, that can be achieved by using the private prescription. One must look at the matter most carefully. There is an assumption that because the drug might be acquired at a cheaper rate by the National Health Service the price would necessarily be cheaper for the private individual going into the pharmacist. The situation is not as simple as is sometimes portrayed. I believe that it is important to continue with the system that we have. There may be casual circumstances in which people need a prescription but if they need it on a repeat basis they are probably better to use the prepayment arrangement, even if the required item costs less than the NHS prescription charge.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that most GPs, under the terms of their service agreements, feel unable to issue the so-called private prescriptions? If the Government are anxious to see the increased use of that system, will they alter GPs' service agreements in order that they can issue prescriptions that are less costly than those of the NHS?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, that arrangement is already in place. I have been anxious to establish the fact that this matter should be approached with caution. If the individual has repeat prescriptions, he might be better placed to take the opportunity of using the prescription prepayment arrangement, even if the individual item costs less than the current standing charge.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sorry to come back on this matter but the Minister may have misunderstood me. I understand the professional and legal advice to GPs to be that they should not issue the so-called private prescriptions within the terms of their service agreements. I consulted the BMA on the matter this morning and I believe that the understanding of GPs is that in order to do so legitimately their service agreements would have to be changed. Will the Government do that?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I was not aware of that view of the BMA. I understand that GPs can issue such private prescriptions hut it is certainly the case that they are under no obligation to do so.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have had considerable correspondence with the department on that very subject and I have come to the same conclusion as he has? But there is a problem with dispensing doctors. Dispensing doctors can write a private prescription but they are not allowed to dispense that prescription to their patients. That puts the patients of such doctors on an unequal footing with other patients. Will the Minister ensure that something is done about that?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am aware of that complication and I shall certainly look at the matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Next Question!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, there is not a next Question—this is the last Question on the Order Paper! I agree with the Minister that the matter should be approached with caution because it is an emotive subject. Nevertheless, I wish to press the point because he said that more than 80 per cent. of prescription items are dispensed free of charge. Even if the item you require costs only £1, if you have free prescriptions you would still like it on a National Health Service prescription because it would save whatever the amount may be. Can the system be reviewed so that, in the case of an item which is worth only £1 and is available over the counter for that amount, a patient entitled to a free prescription will still cost the NHS only £1 instead of the full dispensing amount of £5? Or does the Minister believe that such a system would so endanger the pharmacy industry that that factor should perhaps be taken into consideration? That is why I suggest that the matter should be investigated.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the assumption underlying the question is that the only cost to be considered is the cost of the drug. Clearly, administering the system of prescriptions throughout the United Kingdom is expensive. The cost to be considered is not only the cost of the drug but administration and other dispensing fees.

Prisoners (Return to Custody) Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Insurance Companies (Reserves) Bill
Read a third time, and passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.30 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 again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 7 [Exemption for small businesses]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 5, line 21, at beginning insert ("Until 1st April 1997.").
The noble Baroness said: This part of the Bill deals with employment matters and, in particular, it excludes small firms with fewer than 20 employees from the provisions of the Bill. I understand that subsequent amendments are to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which propose bringing small firms within the remit of the Bill on a phased timescale. Obviously, in the absence of anything else, we support that.
However, Amendment No. 52A would not allow small firms to be exempt after 1st April 1997. In other words, after 12 months small firms, alongside large firms, would come within the framework of the Bill. They would not be allowed to discriminate against disabled employees where the disability was not relevant to the job or where accommodation for the disability could be made at reasonable expense.
Small firms represent some 35 per cent. of the labour market, or 17 percent, if the self-employed are excluded. They represent something like 96 per cent. of all businesses. They are the fastest-growing sector of the economy. Between 1979 and 1986, 750,000 small businesses were formed in this country. In particular in the rural economy—for example, Devon, Norfolk and Wales—it is difficult to find any businesses which employ more than 20 people. Almost by definition, larger businesses tend to be in more urban areas. Therefore, to exclude small businesses with fewer than 20 employees means that for large swathes of the country, when disabled people seek work, they will be without the protection offered by this Bill. Is that reasonable? Why should they be excluded?
The figure of 20—firms employing fewer than 20 employees—was imported from the old quota system established in 1944 when the nature of the business structure in this country was very different. That was obviously because, on rounding down, firms with fewer than 20 employees would come to less than one full-time employee, and the 3 per cent, meant that 20 was a good and effective rough and ready figure.
But that has not applied in subsequent legislation. For example, in race legislation there is no minimum quota figure. Major health and safety legislation applies to all firms, irrespective of their size. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 began by excluding firms with fewer than five employees and I understand that that exclusion has now been abolished.
Therefore, is it reasonable to exclude small firms with fewer than 20 employees? What arc the arguments in favour of it? The first argument which the Government advanced in the other place is that to adapt companies for disabled people's employment is expensive and therefore that would be an unacceptable burden on small businesses; and as small businesses are the seedcorn of the future it is unreasonable to burden them with additional and bureaucratic expenses which they can ill afford and which may therefore strangle their development.
On this side of the Committee we are as anxious as all Members of the Committee to see small businesses flourish. But the costs of adaptation to allow employment of disabled people have often been wildly exaggerated. In the United States, two-thirds of all companies made adaptations which cost less than 500 dollars. It has been estimated by employers that the average adaptation of a company to allow full physical access for disabled people is on average £200. That is the kind of burden that we are talking about. That is the average cost to make small companies physically accessible for disabled people.
What of the secondary costs which small businesses fear—not just the cost of physical adaptations but the personnel costs? I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, mentioned those on an earlier debate; for example, the time off required for sickness, medical appointments or for coverage. That point was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who said that, overall, disabled people have better and more reliable employment records than non-disabled people. A 1990 Devon careers study showed that 93 per cent. of employers found that disabled people performed as well as or better than able-bodied people. They had fought harder for the job and were determined to keep it. Moreover, 45 percent, of employers found the attitude to work of disabled people was as good as that of able-bodied people and 55 per cent. found that it was better. Therefore, only a tiny fraction found the attitude to work of disabled people less acceptable than that of able-bodied people.
As regards attendance—the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—70 per cent. of employers found the attendance of disabled people equally good and 26 per cent. found it to be better than that of average able-bodied people. In other words, only 4 per cent. found that there was a problem in relation to personnel issues.
Therefore, the financial costs to provide access are on average about £200, which in any event is covered by "reasonable cost", and the personnel costs of disability are not shown to create the problems which it is perhaps perceived that they do. On the contrary, the attendance, regularity and reliability of disabled people on the whole is better than able-bodied people and those arguments in relation to small businesses are therefore simply not valid. Consequently, the argument to exclude small businesses because we would be imposing an unreasonable cost on them if they were to fall within the framework of the Bill is not true. It does not exist in relation to physical adaptations of premises or in relation to personnel. If we stopped thinking of disabled people as a burden but instead thought of widening the opportunities for employers to invest in human capital, it is clear that disabled people are a very sound investment indeed.
The second argument relates to the views of small businesses. The Government's Red Book, which has a summary of responses at Table 26, shows that, of 250 organisations which commented, 200 did not wish to see small firms excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Within that, six voluntary organisations would go along with excluding small firms but 59 would not. Four local authorities would go along with the exemption but 43 would not. Of course, when one talks about local
1898
authorities one must think of contract compliance and cost centres. There are very small subsections within local authorities in relation to which the fewer-than-20 rule would apply. Of the employers who responded, one employer would wish to see small firms excluded and 10 would not. The rest were so concerned about the issue that they did not bother to respond to the question.
Therefore, only one employer favoured the exclusion of small companies while the rest favoured their inclusion or were indifferent. Therefore, evidence from the consultation exercise does not show that small businesses need to be excluded because they are asking for that. It will not be costly and small businesses are not calling for that exemption.
The Government may say that the responses are all from larger firms like the CBI and that "they would call for it, wouldn't they?" It is worth reminding ourselves that over 50 per cent. of the companies that the CBI represents, including the trade associations of small companies, have fewer than 20 employees. Therefore, when the CBI and the Employers Forum on Disability call for small firms to come within the Act they are speaking for their constituency which includes small businesses. We believe that it is not right that a disabled person's access to employment should depend on who employs him and where he lives, as will be the case if the Bill passes unamended.
Nonetheless, we still support the fall-back amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. However, we have been swayed on one side by a consideration which was brought to our attention by the Employers Forum on Disability and by the CBI. All organisations are protected from having to make adaptations which are unreasonably costly. If small firms were excluded altogether at this stage, then what counts as unreasonably costly would be determined by the firms to which the Act would initially apply. Those arc the larger firms; that is, those with over 20 employees. When, five or 10 years on, as would be the case under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, smaller firms were required to make similar adjustments, the concept of reasonableness would have been determined by the larger firms through litigation and through the courts of law and smaller companies would have lost their voice. We believe that that could be to their disadvantage.
It would be much better for smaller firms to be in with the larger firms from the beginning as regards determining what counts as reasonable cost, reasonable access to premises and reasonable personnel costs. I believe that all those factors should be considered together. Therefore, given that fact and given that, in all the circumstances, no firm is asked to do anything that is unreasonably expensive, we do not believe that small firms should be excluded from the Bill. We do not believe that they need the double protection both of reasonable cost and of size. However, we do believe that they may continue to exhibit discriminatory practices unless they are required to comply with the law. We also believe that small companies which want to employ disabled people may fear that they will be undercut competitively without such inclusion.
We believe that there is no justification, when one explores the matter in detail, for excluding small firms from the Bill. On average, the cost of physical adaptations

1899
is only £200. They can well afford that. The costs of personnel are not evident; on the contrary, all the evidence that we have shows that disabled people produce more effective, reliable and cost-free services. Finally, all the evidence suggests that small firms are not calling for such an exclusion. Given that fact, let us bring them into the frame from the beginning and ensure that disabled people have full access to employment irrespective of who they work for and where they live. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am in general agreement with the remarks so eloquently made by the noble Baroness. The amendment would have the effect of postponing the whole of Clause 7 for at least a year. Firms employing fewer than 20 people were excluded under the 1944 Act—and, indeed, have been for the past 50 years— from the quota system. Therefore, we are now considering changes to the quota system which many of us knew would have to be carried out.
As the noble Baroness said, small firms would have had to have been employing 0.04 of a person, or something like that, under the quota system. Clearly, that was not practical. However, small firms are an important sector of the employing community. We are now dealing with a legacy of the quota system. I shall not repeat what I said on Second Reading, but, with the new system being proposed in the Bill, I consider that small establishments should be included in due course, if not now.
Judging from the amendments with which we shall deal later, it is clear that there is a general feeling that some postponement may be necessary but that, in due course, smaller firms should be brought in. In certain circumstances, it may be more difficult for a small firm to make the changes and to expend the money required to employ a disabled person. But, with the principle of reasonableness and reasonable adjustments which runs through the whole of the Bill—and, incidentally, ran through the American equivalent—surely that consideration would be taken into account when a small-firm situation was being considered.
The quota system could not be enforced because only about I percent, of the working population in the country have been registered as disabled people. Therefore, not all of the large employers could possibly achieve the 3 per cent. quota. That is a mathematical fact. I believe that I am politically correct in saying that only a numeracy challenged person would not accept that fact.
We must now consider why disabled people did not register and hope that that will not continue to be the case under the new system. Indeed, we must do everything in the future to encourage disabled people to register. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and I have disagreed in the past on the matter. In the debate on 22nd May, the noble Lord said that he was blaming Ministers and not the quota system for the fact that the quota could not be reached. He then said that that was the only political comment he would make during his speech.
However, the noble Lord was being unfair to himself. He was not making a party political point. Why? Well, the noble Lord himself had been making exactly the same criticism of Labour Ministers in the other place before
1900
1979. For example, during Question Time in 1978 on July 4th (at col. 215 of Hansard) he made the same criticism. Indeed, the situation has been going on for years; namely, that fewer than 3 per cent.—that is, well under 3 per cent.—of the labour force have been registered as disabled. The Minister at the time, a Mr. Grant, as recalled in Hansard, replied again that it was impossible for firms to employ 3 per cent, and meet the quota because far fewer than 3 per cent. had been registered as disabled. Therefore, the noble Lord was not making a party political point because he had been attacking Ministers on both sides.
My object in reminding Members of the Committee about the latter is to point out that the situation has existed for many years under both kinds of government. The quota could not be enforced because too few disabled people allowed themselves to be registered. Many of them thought that registration would brand them as inadequate and that they would do better by not being disabled, or being branded as such, and remaining outside of the scheme. So the quota scheme pointed in the right direction and provided a target. The difficulty was that the target could not be reached and therefore could not be enforced.
On the question of registration, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, in a report dated March 1994, discussed at page 33 this most important point. The report stated that disabled people gave,
"several reasons for regarding the 1944 Act as not just inadequate, but potentially detrimental".
The writers of the report were of the view that we must make changes to the system. They went on to point out that there was a "dilemma" for disabled people:
"Should they register in order to obtain the benefits that registration offers, or does the potential discrimination they may face outweigh any supposed advantages of registration'.'"
That sums up the problem that has existed for over 20 years. Despite this falling short of the original intention of 50 years ago, some will be sorry to see the quota scheme being replaced, for example MENCAP. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is in his place and I am sure he will agree with me that MENCAP—that is the organisation dealing with those who have learning disabilities—has found it useful, although it also realises that the target and enforcement were not possible.
I remind the Committee that the 1944 Act was passed during the war mainly to cater for war-disabled people, large numbers of young men in their twenties, including me, who had their working lives ahead of them and who were disadvantaged by disabling injuries incurred in World War II. Their numbers have been dwindling and now almost all, if not all, arc past retirement age. The system introduced by the 1944 Act performed well—not only the quota scheme but other parts of the Act—over many years and in the tasks intended. The situation today is different and radical changes are needed. In making changes small businesses can be included, in my opinion, in future provided the principle of reasonableness prevails.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I want to stun the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, by saying that I propose to agree with him on a number of points he has made, as distinct from the usual controversies and arguments between us. In the first place the noble Lord is quite right when he

1901
implies that my remark the other day was not, as I said, a party political comment because he is quite right that not only Conservative Ministers but also Labour Ministers have not been enforcing the quota. It is perfectly proper and right to say that. A number of us have been campaigning both against a Conservative Government and a Labour Government both of whom were failing to ensure that disabled people were served properly by enforcing the quota.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, spoke about people being numerically challenged. I would like to argue with him on that but I cannot do so because my wife says that I am numerically challenged. When I try to argue with her about bills or anything else she insists that I am numerically challenged. Therefore I had better not take issue with the noble Lord on that. However, my stand on the quota is that we need to retain it because this Bill is by no means an adequate substitute as it stands. We want to strengthen it. We need to register—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to that—the number of unemployed disabled people and the number seeking work. But, basically, on this issue of small firms having an undue burden imposed on them, I simply do not see how anyone on the government side can claim that they must exclude firms with under 20 workers because the burden would be an undue and unfair one. That is wholly illogical because under the basic, fundamental, unambiguous terms of the Bill it is impossible to damage small firms.
I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is in his place because he is always able to quote chapter and verse on particular Bills and amendments. On page 5 of the Bill, Clause 6(7) states specifically that regulations may make provision,
"as to circumstances in which it is reasonable for an employer to have to take steps".
There is also a provision as regards regulations on cost. Therefore the matter of unreasonable costs is quite out of the question. The terms of the Bill prohibit unreasonable costs. Therefore no Minister can legitimately argue that unreasonable costs will be imposed on small firms.
I am sure that in this Chamber and the other place the argument that we cannot afford a measure has been used since time immemorial. I am sure that such an argument was used at the time when people were trying to abolish the slave trade and the employment of young chimney sweeps. I am sure it was argued that we could not afford to do that. It is an argument that is inapplicable to this Bill especially in view of the Government's own assessment that the average cost of compliance would only be about £200. Even if there was this cost, I remind the Committee that this Bill is about unjustified discrimination. Many Members of the Committee will remember the words in the report of the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People (CORAD). The classic phrase was:
"We are not trying to get blind bus drivers or deaf piano tuners jobs".
That is a marvellous phrase. It encapsulates all that we are not trying to do.
We are trying to outlaw only unjustified discrimination. In many cases it is simply prejudice that prevents disabled people from doing jobs of which they are just as capable as able-bodied people. I see no reason why small
1902
firms should be allowed to indulge their prejudices, especially when large firms cannot do so. In any case when changes are made by these firms under this Bill when it becomes an Act, government assistance will be available. We have already said that the Government's access to work scheme is of tremendous help to these firms. That will help small firms and in most cases there will be no cost to them. I know that some Members of the Committee opposite may argue that some small firms will be unable to compete if they are included in the terms of this Bill. All I can say is that the provisions would be imposed on all firms so that no particular firm would have a specific advantage.
Finally, if Ministers claim that small firms will be asked to observe a code of practice, I would add that this Bill is aimed at the unscrupulous small firms which arc trying to evade their responsibilities and who discriminate, either wilfully or inadvertently. They are the very firms which will not be impressed by a code of practice. The majority of firms which are good firms will accept a code of practice; the bad firms will not. That is why we need this requirement to include all firms regardless of their size.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am not convinced by the argument on costs. As I stated the night before last, the access to work scheme, which has been a great success and has helped 10,000 people, cost £14.6 million, which is an average of £1,460 per person employed. The figure of £200 has been batted about. If the figure were £200, I am sure that small firms would not have a problem on the cost side. However, it does not give me much comfort when we talk about reasonable costs for two reasons: the first is that "reasonable" is not defined—£1,500 could be a reasonable sum to one small firm whereas it could be absolutely crippling to another.
We are holding in our minds a picture of a company or a firm with 20 people. What about a group of perhaps seven or eight people who have got together to create a new business? If they were lumbered—I say "lumbered" advisedly—with a cost of £1,500, it could make the difference between either employing another person, or not going after a certain amount of business, or not succeeding. I would like some clarification from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, about the figure of £200. How would she cope with the word "reasonable" because, as I say, what is reasonable to one firm may not be reasonable to another?
There is also, of course, a hidden point in that if one cannot decide what is constituted by "reasonable", it is— to use my phrase—a lawyer's charter. One will have to consult lawyers for them to decide what is reasonable and what is not reasonable.
I turn to the second point raised by the noble Baroness in relation to personnel issues. I have not seen the survey she mentioned. At Second Reading I spoke from my own personal experience. I reiterate that my experience of employing disabled people has been as I stated. It may be that I have been extremely unlucky. However, the organisation was big enough to be able to carry the costs. The disabled workers were good workers when they were present, but perhaps they were more disabled than the average disabled person questioned in the survey. I am still anxious about the

1903
matter. This is not a cheap point. I could give chapter and verse on individual cases, but this is obviously not the correct place to give names and addresses. I could instance specific cases of disablement, including a person who was HIV positive whose case involved an enormous amount of absence. I did not worry about that, and we had no difficulties about employing someone who was HIV positive.
However, if a small firm employing seven or eight people had to cope with an attendance record like that of the person I have in mind—which was 65 per cent, of the working year—while that was an appalling problem for the individual, it could be a crippling problem for the small firm employing him.
Therefore, on both of those points I should like further clarification from the noble Baroness.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is an important clause. The noble Baroness explained its effect in the course of indicating what she seeks to achieve with her amendment. In this clause we seek to exempt small firms because we recognise that it is likely to be more difficult and burdensome for them to get to grips with the new right and have available the advice they need in particular cases. Generally they do not have the personnel or in-house specialists who would have the time and expertise to deal with issues such as considering the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments at the different stages of recruitment, employment and development of a disabled person.
At the outset I should make it clear that cost is not the only burden on a small firm. There can also be the burden of attending to the legislation and bearing it in mind. Many people who run small firms work every bit as hard, if not harder, than the people they employ. They have to seek contracts, chase up money to pay the bills and check the ordering. In addition they have to deal with all the other aspects of running a small firm involving personnel. We ought to consider whether adding this additional provision will place an additional burden on those firms.
It is not simply a financial matter. It is a matter of the added burdens of knowing about the legislation and coming to grips with it and the concept of making the necessary adjustments and what might be reasonable in the circumstances. That is bound to be a much greater burden for a small firm without a personnel department than for a large or medium-sized firm where there is a personnel department.
I should not like an impression to go out from this Chamber that we are content to see small firms treat disabled people without fair consideration, and I hope that no one will say anything that might encourage such an impression. My honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said in the other place that of course we do not want small firms to discriminate against disabled people any more than we want large firms to discriminate. Many small firms do employ disabled people. He assured the House, as he had before; that we would encourage them to follow the new code of practice. To that end we will consult them as well in drawing up the code.
1904
It is true that the Bill as it stands covers the great majority of employees in this country. Something like 80 per cent. of employees will be covered by the Bill. So there will be many opportunities for disabled people to seek employment covered by the legislation. In addition, many small firms already happily employ disabled people and I have no doubt will continue to do so.
We are trying to strike a fair balance between what it is reasonable to require on behalf of disabled people and the need to avoid constraining the growth, prosperity and operation of new and existing small firms, which arc so essential not only to the creation of new job opportunities but to job opportunities which already exist in the economy.
The noble Baroness indicated that there was no evidence that small employers wished to be excluded. The Federation of Small Businesses supports the exclusion of small firms. I believe that the federation has a better understanding of the concerns of very small firms than the CBI or the Employers Forum on Disability which, although they may contain a few small firms, are dominated by the big corporate players in the United Kingdom. Therefore we should take account of what the Federation of Small Businesses says.
The amendment provides for the removal of the threshold after 1st April 1997. The noble Baroness indicated that that would give small businesses a year's grace after the enactment and coming into force of the Bill for larger firms, and allow them to get to know their way round the legislation before the clause was removed and businesses, regardless of size, fell within the legislation. However, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said on Tuesday, we shall introduce the employment provisions towards the end of next year. Thus the amendment would give people only a few months. However, that is not the basis of my argument; I merely point that out to the Committee in case anyone is tempted to think that giving small businesses a year's grace sounds like great generosity on the part of the noble Baroness. In fact, it would be markedly less than a year. Even if it were a year, I believe that it would not be generous to small firms.
We believe that the Bill as drafted—with the amendment that I shall shortly propose to the clause— represents the proper way to move forward. We shall be obliged to review the position in five years time. At that stage, if the Government thought that the legislation was working well, problems had been resolved and the air was clearer, it might be possible to begin to reduce the threshold. That is the proper way to proceed.
I am sure that the noble Baroness is not surprised to hear me say that I cannot accept her amendment. I understand from all that went on in the other place and the debate that we had at Second Reading that this is a matter on which the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee feel strongly. I feel equally strongly about the need to defend the position of small businesses and ensure that we do not place any more burdens on them, whether in terms of cost or administration, than we absolutely have to. I do not know whether there is any point in my inviting the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment as I understand that she feels very

1905
strongly about the matter. If and when she puts it to the test of the Lobbies I trust that my noble friends will support me.
Lord Carter: Will the Minister be kind enough to comment on a false analogy drawn by his noble friend Lady O'Cathain when she referred to the average cost of £200 and the average cost of £1,500 of the access to work scheme? The figure of £200 per person is the government estimate in the cost compliance statement.
The best way I can explain the false analogy is by way of an example. Somebody I know extremely well, who is blind, under the access to work scheme has a computer which is specially adapted for blind people. That costs £9,000. In addition she has a reader's allowance of £3.50 an hour for 15 hours a week. No employer, large or small, would pay such costs in order to take on a disabled employee. That is why we have an access to work scheme. The Government feel, correctly, that that is the type of cost which should be borne so that that disabled person has a job which she would not have if there were no access to work scheme.
Therefore to compare the £200 per person which would be spread over the small and larger adaptions, with the expensive costs of specialised equipment regarding the access to work scheme is a false analogy.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Before the Minister responds to those points, will he inform the House whether it is possible for anyone to impose unreasonable burdens on small employers under the terms of the Bill?
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: The debate about costs for providing equipment to enable a disabled person to work does not describe the full costs to a small business of employing a disabled person. I am involved in the farming business. Nowadays we never specify what the worker will be employed to do because, in a small, struggling business—many such companies have gone out of business during the recent recession—it is essential that everyone should be prepared to turn their hands to anything. Therefore, even if a worker is equipped specifically to do one single job, it does not always suit small businesses to have someone so employed. The employee might have to turn his hand to some other task. If his movement, or whatever it might be, is restricted, he might not be able to comply. However, it would be interesting to have a statistic on how many disabled people are employed by small businesses. I believe that we should find that many are so employed.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: First, I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate and welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He made an important point for us about the problems generated by the quota scheme involving an artificial constraint. It is much better to have a comprehensive and inclusive approach so far as is reasonable. I believe that those were his words. I entirely agree with him. I do not wish for one moment to dissociate myself from the Government's position of reasonableness. It would
1906
be foolish to close down companies by putting on them burdens which make them buckle under. That would clearly be unreasonable. Therefore the noble Lord's position and ours are very much shared.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, referred to costs. I realise that she has much experience in this field regarding disabled people. Does she accept that my noble friend Lord Carter addressed her point? The extra and special costs tend to be funded by the access to work scheme. That is a government cost. The figure of £200 was the Government's own estimate of the average cost of modest adaptions to premises which would be required. I give way.
Baroness O'Cathain: If it were stated that the costs involved in employing a disabled person in a company of 20 or fewer employees would be only £200, that might be acceptable. However, the fact is that the cost is open ended. The noble Baroness has already stated that we do not wish to see firms buckle under. But there could well be a real problem.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is a helpful and constructive response. We share the same objective, which suggests that the answer is empirical. We have evidence not only from Devon, but from Norfolk firms which I consulted on the matter through the county council's rights officer which confirms the Devon experience. There is a distinction between disability and sickness. Disability tends to be a constant and predictable state. Sickness may be a more fluctuating condition which generates additional personnel costs. However, for the large majority, a disability or an impairment is more likely to be relatively constant. Experience in Devon and in Norfolk suggests that not only the financial costs but the personnel costs of employing disabled people are entirely acceptable; and that, far from being a burden on companies, those people have proved to be a form of sound investment because they stay with the company. They do not seek other jobs; they do not move on as they receive additional training; and they feed that training back into the company so that everyone gains.
Associated with that factor was the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, as to how many companies employ whom. The best figures that I have are these. Of those companies which employ fewer than 10 employees, 15 per cent. employ a person with a disability. Of those which employ fewer than 50 employees, 30 per cent. have a disabled employee. In the other tranches, the majority of companies will employ disabled people. Therefore it is clear that, for the most part, disabled people do not find their way into small companies. For example, of companies which employ more than 200 people, 76 per cent. employ disabled people, compared with 15 per cent. of companies employing fewer than 10 people.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may be helpful. As I said in my main speech, I should not like the message to go out that small firms do not employ disabled people. Nor would I like it to go out that somehow or other the legislation means that such companies can almost discriminate against them; quite the contrary.

1907
Regarding small firms defined as employing fewer than 20 employees, I am advised that research suggests that somewhere between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. of disabled employees work in small firms as I have defined them. That seems a considerable number of people, given the fact that 80 per cent. of employees work in firms above that size.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. It makes our case for us. If 30 per cent. of firms with fewer than 20 employees can and do employ disabled people, it is clearly a question of coming to terms with modest physical adaptions and the education and information required. Then those firms may freely go on. If such firms can do so, why cannot the other 70 per cent? If smaller firms have almost the same record as medium-sized firms, why do we need to give them the double protection of exclusion as well as reasonable cost?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I should learn never to seek to be helpful to the noble Baroness. However, there is a huge difference between a small firm deciding of its own free will in the current circumstances to try to do its best to employ a disabled person and the employer (the owner of a small firm) having to go to all the trouble of knowing, understanding and applying this Bill, which will become an Act. That is the main point of my argument: there is a difference between doing this voluntarily and under compulsion. It is a distinction which may not be too clear to the Opposition, but it is certainly a distinction of which I can assure her that people who run small businesses are only too well aware.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister has drawn a distinction which indeed marks a division between us. We do not believe that the right of a disabled person to employment should depend on whether the employer voluntarily wishes to conform to the Bill. That is the question. We do not believe that the decision by an employer to conform to the Bill should be a voluntary activity. The Minister has made my point.
We believe that firms should be required to conform to the law. We have sought to argue that the cost is modest. We want government to be especially helpful to small companies as well as large. We may address that point in subsequent amendments. We therefore believe that the advice and support services which government seek to provide for small companies will be extremely important.
At the end of the day there remains the question which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, asked. Given that small companies will not be asked to employ anyone with a disability where the disability is relevant to the work and hinders the job to be done—in other words, the disability is irrelevant to the work; the point was again raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell—and given that no company is asked to make such adaptions as would impose unreasonable costs on that company, for the life of me I still do not see why we should exclude small firms at the cost of disabled people's rights. However, it may surprise the Minister that I would prefer to come back to this at Report stage. With the leave of the Committee, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I wish to put just one question to the noble Lord, because I believe that the House is entitled to an answer. Is it a fact that it will be illegal for anyone to impose an unreasonable burden—
Lord Lucas: I am sorry, but we have passed the point where that can be raised.
A noble Lord: It can be raised on the next amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 5, line 23, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 53 and at the same time speak to my other amendments, Amendments Nos. 54 and 56. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, will use this group of amendments to put the question which he was unable to ask a moment ago.
The purpose of the group of amendments is to reduce the size of firm exempted from the employment provisions of the Bill from 20 employees to 10 after five years, to five people after 10 years and to remove the exemption completely after 15 years.
One in six workers is employed in small businesses. The figure is far higher in rural areas; it would be far higher in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, for example, 84 per cent. of firms have fewer than 10 employees, so it is probable that 90 percent. employ fewer than 20 people. That would mean that only 10 per cent. of the firms in Northern Ireland would be subject to the legislation. It is not really on only to legislate for 10 per cent. of people doing basically the same thing and who are involved in business.
Exemption is not offered to employers employing fewer than 20 employees under the sex and racial discrimination laws. Small businesses are the fastest growing sector of the economy. Clause 7, as it stands, would leave small businesses legally able to discriminate against people with disabilities. Clause 6 requires an employer,
"to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take".
Regulations under the clause will enable a limit to be put on the costs that an employer could be expected to meet. Obviously, a small employer would not be expected to have the same financial resources as a larger employer. But where it is reasonable for small employers to make accommodations they should be required to do so.
Most disabled people only require minor adjustments to the working environment. I suggest also that it would be reasonable to look at the turnover of the firm in question because some firms obviously run on a small margin and other firms make vast profits.
During the Second Reading debate in the other place, the Minister for Disabled People, Mr. Hague, agreed that in the United States reasonable accommodation costs nothing in 43 per cent. of cases,
"because it involved just moving the furniture around or doing something sensible and practical like introducing different working hours. A large proportion of adjustments cost very little".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/95; col. 149.]
The Government's compliance cost assessment of the Bill, as we heard, is suggested as being £200 which would be a reasonable average of what an employer might be expected to have to pay to accommodate a disabled employee.
In the other place in the debate on the exemption of small firms, Mr. Hague also said that it,
"reflects the Government's recognition that it may be more difficult and burdensome for smaller firms to get to grips with the new right".
He told the all-party disablement group that small firms do not have the specialist personnel functions. If the Government's main objection is that small firms do not have the resources in terms of personnel, including information, knowledge and expertise, then why could they not follow the CBI's advice and give more support to small firms together with the phasing in of compliance requirements for smaller businesses, as has happened in the United States of America? The CBI argues against the inevitable arbitrariness of the cut-offs and exclusions.
In his response to the Second Reading debate in this House at col. 887 of Hansard for 22nd May, my noble friend Lord Mackay said that the CBI represents few, if any, employers with fewer than 20 employees. He went on to say that he thought that it would be difficult to find many, if any, of those in its membership. It is my understanding that over 50 per cent. of the businesses that the CBI represents, including those through trade associations and employer organisations, are small businesses with fewer than 20 people. He said that 60 per cent. of firms employing fewer than 10 people had disabled employees. That point has already been made today. He said that the Government welcomed that fact and that the Bill would not prevent them continuing to do that. I quite agree. The codes of practice would encourage them to do so. Surely, the fact that so many small employers employ disabled people shows that if employers have the right attitude, then employing disabled people is not a problem for small firms. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I am happy to support the amendment clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Many of the arguments which will be used when we reach the amendment to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, on Clause 34 have already been rehearsed by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Ashley of Stoke. However, I shall return to the quota system in due course when we reach that amendment.
As to small firms, I have to say at the outset that I have known small businesses where the entire workforce—one person—was disabled. The Minister has stressed that many small employers are good when it comes to employing disabled people. But the Government seem to be speaking against many informed organisations, and many organisations are against them, when it comes to the
1910
issue of the exclusion of small firms, including many business and employer organisations which might have been thought likely to favour exemption for employers from the new obligations.
I felt some sympathy for the Minister in this House and for his ministerial colleague in another place in trying to defend the exclusion of firms with fewer than 20 employees. I also in my time have had to try to sound convincing on a public stage with a lousy script, but at least I had the advantage of being able to mask that awkwardness by some theatrical business which might not be wholly acceptable in the Palace of Westminster.
Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, is being helpful to the Government by taking up their willingness to move forward on a phased timetable and offering them a generously phased timetable for doing so. That phased approach would allow experience of the Bill's provisions to be gained with larger employers. As smaller employers came in, they and their employees would benefit from that experience. However, the test of reasonableness will still relate to the specific circumstances. I see no realistic possibility that what has been required of a very large employer will subsequently be required of a very small employer. Our law and our lawyers are very firm on not following irrelevant precedents.
Given that there are many areas where small employers are the norm and given also that small employers are being created by the break-up—this point is very important at the moment—of larger employees and that many small employers are already abiding by rules from which the Government propose they should be exempted, together with the protection of the "reasonableness" criterion, I support this amendment as one that achieves fairness and logic by generous stages.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Addington: The debate has seemed to revolve around the same idea; namely, why should a small employer be treated differently to a slightly larger employer, and where is the arbitrary line to be drawn? I do not like the clause at all, but these amendments have one thing going for them. They draw down that arbitrary line which we know will act as a staging post to help people to adapt their working practices to new legislation. Thus, the amendments proposed are within the context of the Bill; indeed, they fall within the logic of the Government and suggest measures which should probably have been in the Bill in the first place. Indeed, we are about to debate a government amendment which proposes a review.
We can review things until we are blue in the face. If we do not have the will to change them and we do not accept the terns of logic of any review when it tells us something, things will not be changed. I know that I am jumping slightly ahead of this amendment hut all the amendments are related. Unless we accept the fact that we do not want this type of discrimination, an arbitrary line drawn for whatever reason should be removed whenever possible. We have the safety net of reasonableness placed in the Bill. Given that "reasonableness" is not defined, I suggest that the Government will save themselves a lot of time and effort by coming up with a good definition. If

1911
they intend to rely on this criterion, this is the sort of amendment they should welcome. Thus, I support it. If it is not totally within my sentiments, at least it is within the sentiments of the Bill.
Lord Monson: Those who support this amendment, and who supported the previous one, argue that the costs of compliance will be small. An average figure of £200 was mentioned several times. I suspect that capital expenditure is in the forefront of their minds, and that may well on average be as small as £200. It is a one-off, and can be written off over several years.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. The figure of £200 comes from the Government's own cost compliance statement of the average cost for a firm to accommodate itself to the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Monson: I entirely understand that. I was not disagreeing with the figure £200 at all. However, I believe that the noble Baroness has totally overlooked the question of current expenditure. Under subsection (3) of Clause 6 any employer obliged to incur expenditure under paragraphs (f), (g), (k) and (l) in combination could well find himself not £200, as a one-off, out of pocket, but thousands of pounds out of pocket—over a thousand pounds at any rate—year after year after year after year. For a firm employing 100 people with, let us say, two disabled employees, such costs could perhaps be absorbed. But for a firm with six employees one of whom is disabled, it could make all the difference between profit and loss, between survival and bankruptcy.
The argument against what I have said lies in the idea of reasonableness. But the term "reasonableness" is entirely subjective: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, brought that point out. We have no precise definition of what is reasonable. I suspect that its interpretation will depend to some extent on the whims of the Secretary of State of the day. We are in Henry VIII clause territory, so disliked by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Until we get a much firmer test of what is reasonable and what is not, I think—
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but surely "reasonable" is a term used again and again at law. It is a matter that the tribunals then decide. Is that not what it is all about?
Lord Monson: It may be. The press have commented on this Bill, saying that it will provide an absolute bonanza for lawyers, and one can see why that assertion is made. In any case, I think that the Government are on the right lines and I certainly oppose these amendments.
Lord Carter: I did not quite catch the paragraphs to which the noble Lord referred, hut there are a number of stipulations under subsection (3) of Clause 6 that would render an employer eligible for the access to work scheme, and the grants will be on a continuing basis.
Lord Monson: I accept that, but I believe it applies to capital rather than current expenditure. Am I not right?
Lord Carter: It applies to both.
Baroness Lockwood: It seems to me that this whole matter is being completely misunderstood. What is reasonable for a firm with 20 employees may be unreasonable for a firm that has six. Therefore, the interpretation of "reasonableness" will be in the context of the size of the firm, the kind of work that it does, and the resources of that firm.
The Minister argued against the last amendment, saying that it would place an unfair burden on small employers, not only in terms of cost but in terms of the burden of actually understanding the legislation and how it would apply. That argument seems to be completely removed by this particular amendment, which provides for a period of time during which the Act will operate enabling us to find out what is and is not reasonable.
I know that many people hope that not many cases will be brought under this Act. I do not accept that the legislation will mean a lawyers' paradise, but some cases will be brought. Their purpose will be to give an interpretation of what is meant. Very early on we shall need an interpretation of "reasonableness". I was sorry that the Minister was not able to accept the last amendment; but I should have thought that this amendment would be very acceptable to him. Even if a small firm does not have personnel resources, the Act will have been operating and lots of guidance will become available over the course of five years, all of which will be of great assistance to small firms. I really do feel that this whole question of reasonableness is being drawn across the scene as a red herring.
Baroness Seear: There is another point. We are all talking as though small firms are manned by people who are absolute dunderheads. A great many small firms now are doing high quality work and employ highly intelligent people. Quite a lot of them are just as capable of understanding what is in the legislation as people in very large firms. I do not know why we should assume that firms are manned by people who are all stupid just because they are small.
Lord Monkswell: One of the points that we need to recognise is that sometimes legislation has untoward effects. Sometimes the results of legislation are not those for which Parliament planned. I wonder whether we might be coming up against a similar problem in respect of this particular aspect of the Bill. So far as I am aware, there is no bar on a firm effectively subdividing itself so that each unit comprises fewer than 20 employees, each individual part of a company being effectively considered as an individual firm within the meaning of the Act and therefore not falling under the terms of the Act. That is my understanding of the way the legislation will work.
On Tuesday the Minister said that the situation for a firm would effectively change if its size went down from 21 employees to 19 and that the legislative regime would be different. I am worried that, because of people's perception that complying with the Act will be onerous, they will seek to evade its requirements and in so doing hinder the operation of their companies by taking action they would not normally take; for example. by not employing an additional employee which would take the company over the 20 employee mark when it would be in the interests of the company to do so, or by engaging in

1913
what I might describe as artificial manipulation of the company such as subdividing it into units of less than 20 in order to evade their responsibilities under the Act.
I hope that such things would not happen but we need to be aware that it is a risk. It might happen and it would be detrimental. The reason for such things happening would be the perception that the provisions of the legislation are onerous on business. We need to project the fact that the whole idea of this anti-discrimination legislation is not to put a burden on anybody but to liberate people.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Much of this territory was debated on the last amendment. I suspect that we shall debate it twice more today. As the Committee knows, the Bill clearly states that the "20" threshold can be decreased by order. It cannot in fact be increased, which is in line with an amendment that was agreed in the other place. That enables the Government to ensure that changes could be made over time, taking into account the experience gained, as I mentioned, in operating the new right and other relevant circumstances, such as the economic conditions at the time. Indeed, the next amendment, which is in my name, will impose on the Government the obligation to look at this issue in four or five years' time and, one way or another, come before the Chamber with a view.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen with his two amendments seeks to commit the Government and future administrations to making specific changes according to a fixed timetable irrespective of the circumstances of the time. I believe that such an approach would be highly unusual in employment legislation. I must say that I have heard no more convincing argument for going down that road than I heard in the last debate for going down the road of only allowing this clause to operate for just a few months, although I accept that the initial view was that it would perhaps last for a year. Indeed, that is a decision we shall come to shortly if the noble Lord, Lord Addington, opposes the Motion that the clause shall stand part of the Bill. The noble Lord indicated that he does not want any protection at all for small employers from this day onwards or from the day of enactment of the Bill.
I suppose that neither my noble friend Lord Swinfen nor the Committee will be surprised to hear that I do not agree with this amendment either. I believe that the position that we have taken is a balanced position, taking into account the considerable number of employees who will be covered by the Act. Let me repeat that. Sometimes, I feel that people come to the statistics of this matter from an entirely wrong direction. It is not a case of how many firms are covered; it is a case of how many people are covered. Eighty per cent. of employees will be covered by the Act.
My noble friend mentioned Northern Ireland and rural areas. If he checks, I think he will find that there are a considerable number of large firms which operate in rural areas. For example, the local authority is usually a fairly large employer in a rural area, as it is elsewhere. Other examples might be British Telecom, British Gas (in an area where there is gas) or an electricity company. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that his machiavellian fears are totally unfounded. One would
1914
have to split a company entirely, completely and absolutely, so that it had under 20 people before one would be able to get away with not observing the provisions of the Act.
Lord Swinfen: On that point, what is the position with company groups, where there are a number of small companies which are ostensibly owned by a group but which are in fact operating together?
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought that that was the answer that I gave. A conglomerate or a mini-conglomerate, however one likes to describe it, is considered as one company. I do not think that one can break up one's company into self-contained operating units. One would have to go to the extent of creating absolutely separate and unrelated companies before one would get out of obeying the terms of the Bill. I shall study what my noble friend said to see whether I have fully answered his question. But I thought that I had answered his question quite clearly. I am satisfied that there is no way out of this, apart from going to very considerable expense.
If we look at this matter in terms of cost or of administrative imposition on the individual running the business—the ground which I believe is more important—on either of those grounds, I doubt whether going to the bother of splitting the company, with all the trouble and hassle, as well as legal fees (dare I say it?) involved, would be a very sensible action. I do not feel that the end result of evading this legislation would in any way be worth going down that particular road.
Interestingly enough, the first downward step that my noble friend wants is to 15 employees. While the total number of firms covered by this part of the Bill would increase by over 50 per cent., that step would bring in a lot of small firms with many people running their own business working very many hours. My slight difficulty here is that I have a very close friend who runs a very small business. I can imagine his reaction, when I go back at the weekend and say, "By the way, we have just put some more burdens on you and more legislation that you have to obey." I should get a flea in my ear very quickly indeed. It would not be the cost, as I tried to explain in the previous amendment, though that has an important part to play. It is the fact that there is another piece of legislation to be understood and, more than that, to be borne in mind every time one needs to take on somebody or somebody leaves and he has to be replaced and one realises the parameters within which one would then have to operate.
Lord Carter: If the noble Lord's friend were employing 21 people, how would be explain it to him?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suspect that if my friend's company were to go up in numbers towards that figure, then he would be beginning to be free of the other things he has to do; namely, to work alongside his employees and all that part and parcel of his small business. He would probably concentrate more on the management of the business of which that is a part.
We could have a little argument about whether the number was 21, 20 or 19. If you are agreeing to draw a line—I suspect that many Members of the Committee

1915
who oppose me at this moment do not want any line drawn but want any firm, regardless of size, to be caught immediately by this legislation—it seems to me that 20 is a reasonable number.
Lord Rix: I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I may ask him one question. Is not the basis of all this an unfortunate idea that people with disabilities who are being employed (or are to be employed) are, frankly, not capable of carrying out the work for which they are employed with 100 per cent. efficiency? That seems to me to lie behind this discrimination. If a person is worthy of his crust, whether disabled or able bodied, he will not be any revenue cost to the company once suitable machinery has been put into place. We hope that access to work machinery and finance will be available. I am a little worried that we are implying that disabled people will, frankly, make inefficient employees.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is not what I am saying. Clearly I am not making myself understood, if that is the implication. I am talking about the burden of obeying the legislation, understanding it, dealing with it and keeping it in mind, especially as it involves this test of reasonableness in what one might do. That is the burden I am discussing, not the point being made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
The figures I mentioned earlier in relation to the number of people already employed in small firms shows clearly that the problem posed by the noble Lord does not exist for most small firms. I would not say that there are not a few small firms who would take the view that the noble Lord takes, but that is not my view. I am trying to deal with two burdens: the cost burden, which is of lesser importance, and also the burden of administering the Act, understanding it and keeping it in mind on the few occasions when one employs people.
Unlike a large company where a personnel department probably spends quite a lot of time interviewing and employing people, a small firm with under 20 employees probably does not do that very often. It may have a stable workforce and it may be quite infrequent that it will need to go round the course of taking on a new employee. That adds to its problems. Here we have a little piece of legislation which will not be with the company on a day-to-day basis, perhaps not even on a month-to-month basis. It may have to bring the provisions to the forefront of its mind quite infrequently.
A little has been said regarding the CBI. It seems to be suggested that it represents small companies. I believe—dare I say?—that a little hit of sleight of hand is being practised in saying that. I believe 50 per cent. was the figure given of small businesses belonging to the CBI. That is the way the figure was quoted to me. But that arithmetic is arrived at by counting those small businesses that are members of trade associations and in turn those trade associations are members of the CBI
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may be allowed to finish my sentence.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend will forgive a further interruption but that is in fact what I said. My noble friend accuses me of sleight of hand and uses the figures I gave in trying to show that I used sleight of hand. But they are the figures I gave with that description.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I apologise to my noble friend. I did not notice that qualification and perhaps one or two of my noble friends did not either. We were therefore a little puzzled as to how the CBI came to have so many—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The same—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I wish I could finish my sentences.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are trying to stop the Minister from falling even further into error and are trying to be helpful. The same point was made on the previous debate when we on this side of the Chamber used the same figures in relation to the CBI. The Minister sought to answer the point then. Therefore, not only did he mishear his noble friend, but he forgot what he said the first time round.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I remember what I said and I believe I understood what I said. I mentioned the fact that the Federation of Small Businesses supports the exclusion of small firms. I felt that that was slightly better ground on which to stand than praying in aid the CBI which, as we have all agreed. does not incorporate all that many individual small member firms. As my noble friend rightly pointed out—I concur with him—most of the small firms counted in the 50 per cent., which is claimed by the lobby in relation to the CBI, are only indirect members of the CBI through trade associations. As long as we are all clear on that, perhaps I can carry on.
Baroness Seear: I am afraid the Minister seems to be having a bad time. However, I am amazed that he makes such a meal of the fact that the Bill will be difficult to understand. The Bill says that in taking on a new employee one must not discriminate because that person is disabled. I would lay a wager that the small employer who the Minister sees at the weekend—and whom he is afraid to meet this coming weekend—could have the Bill explained to him in 10 minutes flat. He would not have the slightest difficulty in understanding what he must do. Where is the difficulty? I agree that some legislation drives all employers, small and large, absolutely dotty, but this is straightforward. What is the difficulty?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The difficulty is twofold. It is not as easy as the noble Baroness makes out. There is the qualification that the employer must not discriminate. However, there is also the fine tuning that he can discriminate if employing a person would mean adjustments to his firm that were not reasonable in their cost. Therefore, other aspects are involved bar the simple statement that he must not discriminate against disabled people. I hope everybody will think about that; it is the qualification that adds to the complication.
While I may explain the Bill to my friend this weekend, it may be some months before he is interviewing and employing or replacing an employee. That must be borne in mind. In any case, it is our view and that of the

1917
Federation of Small Businesses, that this is a reasonable line to draw. In a few minutes I shall explain how we will be prepared to review it in four years and then come back to the House in five years' time. At that stage, if it is the view of your Lordships and the Government, I have little doubt that under the powers in this clause we shall be able to reduce to whatever figure it is decided is reasonable. For the moment, we would like to keep it where it is.
I said to my noble friend that I should like to check the question he asked in regard to a company breaking itself up or being part of a group. I answered him but indicated that I would write to him if I was wrong. I can do better than that. I can say that I probably got that wrong. Each individual company within a group is a separate employer. My point is that it would not be sensible for a company to split itself up into groups just to get away from having to apply this Bill. Therefore, that is not a realistic scenario to contemplate.
To return to the legislation in front of us, I have said on a number of occasions—I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion on this—that the smaller the firm, undoubtedly the more difficult and costly it is for the individual who runs that firm to, not just take on board this piece of legislation, but also take on board all the pieces of legislation, some of which the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, described as being "dotty". I believe, therefore, that she is slightly on my side in relation to the generality of this issue.
We must take account of the need to keep down the burden on small businesses. That is a burden not just of cost, but of administration and the knowledge of legislation and so forth. Of course, as the small business grows—as we hope it will do—and grows sufficiently, it will fall to be considered within the terms of the Bill. For all those reasons, which are similar to the ones on the previous amendment, I cannot accept my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I did not interrupt my noble friend because he was coping manfully with many other interruptions. But I should like to ask him—he need not reply now because there will be more debates on this clause—whether his department is watching what is happening in the United States.
None of us wants to impose burdens on small firms. I am sure we all agree with what my noble friend said. But the Americans With Disabilities Act, known as ADA, requires a reduction of the equivalent figure for small firms. That is graduated over a number of years and the first graduation is just taking place or has just taken place. It would be interesting to know whether the British Government are watching what is happening in the United States in this field and whether the small firms there, who again are described as firms which employ a certain number or less of employees, are going through difficulties in the reduction which must take place under that legislation every few years, as is suggested in the amendment. Though I accept all the problems indicated by my noble friend that may arise for small businesses, it would be interesting to compare notes with similar legislation which is ahead of us on this.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to answer my noble friend. The Department of Employment does indeed look carefully at the United States' experience. It is from that experience that we have drawn the average cost figure of £200. I believe I am right in saying that the United States started off with 25 and has now dropped the number to 15. Therefore, while the US approach may be slightly different, it appreciated the need to have a line below which a small firm did not come within the compass of the Act. The United States agrees with us in that regard, although it has done it in a slightly different way and is now down at 15. I am starting at 20. I am suggesting that if in five years' time, after review, the government of the day and both Houses think it is reasonable to go down to 15, that is the right time to do it. But I think that we should start with the line being drawn at 20.
5 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may ask for some clarification on what might happen once the Bill becomes an Act. Would it be possible for a firm employing fewer than 20 people to have an advertisement for recruits effectively saying that only able-bodied people should apply? Furthermore, would it be possible for a firm employing fewer than 20 people to advertise itself as employing only able-bodied people? What would be the implications and the effect of such an advertisement appearing in newspapers?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: With regard to the question of my noble friend Lord Campbell about the American Act, the Act did allow for a reduction from 25 to 15 after two years, but, interestingly enough, it has no provision for going any further down than 15, whereas if future governments want to reduce the figure they can use the provisions of this Act. I am advised that the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is that a firm could do what he suggests.
Lord Rix: Just to back up my earlier statement that it might imply that disabled people were not particularly cost-effective or efficient, perhaps I may read briefly from the parliamentary brief given by the CBI. It states:
"While all firms want their competitiveness safeguarded. few would wish to be seen to occupy a sector where discrimination is tolerated and where individual, talented disabled people might be deterred from employment".
It seems that the CBI has the same idea that disabled people might well consider themselves not up to the job if this clause goes through in its present form.
Lord Swinfen: We have had quite a useful debate on this subject and I thank all those who have taken part. In his first intervention the noble Lord, Lord Rix, quite rightly said that I was trying to be of assistance to the Government. If my noble friend has the foresight to accept this group of three amendments he will not need to move his amendment; nor will be have all the hard work of consideration after four years, and presumably from time to time after that; quite apart from the cost to the taxpayer and everything else. The amendments would help over a number of years to produce a level playing field throughout the world of work.

1919
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, was worried about the current cost of employing a disabled person. In my view, that would have to be taken into consideration when the question of reasonableness was being considered: and what was reasonable for one small firm with a very large turnover and large profits might not be reasonable for a firm employing the same number of people with only a very low turnover and marginal profits. That was also brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, who pointed out that reasonableness would vary from case to case.
An interesting intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, brought out the fact that each firm in a group was a separate employer. That means not that a firm would split itself up—that would be totally impractical, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested—hut that a firm wishing to expand would, under certain circumstances, set up separate firms under one group as separate employers. What would be the position during recession of a firm dropping below the 20 mark and then a few years later, or a few months later, going back over that figure?
The Minister said that something would have to be borne in mind and—I think I have got him right—that it would be a difficult position. But that is in a totally different context from the present position of all employers in regard to the requirements of a fire officer. A new fire officer in an area may have different fads, hut his instructions must be followed, whether one likes it or not, sometimes at costs considerably higher than the figures that have been mentioned in this short debate.
I should like to reflect on what has been said, perhaps discuss the matter with my noble friend between the end of the Committee stage and Report, and possibly come back to the matter at Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 54 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert:
("(3) In this section—
"anniversary" means the anniversary of the coming into force of this section; and
"review" means a review of the effect of this section.
(4) Where, before the fourth anniversary, the Secretary of State proposes to make an order under subsection (2), he shall, before doing so, conduct a review.
(5) Unless he has already begun or completed a review under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall begin to conduct a review immediately after the fourth anniversary.
(6) Any review shall be completed within nine months.
(7) In conducting any review, the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such organisations representing the interests of employers as he considers appropriate: and

(b) such organisations representing the interests of disabled persons in employment or seeking employment as he considers appropriate.

(8) If, on completing a review, the Secretary of State decides to make an order under subsection (2), he shall make such an order to come into force not later than one year after the commencement of the review.
(9) If, on completing a review, the Secretary of State decides not to make such an order, he shall not later than one year after the commencement of the review lay before Parliament a report—

(a) summarising the results of the review; and

(b) giving the reasons for his decision.

(10) Any report made by the Secretary of State under subsection (9) shall include a summary of the views expressed to him in his consultations.").
The noble Lord said: After an hour or so on the previous amendment we may well be able to find ourselves in agreement about this amendment. We have listened carefully to the arguments—we have heard them again this afternoon—calling for changes in this clause. I have this afternoon, as my colleagues did in another place, rebutted many of the suggested amendments but I hope that we have not been totally inflexible. Indeed, Clause 7 was amended in another place and that amendment removed the power to raise the threshold from the exemption above 20. In reaching that decision we recognised it was very unlikely that there would ever be a need to raise the threshold above the initial starting number.
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment, when announcing the change, gave an undertaking to bring forward a further amendment. That amendment, which is before your Lordships today as government Amendment No. 55, would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of the clause within five years of it coming into force and give Parliament the opportunity to debate the issue. We will be considering what research may be necessary for that review.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, who seemed to wish to relieve me of some work in five years' time, that I would be more than happy to come to the Dispatch Box in five years' time and propose whatever changes are to be made in the Act.
Lord Carter: How can the noble Lord he so confident that he will be there in five years' time?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend was clearly confident. I was just thanking him for his confidence. I am sure that the whole House, or at least half the House, will join me in hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will be speaking from the same Dispatch Box as he is today.
I have made all my points about why we do not think that we should move now from 20. But I understand the arguments. What the amendment does is to ensure that enshrined in legislation there will be an obligation on the Government, four years from the anniversary of the Bill coming into force, to set up a review and, at the five-year point, to come to Parliament one way or another. I am quite sure, having listened to noble Lords who would certainly like me to go a great deal further than this, that the Committee will welcome this small step. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In his last sentence the Minister anticipated with wonderful accuracy the position of the Opposition on this. Given the amendments that have so far been moved, we indeed wish that the Minister had gone further, but that takes nothing away from the fact

1921
that we welcome this amendment. We are grateful that the Minister in another place felt able to listen to the voices and representations that had been put to him.
Lord Monson: The Minister began introducing the amendment by saying that he hoped that all Members of the Committee would agree with it. I find myself 99 per cent. in agreement with it, but I have one small quibble. Subsection (7) provides that,
"the Secretary of State shall consult—

(a) such organisations representing the interests of employers as he considers appropriate".

I wonder why that is not further circumscribed by the insertion of the word "small" before the word "employers". As the Minister pointed out when speaking to a previous amendment, the membership of the CBI, and the interests of that membership, are not the same and do not always coincide with the membership of and the interests of the membership of the Federation of Small Businesses or the Institute of Directors. It seems appropriate that the Secretary of State should specifically consult organisations representing the interests of small employers—that is, those employing fewer than 20 people—rather than employers in general.
Lord Swinfen: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, knows that a number of very large industries in the CBI are fed by very much smaller firms and would want to be happy that those smaller firms are operating efficiently and looking after disabled people properly. Having said that, I very much welcome the amendment although, in my view, my amendment would have been better—but perhaps I am just being my normal big-headed self.
Nevertheless, I am delighted that the amendment sets the Secretary of State a time limit within which the review must be completed. We so often see Bills provide for reviews to take place but without specifying a time limit, which means that the review drags on and on. I very much welcome that provision.
Lord Rix: I have just one question. If at the end of that period of time the Secretary of State (after his due consultation with both small and large firms, disability organisations and disabled people themselves) decides totally to do away with the embargo of 15, 12 or whatever in relation to small firms, could be so do?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not entirely sure. I would need time to read both the clause and the amendment. I am advised that the answer is "no", but I shall check and may be able to return to this point later.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that, by and large, we shall be talking to small employers. However, we shall also want to talk to those employers who are implementing the legislation because I imagine that decisions will have to be taken with a view to how the legislation is working and what difficulties have been encountered. We shall do that, as well as taking the views of small employers into account. As I said, I shall check the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, when I have had the opportunity to read both the amendment and the
1922
original provisions. I am not sure whether I am all that good at reading on my feet, but I think that I have succeeded.
Looking into the future, the legislation provides that the Secretary of State may make orders, but may only go as far as a reduction to firms with fewer than two employees. Perhaps I may describe that as the "irreducible minimum".
Lord Carter: Under Clause 7(2), the Secretary of State may substitute "a different number". Could be substitute zero?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think that the problem—
Lord Swinfen: On the same subject, I do not understand why the figure "two" has been suggested. I should have thought that it should be "one"—with one person employing one other, or employing himself.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend has got in ahead of me. The "two" includes the employer. My noble friend correctly points out that if it were reduced to one—namely, the employer—there would no longer be an employee to come within the scope of the Bill.
Lord Rix: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and for busking till ready. Perhaps I may make the position absolutely clear from my point of view. If by experience, by lobbying, consultations, and all the other things that will take place over the next five years from the date of the enactment of the Bill, this whole provision in relation to employers with fewer than 20 employees could disappear from the Act, that offers us definite hope for the future.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is exactly what my amendment would allow. I am delighted to give the noble Lord that hope.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert:
("() Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs of employers who have fewer than 20 employees and to make such financial provision by way of grants or loans as he deems appropriate to enable them to meet the obligations to disabled persons which they would have but for the exemption contained in this section.").
The noble Baroness said: I tabled this amendment as a peg, coat-hanger or basis upon which to ask the Minister to place on the record, if he would be so kind, exactly what encouragement, arrangements and financial assistance he will give to small firms with fewer than 20 employees to bring them voluntarily within the law if the Bill is not amended in its passage through your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The amendment gives rise to an interesting situation because some types of business—I shall mention one in a moment—would find it exceedingly difficult to employ a disabled person in any

1923
capacity. I refer, for example, to the business of operating taxis. It would be very difficult if a number of disabled people applied for employment in a taxi business. Such a business comprises mainly drivers, with a mechanic or two, and it would be difficult for such a business to employ any disabled person. Therefore, it is right that the noble Baroness should have tabled an amendment stating that the Secretary of State is,
"to have regard to the needs of employers who have fewer than 20 employees".
I am glad that she has given me the opportunity to cite an example of where such a special case should be considered.
Lord Swinfen: In the special case mentioned by my noble friend, it would be reasonable not to employ a disabled person.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank both my noble friends for their valid comments—one in asking and the other in answering. However, as the noble Baroness used the process of moving the amendment simply to ask me a question—I take it, therefore, that the amendment is about to be withdrawn—perhaps I may concentrate on trying to help the noble Baroness on what we intend to do to try to encourage small firms—although outside the ambit of this legislation—to try to behave as we all want them to behave.
I said earlier that my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment made our position very clear in the other place. Of course, we want small firms to continue their good record of employing disabled people. We certainly do not want them to discriminate. We shall encourage them to follow a code of practice that we shall be drawing up. In drawing up that code of practice, which, as long as the Bill escapes unharmed from your Lordships' House in this regard, will apply legally only to firms with more than 20 employees, we shall think about and consult not only with such firms or their representative organisations, but also with firms of fewer than 20 employees and their representative organisations. That will mean that the new code of practice will apply not only to firms with more than 20 employees, to which the Act will apply, but that it will be equally applicable as a code of good practice to firms with fewer than 20 employees. I hope that that answer is helpful.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That takes us part of the way. Perhaps the Minister could write to me because I should like to know what eligibility small firms will have for any grants or assistance that will be available, as of right, to firms with more than 20 employees. In other words, on the assumption, which I hope is false, that the figure of 20 remains in place when the Bill has passed through your Lordships' House, all of us will have a commitment to bring voluntarily within the framework of the law as many smaller companies with fewer than 20 employees as possible.
The only way we might be able to do that is with a carrot, because there will be no stick. I was trying to discover from the Minister what would be the range of carrots to encourage small companies to come within the framework of the Bill. The Minister gave us an answer about codes of guidance and the like. Perhaps he will
1924
write to me about the financial resources available to small firms so that we can see how they may be brought into the Act. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Addington: I wish to oppose the Motion that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill on the simple ground that I have heard a great deal of talk about how important it is for small employers. We have heard a great deal about the concept of reasonableness. If making reasonable provision and not discriminating against anyone is the concept behind the Bill, surely it should apply to all employers. We have also heard that the concept of reasonableness will not apply as an absolute standard. It is something which applies to individual firms and cases. If that is a valid concept, surely it makes irrelevant the clause under which firms with fewer than a certain number of employees are exempt. If the Government's thinking is correct, the clause is not needed. On those grounds, I oppose the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I wish to make two comments and ask the Minister two questions. First, I am sorry to see the Minister clashing with his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister has assured us that small firms are at the heart of Britain's economic recovery. He says what wonderful people they are. They are enterprising and leading Britain out of economic despond. But the Minister implies that they are rather dim-witted people who cannot understand the problems involved in taking on one or two disabled workers. So firms with fewer than 20 workers are incompetent. They are helping Britain's recovery, but they are too dim to understand the problems caused by taking on one or two disabled workers. Can the Minister justify that objection and that reason for excluding from the Bill firms with fewer than 20 workers?
Secondly, several people have mentioned the question of reasonableness being difficult. I see no problem. Many distinguished lawyers have been present and they know that the concept of reasonableness is something with which the courts have no problem. If it will cause such enormous problems, then those Conservative Back-Benchers who are complaining should ask the Government not to bring in the concept of reasonableness. I see no difficulty with it, but if they do they should talk to their Minister.
I wish to ask the Minister two simple questions. I am concerned that he is evading my questions. I do not know whether it is because he does not hear me, in which case perhaps I should speak louder, or because he is the skilled politician that we all think he is and is learning to prevaricate and to answer just those questions he prefers to answer.
My first question is partly a general question. I am not sure whether the Minister said that small fines cannot discriminate against disabled people. If he did say that, he is wrong, because clearly they can discriminate. Does he agree that if he did not say it, and if small firms can legally discriminate against disabled people, then that is unjustifiable and morally wrong?

1925
Secondly, the Bill says that no unreasonable burdens should be imposed upon employers. It says in fact that the burden should be reasonable. Will the Minister tell us whether it will be legal or illegal to impose unreasonable burdens on firms when the Bill is enacted?
Lord Carter: I support the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in opposing the Motion that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill. Although we must be careful of anecdotes, perhaps I may declare an interest. I am a director of a company with seven employees, of whom three are full-time and four are part-time. Of the seven, four are disabled. Our experience is interesting. With the small office that we occupy, the cost to us has been comparatively small. We have installed some moveable wooden ramps and moved the position of the electric light points so that those who use wheelchairs can reach them.
For the landlord it is different. It is a building with 100 to 150 people going through it. The landlord has had to put in a ramp to ensure that our employees can gain proper access. He welcomed that, because he said he should have done it before, and he has received a grant for doing it. That is one example.
Perhaps I may give a second one. It is one that I gave on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned his experience in America. A number of the states—it is not federal law—have had laws for a long time with low limits on the number of employees caught by the disability legislation. I said on Second Reading that in California it is six and in New York four. I asked the Minister to comment on that. His reply was 100 per cent. accurate. He said that we were not America. I did not think that the reply added greatly to the stock of human knowledge.
Another interesting point is that, so long as it is not unreasonable, there is in the Bill no exclusion of small providers of goods and services, only small employers. Small providers of whatever size have to meet the Bill's requirements. The point about unreasonable costs was dealt with extremely ably by my noble friend Lady Hollis.
I conclude by saying that if we think it through, the Government are producing a curious argument. They are saying that discrimination is unlawful, except in small firms. According to the Government's thinking, anti-discrimination cannot be an absolute value; it can only be of relative value, because the Government are making it relative to the size of firm. It seems that to the Government costs and inconvenience are more important than the absolute value of anti-discrimination, something in which all of us on this side of the Committee believe. I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Addington. If he decides to divide the Committee, we shall be with him.
Lord Swinfen: The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned small providers. A restaurant of course is a small provider. Under the terms of the Bill, it will have to make access provisions for its clients but not for any disabled member of staff. That is daft. The Bill would be greatly improved if it did not include this clause.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I made it clear that I hope in due course that small firms will be included, but I do not believe that it would be a good thing at this stage of the Bill to take out the whole clause. So I shall be supporting the Government.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: By this time we are all well aware of what the clause does. It was amended in the other place to ensure that the size of firms which are exempt can be changed, and can only be changed downwards. It was decided that we should start at 20. In answer to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I have already pointed to the American experience. They started at 25. There was a power to lower the figure. They lowered it to 15, and that is where, so far as concerns primary legislation across the United States, it must stay.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, reminded me of my answer to him, that this is not the United States. I thought that that was a sensible parliamentary reply: it was absolutely true, and added nothing to the information we all had available.
Of course we look at the experience in other countries, including the United States, but we ought not necessarily to follow them in a slavish manner. I have set out in detail the proper place to start with the boundary, of which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, does not approve. He would say that a firm with only one employee should immediately be covered by the Bill. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him and he will not be surprised to hear that. I have introduced, and the Committee has agreed, the commitment to enact a requirement to review the operation of the clause within five years. That will give us sufficient time to see how the Bill works in firms with 20 or more employees and to take the view of firms with fewer than 20 employees. At the end of the five-year period we shall be able to see where we should go.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, that I shall not become irritated by his suggestion because that would not help either of us. I thought that he made a nice debating point by implying that I assumed dim-witted people run small companies. Not at all. I suppose that one can say that they are a cross-section of your Lordships' House—and the Committee can come to its Own conclusions on that.
I was making the point that even the cleverest has a great deal to do in running a firm in which usually they take virtually all the management responsibilities and probably take part in some of the work that is undertaken. They are probably involved in finding the contracts, selling the products, chasing up the unpaid bills, watching the books and so forth. I am talking about adding to that burden.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, asked a question which I thought was a tinge like asking me whether I had stopped beating my wife. He asked whether small firms can discriminate. I would rather put it this way: of course, they will not fall within the scope of the Bill but, as I and others have pointed out, many of them employ disabled people. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, we wish to encourage them not only to continue to do so hut to increase the number of disabled people whom they employ.

1927
I turn now to the imposition of reasonable burdens, although I have forgotten the precise question. I tried to explain that I was not founding my argument so much on the cost, although cost would be a consideration. The £200 is an average cost, which means that some could be above that. However, I accept that if the average cost is £200, the majority will he less than that.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood usually manages to give the Committee legal lectures on the definition of "reasonable". I must rest my case on some of the explanations that he has given from his legal background. We understand what the reasonable costs would be, but I am concerned about the additional burden which I have mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made the valid point, which I am happy to underline, that there may be few, if any, alterations that one needs to make in order to employ disabled people. If alterations are necessary there may be beneficial results. Perhaps building a ramp will encourage disabled customers to deal with one's small business. My noble friend Lord Swinfen is right in saying that the limitations that we are discussing relate only to employment and not to the next part of the Bill, which is the delivery of services. In that respect there is no such limitation.
We have been over the argument. I have made it clear that we shall give every encouragement to small firms to follow in a voluntary manner the guidance in the code of practice on the fair treatment of disabled people. Any employer—be it a large employer caught by the Bill or a small employer outside the scope of the Bill—will be able to obtain from the Employment Service the help and advice that they require as regards employing disabled people.
We believe that drawing the line at 20 employees is a sensible place to start. As I said, 80 per cent. of the employees in our country will be covered by this legislation. I hope that if the noble Lord decides to put the clause to the test of a Division, my noble friends will support me in retaining it as part of the Bill.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135; Not-Contents, 65.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Annaly, L.

Burnham, L.

Annan, L.

Cadman, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Caithness, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Arran, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carnock, L.

Astor, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Carver, L.

Balfour, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Birdwood, L.

Chesham, L.

Blaker, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Blatch, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Boardman, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

1928

Colnbrook, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Colwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mersey, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lard Privy Seal.]

Milverton, L.

Monson, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Crathorne, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Moyne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Donegall, M.

Nelson, E.

Downshire, M.

Nickson, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norrie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Northesk, E.

Elles, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Elton, L.

Orkney, E.

Erne, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Forbes, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Pender, L.

Gage, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rawlings, B.

Goschen, V.

Renton, L.

Gridley, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Harlech, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Henley, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hertford, M.

Stewartby, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Stockton, E.

Howe, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Hylton, L.

Strathclyde, L, [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ironside, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Suffield, L.

Killearn, L.

Swansea, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thurlow, L.

Leigh, L.

Tollemache, L.

Lindsay, E.

Trumpington, B. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Ullswater, V.

Lucas, L.

Vinson, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Lyell, L.

Wakeham, L.

McConnell, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wise, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wolfson, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wynford, L.

Marlesford, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth. L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Fitt, L.

Airedale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Geraint, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa. L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Carter, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Haskel, L.

David, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Desai, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hughes, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Dubs, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Eatwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Kilbracken, L.

1929

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Longford, E.

Serota, B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Simon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Stedman, B.

Nicol, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Parry, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rea, L.

Swinfen, L.

Redesdale, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Richard, L.

Tope, L.

Rix, L.

Tordoff, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rochester, L.

White, B.

Russell, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Seear, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
5.44 p.m.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Validity of certain agreements]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 56B:
Page 7, line 22, leave out ("company") and insert ("firm").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. I am not entirely clear why in Clause 9(5) the specification used is "company" or "companies". I have used the word "firm" which I admit is not perfect. However, there arc many organisations besides companies—connected persons, partnerships with a controlling partner, unincorporated associations and so on. The purpose of the amendment is to inquire why the Government feel that they must refer only to "companies". I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: As the noble Lord commented, Clause 9 performs the very important function of making void any term in a contract of agreement which seeks to limit the employment provisions of the Bill, including attempts to prevent a complaint being made to an industrial tribunal.
It is clearly right that in general employees should not he able to sign away their rights. However, there is an important and necessary exception made for certain agreements under which people agree not to start or continue with tribunal proceedings. The clause protects the complainant or potential complainant by providing that those agreements are valid only if an ACAS conciliation officer has been involved or the complainant has had independent advice from a qualified lawyer. It is that concept of independence, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, which is addressed in the amendments.
It is clearly unacceptable for the same lawyer to provide advice to both the complainant and the person against whom the complaint is made. Therefore, the clause provides that advice from the respondent's lawyer is not independent advice. It goes further by providing that advice given by a lawyer acting for a person connected with the respondent is also not independent.
Subsection (5) defines what is meant by "connected" where one of those involved is a company over which the other, directly or indirectly, has a control or both arc companies in which a third person directly or indirectly has a control. That is a protection that exactly echoes those in other employment and discrimination legislation.
I understand the point which the noble Lord is trying to make. He is trying to make sure that no one slips through the net in that regard. He is trying to include not only
1930
companies but partnerships and other bodies. The amendment as it stands does not hit that particular target because the word "firm" is too imprecise to be used in that context. The concept of control contained in the subsection is inappropriate to partnerships. I understand the noble Lord's anxiety and his wish to tighten up the existing provision. But, as I have said, the current drafting of the subsection is consistent with existing legislation and we have no evidence that the arrangements are not working satisfactorily or that the gap which the amendment seeks to fill exists in practice.
I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment but if he has evidence of real examples or problems, perhaps he will draw them to our attention and we shall try to address them.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. He has answered my point. I was seeking to have on the record why there is the use of the word "company". I shall read what the Minister said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 56C not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Charities and support for particular groups of persons]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 56D:
Page 7, line 29, after ("capacity") insert ("provided that such benefits are not granted by a charity which has an associated organisation which remits profits to persons who are not disabled").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to deal with a particular charity, Motability. However, I was advised when tabling the amendment that if I mentioned Motability and the amendment were accepted, that would make the Bill hybrid and I am sure that none of us wants that. However, I have informed the Minister's Private Office that I am dealing only with the charity Motability.
Motability is a charity and Motability Finance Limited is a private company. When the Motability organisation was set up in the mid-1970s, its aim was to provide disabled people with cars because the Government were phasing out the disabled person's "trike" or "invacar". The leasing scheme operates by the disabled person signing over a sum of social security benefit to Motability Finance Limited. That benefit is now called the disabled living allowance and used to he called the mobility allowance.
In return, for a three or four-year period, the disabled person leases a car which the manufacturer guarantees to service and keep on the road. The problem is that from the outset disabled people have had difficulties with the system. There is a mileage allowance which prohibits frequent use of the car and there are hidden costs. Moreover, only mildly disabled people are able to lease because the scheme does not allow significant adaptation of the car for the use of the severely disabled. Indeed, many disabled people argued that what the scheme was doing was taking a lot of money from disabled people who were then returning used cars in fabulous condition to he resold by the manufacturers.
The response was to introduce a hire purchase scheme which worked in a similar way. A disabled person signed over his benefit and, at the end of the hire purchase, he

1931
owned the car. But huge down payments were necessary before a disabled person could take out a hire purchase agreement because the mobility allowance—now the disabled living allowance—did not cover the cost of the repayments.
The other problem was that adaptations to the car meant another massive expense. Therefore, Motability, the charity, became involved in the adaptations. The charity absorbs practically every penny in the charity field in connection with disabled people and motoring. It was supposed to fill the gap and ensure that significantly disabled people became mobile. However, it has not worked out that way. There has been a level of complaint about the lack of service. Most people complained that all that Motability really did was to provide cars for the relatives of disabled people rather than the disabled people themselves.
The current financial position is that each year the Government pay Motability Finance Ltd.—as I said, a private company—£360 million of disabled people's social security benefits. Motability Finance Ltd. is the only lender in the world to have no bad debts. The money is guaranteed by the Government because it is a social security benefit which is paid over. Yet the rates of interest it charges disabled people and its car leasing arrangements are not that advantageous. In addition to the £360 million, the Government also pay Motability Finance and the charity £5.5 million a year to cover their administrative costs.
Two years ago, a disabled person called Mr. Ralph Irwin Brown began to write to Motability, the Minister for Disabled People, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asking dozens of questions. I have read much of that correspondence which seems to cross between, "You're giving disabled people a lousy deal" and "Who is making the profits?" and "Where are they going?"
In an interview, Mr. Simon Willis, a director of Motability, said that there was some money available for adaptations. It was significant that after saying that—I am sure that there was no connection—he was moved back to his position in the DSS within a few weeks. It was then said on the disabled grapevine that £10 million was going from the finance company to the charity to help it pay for adaptations to vehicles. I should point out that that happened comparatively recently and not at the time when all the problems arose. The charity then announced that it was setting up a sub-committee of disabled people to look at the service being provided. For years the charity had refused to do so. Those concerned claimed that they were always doing as much as they could with limited resources.
We also know that two weeks ago Mr. Peter Lilley, Mr. William Hague, and relevant government Ministers—in effect, the paymasters of the scheme—decided to send in the National Audit Office. Last Friday, Motability's director of finance resigned. I understand that over the years a number of officials have been alerting the Government that the whole system has been riddled with minor fraud. Although it is not a minor fraud, the most obvious example of that is that certain car manufacturers have been excluded from the scheme—for example, Honda and Renault—while others, like Ford, have entire,
1932
very big, departments which are devoted to the work and which employ major advertising agents to handle their publicity.
People are now asking: how far will it go? How profitable is Motability Finance? And where do the profits from that company go? All of us in the disabled world have believed for a long time that if the corporate side of Motability made profits, the profits would go to Motability. But has that actually been happening? How much profit do the clearing banks make from financing the leasing of cars via Motability? It is a very big business for them. For example, 220,000 vehicles, about 5 percent. of the new car market, are involved. One leasing expert commented that people with disabilities are paying about £150 too much per car and that "surplus" profits made in that way amounted to £12.5 million a year over the past few years.
The Daily Telegraph obtained accounts of the partnerships with banks set up by Motability to handle its finances—namely, Barclays, Nat West, Midland, Lloyds, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland. Such accounts showed that in 1993 the operating profit from leasing cars was £85.4 million on a turnover of £375 million. Informed sources say that the operating profit last year stood at more than £100 million.
There is also the Motability Tenth Anniversary Trust, formed as a company and a registered charity in April 1989. It appears to have no office or staff of its own, but the DSS contributed £5 million to the trust and nominated two of its trustees. Can the Minister explain why that second charity was formed and why the £5 million was donated to it and not to Motability? Will the noble Lord also confirm that the value of the trust's funds in April 1995 was over £40 million? Further, will the Minister confirm that over £35 million has been received from Motability Finance Ltd. or the banks being a proportion of the surpluses or profits which arc generated from disabled people by their use of Motability HP and lease schemes? Is the Minister satisfied that the sole beneficiary of the trust is Motability, or is there another charity?
From all that I have said, it seems to me that Motability and its associated companies have proved to he a very nice big earner for someone on the back of disabled people. There are many questions that need to be answered. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I must begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on his ingenuity in tagging the point that he wanted to make on to the amendment. It is, of course, a matter of public interest with which I shall deal in a moment. However, perhaps I may actually talk for a few moments about the subject matter of the clause which I also believe to be most important.
As many Members of the Committee will he aware, there are a number of charities and organisations which help particular groups of disabled people in preference to other groups. Obvious examples are the RNIB, which concentrates its efforts on helping the visually impaired and the RNID which helps people with hearing impairments. Such organisations sometimes wish to employ people with those particular disabilities because of their experience or the techniques they have learned in coping with their specific impairment. They may also

1933
wish to encourage the employment of people with such disabilities by setting a personal example of doing so themselves. Clause 10(1) ensures that such activities would not become unlawful where they meant rejecting people with other kinds of disabilities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, he advised my right honourable friend's private office that he wanted to talk about Motability. Perhaps I may just make a brief comment or two about Motability in general and some of the points that he made. We will respond in detail to the noble Lord in letter form. I should like to begin by stating that the Motability scheme has been a great success. During the past 17 years, around 500,000 disabled people have become mobile through the scheme. A good many of those people would be unlikely to become mobile without the vehicles obtained through the scheme. Indeed, the keys to the half-millionth vehicle will be handed over by Her Majesty the Queen at the end of July. Notwithstanding that success, we obviously realise that there is no room for any complacency.
Motability is an independent charity which was set up in 1976. It operates under a Royal charter whose governors are responsible for the operation of the scheme. They have a duty to ensure, through suppliers, that they are securing the best value for money for the disabled customer. The organisational and financial arrangements among the department, Motability and Motability Finance Ltd., have been reviewed to ensure that both disabled customers and taxpayers receive the best value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the involvement of the National Audit Office. I must emphasise that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did not ask the NAO to undertake a study of Motability. The office decided over a year ago to look at payments to Motability as part of its programme of reviewing DSS grant-in-aid bodies. Of course, there is nothing unusual in that process. We welcome the study and are fully co-operating with the office.
The noble Lord also made reference to profit levels. While they are matters for which Motability has direct responsibility, I can assure Members of the Committee that there is no question of the banks making £85 million profit. Motability annually reviews the agreed return taken by the banks. The figure quoted is not profit but includes items such as interest on borrowings which amounts to over £1 billion.
The National Audit Office, which is obviously a fully independent organisation, is currently investigating the Motability scheme. We are co-operating fully with its inquiries. I hope that that sets the scene. As I said, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in answer to the very considerable number of detailed questions that he posed. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand why I have been unable to reply to him now with the detail that he seeks.
6 p.m.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall not extend the discussion now. It can be seen from the evidence I have now put on the record that there is a
1934
situation which needs to be considered. I do not think it was just accident that the National Audit Office examined the charity at this time. I do not wish to refer to all the talk there has been of scandal, misfeasance and the rest of it, but there is much suspicion about what is happening with this charity. It is welcome that the position is being looked at and I hope that now it is in the public domain it will be looked at properly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Advertisements suggesting that employers will discriminate against disabled persons]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 56E:
Page 8, line 26, at end insert:
("() an employer has indicated that a successful application will depend on a medical testing or screening: or").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 56F. I am afraid that these two amendments go over some of the ground that we discussed on Tuesday. That discussion is recorded at columns 1705 and 1708 of Hansard. The matter concerns problems associated with medical testing, the screening requirements for certain jobs and the problems which can arise when, through an advertisement or otherwise, an employer indicates that a successful application will depend on medical testing or screening or indicates that non-symptomatic conditions which may lead to future disability will prevent employment.
Amendment No. 56F deals with a more subtle situation; HIV/AIDS is an obvious example. It might also apply to epilepsy or to multiple sclerosis in its early stages. One way to get round this problem as regards advertisements may be for prospective employers to state in their advertisements that their company is a disabled opportunity employer. However, of course all employers should be disabled opportunity employers and they should not need to spell that out. There is a problem here and we are not entirely sure how to deal with it. I am the first to admit that these amendments are not perfect. If the Government could accept the principle of the argument and recognise that there is a problem, perhaps after discussion either the Government or ourselves could return with a redraft of the provision.
The point is to ensure that the Government recognise the potential problem which could occur with advertising and interviews. We are not sure that the Bill goes far enough in this respect. It would be helpful if the Government could tell us whether they think it does go far enough and if so, how. I hope that when the Minister replies he will not say that people can apply to industrial tribunals. Of course they can, hut it is a lengthy and offputting business.
The Bill is intended to end overt discrimination against disabled people but it will still be possible to discriminate against a disabled person at the early stages of a job placement, such as the advertising stage or later. The Bill's provisions depend upon the disabled person being aware that discrimination has taken place, but it will often not be possible for a disabled person to he aware of and to challenge this discrimination. An example of this is the research carried out by Scope in 1990 which showed that

1935
people with cerebral palsy were often rejected at the application stage when they were as well qualified as their able-bodied counterpart.
I should make it clear that the amendment does not prevent the use of medical testing or screening but is intended to prevent the requirement that a successful application will depend on medical testing or screening. That is an important distinction. For example, I am advised that Texaco requires every prospective employee to take a medical examination but the employer—that is the company—is never advised by the medical unit of the reasons why a prospective employee failed a medical. There is a problem here. We touched on these matters on Tuesday at an earlier stage of the Bill. As I have said, I am the first to admit that this amendment is not perfect but it is an attempt to try to get round this problem. It would be extremely helpful if the Government could now tell us whether they recognise that there is a problem, and if so— if these amendments are not the right way to deal with it— whether they can make a suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: This amendment covers much of the ground that was covered under Amendment No. 23 which I moved on Tuesday. This amendment might constitute a better opportunity for including the provision in the Bill as it states what one should or should not be able to do when advertising a job. I hope that the Minister will give us more encouragement than we received on Tuesday, although we did not receive a totally unfriendly response. Does not the Minister consider that this is a good opportunity to give clear guidance on what is and is not acceptable in job advertisements?
Lord Inglewood: As the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Addington, commented, to some extent we are going over ground which we covered on a previous occasion. On that occasion there was a clear difference between us on some aspects of the matter, and I sense things will be no different today. Having said that, I hope that I shall be able to throw some light on these provisions and that that will he of assistance to the Committee because, as always, I am here to try to be helpful.
The key to understanding Clause 11 is that it does not make it unlawful to mention health requirements in a job advertisement because the requirements may be entirely justifiable for the job in question. Employers can be entitled to reject applicants on health grounds. Indeed it may be a legal requirement in certain circumstances not to have a particular health problem in some jobs. Therefore it would be quite wrong to have a blanket ban on employers mentioning health requirements. What is important is to cover the problem of employers trying to dissuade disabled people from applying for jobs that they might be able to do—perhaps with a reasonable adjustment—or stating in advertisements that certain health requirements will be applied and claiming subsequently that the requirements were not applied in practice.
Amendment No. 56F would ensure that industrial tribunals must, in appropriate cases, assume a disability-based reason where advertisements suggest that the employer will not employ a person with a non-symptomatic potentially disabling condition. As we explained on previous occasions, a tribunal can only
1936
hear a case brought under the Bill by a person who has or had a disability. Non-symptomatic conditions are not a disability and there will be no cases to which this advertisement could be relevant. As I have already mentioned, we have debated a number of times the merits of covering people with conditions which have no symptoms or effects and we have made it quite clear that that does not fall within our definition of disability. I appreciate that that may not be what those on the Benches opposite want to hear, but at least I have been consistent with what I said before and that is the position of the Government. I do not want to rehearse those arguments again other than to remind the Committee once more that this is not a general anti-discrimination Bill. The Bill is about disablement and discrimination in regard of it.
Amendment No. 56E would ensure that industrial tribunals must assume a disability-based reason in the case of advertisements which suggest that the employer will decide whom to employ on the basis of medical testing or screening. I can see that the purpose of this amendment has more bearing on what we are seeking to do in the Bill. If an employer discriminates on the basis of evidence found from medical testing, that would he caught by the Bill as much as any other discrimination. But we are not seeking to ban medical testing or screening. There are legitimate uses which employers can make of these procedures, as we discussed on Tuesday when we discussed the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which sought to limit the scope for employers making use of such tests quite considerably. The noble Lord referred to that amendment. However, that is not the same thing as saying that employers must not face certain consequences if they advertise in terms which indicate that applicants must undergo a medical test.
Clause 11 goes a long way—perhaps all the way—to meet the concerns addressed in this amendment. It applies where the terms of the advertisement might reasonably be understood as indicating that applications might be determined to any extent by reference to the successful applicant not having any disability, or not having a disability of the kind the complainant has. In particular I refer here to Clause 11(l) (e). It seems to us that Clause 11 already achieves the result which this amendment seeks. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, may feel that his concern has been covered and that he can withdraw his amendments.
Lord Carter: The Minister is absolutely right; he always tries to be helpful but the problem is that he has a varying success rate. His reply was extremely helpful. He has at least satisfied us on the point that he made at the end of his reply as regards what is caught by the clause. Obviously I wish to read what he has said. I think he has answered the problem that we thought we could perceive. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 56F not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Notice has been given of an intention to oppose that Question. I believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill. However, I shall be grateful for clarification because it is ambiguous in its meaning and effect.
Various circumstances are set out in subsection (1). One understands them. However, when it comes to subsection (2) we are told, assuming that a complaint has been made by a disabled person, that:
"The tribunal hearing the complaint shall assume, unless the contrary is shown, that the employer's reason for refusing to offer, or deliberately not offering, the employment to the complainant was related to the complainant's disability".
When I read that I wondered what was to be the consequence of that finding by the tribunal. Was it to be regarded as an aggravation of the complaint or a defence of exemption from it?
I suggest that between now and Report stage the Government should ask the parliamentary draftsman to look at subsection (2) so as to make it abundantly plain and to remove ambiguity. It may be that in discussion of the two previous amendments my noble friend Lord Inglewood made the position absolutely plain. However, both he and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, speak so quickly that I am afraid that my still reasonably alert mind cannot take it in fast enough.
Lord Inglewood: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Renton for agreeing that the clause should stand part of the Bill. I am also reassured that his mind is sufficiently alert that he has focused on a point that requires serious attention, as he always does in these matters. In the circumstances it would be appropriate to reflect further on the points that my noble friend made. I thank him for making them.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 57:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert:
("() specifically by failing to provide the service in the most integrated manner compatible with reasonable costs.").
The noble Baroness said: I had expected Amendment No. 57 to be grouped with a subsequent amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, concerned with integration. Perhaps it was our mistake, but the amendments were not grouped. Given the number of significant debates, I shall not move the amendment and shall seek to make my points in the later debate.
[Amendment No. 57 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 9, line 10, at end insert:
("() the provision of services in further education includes provision of appropriate transport for students with disabilities;").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment fills a loophole left by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. By that legislation local education authorities are required to consider the transport needs of students with disabilities and learning difficulties to and from college. However, they are not required to provide that transport.
There have been a good many problems. The National Bureau for Students with Disabilities receives many calls every year regarding transport problems. It is ridiculous that there are students who are kept out of education because they are unable to get to college because of lack of transport.
I can give one example. Liz is a wheelchair user. She cannot use public transport to get to college because it is not accessible. Neither the college nor the LEA will pay for appropriate transport for her. At the moment Liz is at home, trying to raise the money elsewhere to cover the costs of travelling to her course. That seems extremely unfortunate. I have details of other cases, but I shall not waste the time of the Committee by going into them. I can assure the Minister that a good many people have this problem, as the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities says.
I hope that the Government can be sympathetic to this problem. One would not expect unreasonable costs to have to be met, but I am sure that something could be done that would be within the spirit of the 1992 Act. I know that during the passage of that Bill we were anxious about this situation. Clearly, our worries were justified because of the cases that we have heard about since. Therefore, I hope that we shall have a sympathetic hearing. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): Perhaps I may join the debate rather late and support the amendment, which I was supposed to move. I had a transport and access problem myself and I am afraid that I was not present to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. I am sure that she said everything that is necessary. I declare an interest in that I am president of Skill (the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities). That is probably the last time that I need to say that, not only today but for a week or a month because otherwise we shall all become sick of it. Skill receives many calls every year about transport problems. It is a real difficulty.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically on the amendment, or will at least say some encouraging words about how he might issue guidance or follow up individual instances of poor practice. I support the amendment.
Lord Rix: As the noble Baroness, Lady David, explained, the problem is that the obligation to provide transport is unclear. There are obligations of a kind, or at least powers, under the Education Act 1944, extended by the 1992 Act, as the noble Baroness said. There are obligations or powers under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The first is concerned with the duties of local education authorities and the second with social services departments. The result is that each authority is free to argue that responsibility lies with the other authority, and both arc free to argue that they do not have the necessary funds.
Speaking from the point of view of MENCAP, having once agreed that people with severe learning disabilities should be able to go to college, and having heard the glowing testimonials of many young people in their late teens and early twenties who have been able to take

1939
advantage of such facilities, it seems to me right and proper that provision should be made for getting them there when they need either special transport or financial help.
As with other amendments, the existing rules constitute a discriminatory hurdle. As I see it, this is not a hurdle which the otherwise very welcome government amendments remove.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: We on these Benches support the amendment. In speaking in support of the amendment I press the Minister to answer certain questions that need to be answered if the Government do not accept the amendment.
The questions surround the issue of students in further education who are of statutory school age and their entitlement to access to education appropriate to their age, abilities and so on. In many parts of the country, due to the development of tertiary college provision, it is further education institutions which offer the appropriate sixth-form level study. I ask the Minister to confirm that such provision would be required under existing legislation.
Secondly, I press the Minister to support the amendment. There are many courses which are not available to students of statutory school age within the school sector, such as technical education courses and various vocational courses.
I also press the Minister to include students above the age of statutory schooling. Tragically many, particularly but not solely, physically disabled students acquire their disabilities as a result of car or motorbike accidents which occur in their late teens. Therefore, that group of young people is debarred from continuing their education at the statutory school age.
Finally, I press the Minister to consider that denying access because of the difficulty of transport to the further education college may be an unwise financial decision for the Government to take because, through attending such courses, young people who are older students can acquire skills that will allow them to be fully economically active within the community, not only to their own benefit but to the economic benefit of the country. We support the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I must apologise to the Committee for not being in my place when the amendment was moved, in particular since my name is on the list of those proposing it.
In order not to repeat what has already been said by other Members of the Committee, I simply state that I am strongly in favour of the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I add my support for the amendment, particularly for students living in rural areas. Very often there is no suitable accommodation for them so they have to live at home and travel long distances.
In rural areas, too—my own area of North Yorkshire being one—there are no such schemes as taxi cards or Dial-a-ride. That can involve a tremendous extra expense for students who have to attend sixth-form colleges or colleges of further education.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: I support the amendment. The inclusion of transport for students with learning difficulties and disabilities within the scope of Part III of the Bill will eliminate the present anomaly where opportunity is an accident of where an individual lives. The division of responsibility between local authorities and colleges can be clarified by regulation. However, the Bill provides an ideal opportunity to resolve a present difficulty: that is, to deprive a number of disabled young people of access to education and subsequent improved employment prospects. Access to education is a fundamental opportunity for those young people to gain an active role in society. I support the amendment.
Lord Addington: Members of the Committee from all sides of the Chamber have put forward a useful amendment. The provision will be of benefit to a group which will gain skills and will therefore not require so much assistance in the future because those people will become employable. They will thus have cash and will be able to purchase services.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may start by saying that I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) managed to get here on time. I am not sure whether she was making a point by coming into the Chamber and pointing out to me so forcefully the problem of transport and access. If she were not, it was a reasonably well-accomplished accident, if I may say so.
I recognise the apparent attractions—spelt out by a number of Members of the Committee—of linking access to further education courses with arrangements for transport to those courses, as proposed in the amendment. However, that policy would involve separating the statutory arrangements for people with disabilities from those of their peers. I believe that that flies a little in the face of the principles of the Bill. It also threatens to dissipate what are limited resources.
Responsibilities for all home-to-college transport arc already clear. Under Section 55(1) of the Education Act 1944 local education authorities have a duty to make arrangements for the provision of free transport where they judge that it is necessary in order to enable people to attend colleges of further education. The duty extends to students attending independent schools and colleges, including those for whom the FEFC has purchased provision. In reaching a judgment, local education authorities must look at the circumstances affecting the individual, such as his or her age and the route to the institution.
In addition, Section 55(2) enables local education authorities to pay the whole or a part of the reasonable travelling expenses of further education students for whom free transport is not thought necessary. I hope that that at least helps the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, regarding one of her questions.
Free transport can range from the provision of specialised coaches, with escorts, to the purchase of bus and train passes. Often the provision made under Section 55(1) is made alongside and indistinguishable from that made under Section 55(2). Additionally, local authorities are able to develop coherent and cost-effective arrangements not only encompassing

1941
public transport, but also provision made by social services departments. For example, they may have a vehicle which they use to transport disabled people to day centres but which can also be used in the event of someone who is disabled needing such transport to attend an FE college.
On the point about keeping a coherent policy, when a person moves from school to college, there will be a continuity of responsibility for his or her transport. That was one of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton. The situation does not only involve moving from school to college. There are also circumstances nowadays in which people who are still at school attend colleges for part of the week for some of their courses. Therefore, I believe that there is a merit in trying to keep all the responsibilities where they are at present: namely, with local authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, can be assured regarding pupils of school age. Regarding her first question, I believe that they are covered. I believe that I have answered the second question about pupils who are partly in college, partly in school, or moving between the two.
The arrangements that we have at present, and the associated economies of scale, would be lost were the funding to be transferred to individual colleges from local authorities. There would necessarily be an increased administrative burden which would further reduce the amount of funds available for the transport.
I understand what noble Lords are saying. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady David, I certainly look sympathetically at the need for further guidance. I can assure her that I shall also ask the Department for Education to look into any individual cases to which she would like to draw my attention. She mentioned one in perhaps a little more detail. We could certainly look at it.
I do not believe that there is anything between us on what we wish to achieve. I think that it is unnecessary to go down the road proposed in the amendment. I believe that it would be a mistake to dismantle an integrated system and separate disabled students from their peers.
With that explanation, and the promise to consider any specific examples sent to me (which I shall pass on to the Department for Education) and with the fact that the department will look sympathetically at the need for further guidance, especially in the light of any examples, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: I thought that it was rather a clever response from the Minister to say that the amendment was going against the principle of the Bill. However, he went on to be a little more sympathetic.
There really are problems. I have another example involving an 18 year-old who had to change a course. She was partially blind and there was not the support at one college. She had to move to a college a little further away. The local authority would not pay travel costs
1942
because it was not the nearest college. Local authorities probably differ a little in their responses to cases of need.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider giving a little more guidance. That would he helpful. I am grateful, too, that if we have individual cases for consideration, he will consider them or send them to the Department for Education.
I am sure that we should all like to read what he said and hope that he will deal with the guidance problem. Granted that, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 9, line 10, at end insert:
("() the provision of services includes the provision of services to a disabled person representing another person in their capacity of parent, guardian or carer:").
The noble Lord said: I am well aware that the Government seek to confine the Bill to disabled people. However, the amendment seeks to extend the duty of service providers to provide access to goods, facilities and services to parents and carers.
There will be, and have been, cases where an able-bodied person needs the assistance of parents or a carer. A perfect example is of a normal hearing young boy in a court of law, needing the assistance of his totally deaf parents. Because those parents did not have any interpretation, they were unable to help the boy, so we required help for the parents in order to help the boy. It is clear that, if we do not get help for people in that situation or in hospitals, then justice fails to be done. If parents have to give their consent or otherwise to an operation which may be necessary in a short time, then we are in trouble.
The same principle applies to carers. There is a precedent for them because Section 3 of the 1986 Act on disabled persons—a section which was never implemented by the Government—provides that a disabled person has a right to communication support. Section 8 of the Act—also not implemented—extended that right to carers. It is all too easy for us in this House and another place, enjoying the debates and clashes of opinions and views, to be carried away with our words, phrases, speeches, theories, amendments and subsections and forget the realities. The reality behind the amendment is shown from the number of examples produced by the RNIB. The examples deny the pleasant advertising picture of carers being chubby, happy middle-aged ladies, getting a coffee for a smiling disabled person and patting the pillow. I will quote only one of the examples, because of lack of time. A man, Mr. M, is blind and is caring for his wife, who has multiple sclerosis. Imagine that kind of situation: he finds it difficult to obtain information about services for her in a form which is accessible to him.
There are other examples which I have no time to read. They are special cases which require special provision. I know that special pleading is not popular in the House, but such people arc in great need of help

1943
under the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a sympathetic hearing to the amendment. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have given a sympathetic hearing to the points made by the noble Lord and hope that I can allay his anxieties by trying to deal with the general point that he makes.
First, the Bill will prevent discrimination against all disabled people to whom a service is being provided. It will not matter in what capacity a disabled person is acting when an alleged act of discrimination takes place. I will check because it is a serious point and I am trying to make almost a legal interpretation of what is in the Bill. I believe that the example quoted of the blind husband seeking information pertains more to the wife with multiple sclerosis. That would be encompassed by the sentence which I have just read from the brief.
Where a service would normally be provided, for example, to a disabled parent, that service will have to be made accessible. We are content that, where a doctor is treating a young child, he not only provides a service to the child but to his parents as well. That would include such things as the provision of information about the child's illness and facilities for the parent to accompany the child.
The Bill will therefore cover many of the situations with which the amendment is concerned, although I am conscious, from the previous remarks of the noble Lord, that he is concerned about education and the provision by schools to disabled parents of information about their children. It may be parents who are deaf and whose children go to school. The noble Lord wishes to be sure that the schools will be sympathetic to that case.
All education is excluded from the general right of access provisions. However, I am pleased to be able to say that the Department for Education will be consulting on this important issue. Following the outcome, it proposes to revise existing regulations to provide for schools to make information available to parents in accessible formats.
With those assurances and that clarification of what the Bill means, I hope that the position is acceptable to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may go one step further in order to clarify the matter. If we consider carers, if information is made available to other carers, then it must be available in an accessible format for disabled carers. That confirms what I said about the example that the noble Lord gave of the blind husband looking after the wife who has multiple sclerosis. If information is available to a husband who is totally healthy and normal—using that word, I hope, in a positive sense—then the blind husband also should be able to obtain it under the Bill. I hope that those explanations are helpful to the noble Lord and that he will not only be able to withdraw his amendment but will feel comfortable in doing so.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: That explanation is helpful and much appreciated. Although it does not completely meet the points, it is constructive and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 59A:
Page 9, line 10, at end insert:
("() the provision of services includes the provision of health care services.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 59A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 64, which deals with much the same point. The purpose of the two amendments is to try to get the position clear regarding possible discrimination in providing health care. The duty of a doctor is clear. Helpfully, the BMA has spelt it out in a letter stating that the BMA's policy—and I hope that this will be the professional opinion—regarding access to medical care is as follows:
"Doctors owe a duty of care to all their patients, and each patient must be assessed individually and share in decisions about treatment options. Treatment offered must be based on clinical judgement and sound scientific evidence of likely benefit. It is unethical to refuse an available treatment to any patient who might benefit from it and who is willing to have it".
That is clear, although many of us have anxieties about the attitude of GP fundholders. We expressed that anxiety on proceedings on the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I spoke from the Dispatch Box at that time about our concern that GP fundholders might start to discriminate between patients on the basis of their likely cost. At least the BMA has spelt out clearly that a doctor should not be able to discriminate against disabled patients.
However, there are other areas of care: community care, nursing homes, residential homes, the whole area of healthcare and community care. We wish to be clear about whether all healthcare services, of whatever kind, arc caught by the Bill. The BMA states that its interpretation is that those services are caught by Clause 12(3) (h):
"the services of any profession or trade, or any local or other public authority".
Amendment No. 64 covers the problem in a different place but it has the same intent. It is based on the fact that healthcare seems to be specifically excluded from the examples which are given in Clause 12(3). Is that exclusion deliberate or an oversight? Is the exclusion acceptable, since our concern is covered in another place in the Bill? The object of the two amendments is to clarify the position regarding possible discrimination in providing healthcare and to ensure that all healthcare services, of whatever kind, are included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: It is my intention to move Amendment No. 64, which aims to alert all who are concerned with health care and the provision of medical services to the changed situation that will result from the passing of this Bill into law.
My amendment, based on wording suggested by MENCAP, underlines that what is now largely a matter of medical ethics and codes of practice will come under a law that will make it an offence to discriminate against disabled people. Incidentally, I saw the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, only this afternoon. It seems to me to he a perfectly possible alternative to my amendment. However, I do not wish to comment on it any further at this stage.

1945
One has to comb the Bill very closely to find any references to these subjects. However, Clause 12(3) (h) mentions,
"the services of any profession or trade, or any local or other public authority".
The Minister of State advised me in a letter that this provision extends to include health care and medical treatment. I believe, however, that this is such an important area that there should be an explicit reference to it on the face of the Bill, putting the matter beyond any possible doubt. That is what my amendment is designed to achieve.
In order to inform myself, I wrote to about two dozen leading disability organisations, voluntary and professional bodies. The reactions I received ranged from that of the BMA, which felt that there were no problems of discrimination and was happy with the Bill as it stood, to that of RADAR, which felt that the issue was so big that a separate Bill might be necessary. The director general of one organisation wrote:
"If you can, through the Disability Discrimination Bill, prevent medical practitioners discriminating merely on the grounds of disability as to whether they treat disabled people or not, you will have achieved a great deal and we applaud your initiative".
It is not my intention to make a judgment on the medical profession, nor am I qualified to do so. However, I should like to mention areas of concern that have been drawn to my attention. The first is medical treatment itself. Under the Bill—and this will be absolutely clear if my amendment is accepted—it will he unlawful for a medical practitioner to provide medical treatment to a disabled person other than in accordance with best medical practice solely because that person is disabled.
I have had some examples drawn to my attention of instances of disabled people having difficulty in receiving the same quality of medical treatment as others in society. There seems to be a particularly difficult problem in the case of Down's syndrome children. I have heard of several cases where there has apparently been a reluctance to give them the same treatment as other patients. ASBAH mentioned a young girl client with hydrocephalus and some learning difficulties who complained for some 18 months of pain in her shoulder but whose complaints went unheeded. The neurosurgeon who treated her said that there was nothing wrong. However, with ASBAH' s assistance, another specialist identified a tumour in the shoulder which was then successfully removed. This story supports the concern of MENCAP that disabled people with lesser medical problems unrelated to their disability can have them ignored or played down by medical practitioners.
ASBAH also mentioned problems that were experienced by pregnant disabled women who had been denied access to a similar level of service and choice to that obtained by other pregnant women. Other groups, such as John Grooms and MENCAP, emphasise the difficulties of getting sufficient support for disabled people following medical treatment.
It would not be surprising if discrimination were to creep into the provision of health care. We are all prone to devalue disabled people, especially the elderly disabled.
1946
Moreover, there are times when it is perfectly proper for disabled people to be given different treatment tailored to their needs. But, as MENCAP put it to me in a letter,
"doctors cannot justify denying treatment or offering treatment poorer in quality as well as different in kind from that offered to people in like state without disability".
In a nutshell, it is right to question the value of the treatment for the patient, but not right to question the value of the patient to receive the treatment. That is a complicated sentence. It reads like the old joke: whisky when you are well makes you ill; whisky makes you well when you are ill. If you try to say that quickly, you soon get into a muddle. I shall just say the sentence again. In a nutshell, it is right to question the value of the treatment for the patient but not right to question the value of the patient to receive the treatment. My amendment would put that beyond doubt.
My second area of concern is the availability of nursing care and services. To meet the requirements of the Bill, reinforced by my amendment, there will need to be an improvement in the provision of suitable equipment to meet the needs of disabled people. Examples are pressure relief mattresses, inaccessibility of breast screening apparatus and the lack of hoists in outpatients departments. It would give considerable encouragement to disabled people if the Government were to give a lead by ensuring that hospitals and surgeries were constructively encouraged to provide accessible lavatories, clear direction signs, including signs in Braille for the blind and partially sighted, and induction loops for people with hearing impairment.
My third area of concern is access to GP services. Three organisations mentioned problems that have recently emerged of GP fundholding practices not wishing to accept disabled people as patients because of the potential cost of their care and treatment. This Bill—and again my amendment clarifies this point—will make discrimination in this area unlawful. However, that will not necessarily make the problem go away. I hope that a way can he found to help GPs who are under this kind of pressure.
I hope that these observations are helpful to the Committee. While the problems may not he widespread at present, there is a real possibility that, as the number of elderly disabled people grows and medical science allows disabled people to live longer, the examples I have raised will become more prevalent. Although the amendment raises no new issues of principle, mentioning the matter explicitly on the face of the Bill would provide a clear marker for the future. I shall be interested to hear what other noble Lords and the Minister have to say in response.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: I very much support the idea behind these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, mentioned John Grooms association for disabled people, for which I work. Our experience suggests that discrimination can occur in relation to all services provided by the National Health Service, including general practitioners and therapists. When we opened a number of new homes in the Southend area, one large one and three quite small ones—they were opened, I may say, over a number of years and spread quite widely

1947
over the Southend area—we had considerable difficulty in finding general medical practitioners who were willing to have the disabled people in our care on their lists. That appeared to be because they were under the misapprehension that because someone has a physical disability, he or she was likely to be ill more often and therefore to be a greater expense on the practice.
Residents in our Edgeware estate have also been denied community physiotherapy services and equipment, apparently because they live in a residential home. I understand that the local services claim that their budgets are insufficient to meet the costs of providing these services. Talks with other organisations indicate that this occurs in other homes as well. It thus appears to us that there is double discrimination: a disabled person is forced to live in a residential home while at the same time being denied the medical services that able-bodied people could easily obtain. I support the ideas behind these amendments. Whether the wording of either is exactly correct for the Bill, I am not qualified to say, but I believe that we should have, if not one of these amendments, then something similar on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: I have my name to Amendment No. 64 but I am just as interested in Amendment No. 59A. In fact, Amendment No. 59A may be the better of the two. The details could then be put in the regulations.
As the Bill stands, health care for disabled people is not adequately written in to indicate the vital need for medical personnel to understand the needs and problems of disabled people, which I am afraid that many do not. The problems seem to be getting worse. We have now before us an opportunity of highlighting some of the problems.
I believe that it will help educate hospital trusts, their non-executive members and the staff who work in the hospitals as well as medical personnel working in the community if the Bill, when it becomes an Act, has the word "health" written into it. I should like to include "dentists" too. Many severely disabled people, particularly those with learning difficulties, have problems finding dentists who will treat them. To illustrate what I mean, I shall give two examples. I hope that the Committee will understand how important is the problem of receiving adequate health care at present for disabled people.
First, I should like to tell the Committee that, as the Department of Health knows, I have been involved with the problem of pressure sores over the years. Last year the Department of Health held a very interesting seminar on the subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has answered one of my Questions on the matter in the past year. I am sure that she and I are of like mind over this problem.
Pressure sores cause untold misery to the individual and cost the National Health Service millions of pounds in extra expenses, sometimes as much as around £100 million a year, in staff time, operations and medication. My first example is that of my personal friend, the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, who was in hospital at the time of the Second Reading of this debate, as I mentioned. The noble Lord has given me permission to tell the Committee what happened to him.
1948
The noble Lord was taken as an emergency patient to a large and well-known teaching hospital near his home in the Midlands. He was running a high temperature and had haemorrhaged. Some noble Lords may not know that the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, is a paraplegic who does not feel his paralysed parts. When ill, all paraplegics are very much at risk from pressure sores if they are not turned and given special attention—even nursed on special mattresses, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said. The noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, developed a pressure sore while he was in hospital. It is ironic that he is a trustee of Smith's Charity which at this very moment is funding a research project on pressure sores. Having stayed extra time in hospital, where his pressure sore was not healed, the noble Lord is at home being looked after by the district nurse. But he may well have to go to a spinal unit to be cured. That is why he is not in the Chamber today. We miss him greatly on the Mobile Bench.
My other example concerns a paraplegic lady, living at home, who became very ill and weak last year. The local doctor did not send her to hospital. She developed persistent diarrhoea. When the community nurse visited, she said that she could only be given a bath every two weeks. She was living with her brother, an alcoholic who had had cancer. She needed constant help, which was not forthcoming. When her own doctor came back from three weeks' holiday, this patient was sent to hospital. She died the next day from an undiagnosed ulcer. The system had let her down.
I hope that the Committee will realise how important it is to have health care written in the Bill. I hope that the treatment of pressure sores will go into the regulations. I want to save the National Health Service money and help disabled people to a better quality of life. Having taken sisters away from hands-on work on the wards and given them administrative jobs has not helped patient care. I hope that the Minister will consult with his colleagues from the Department of Health. As the Committee knows, disability crosses all government departments.
Lord Rix: I wish that I had been able to put my name to either of these amendments. I crave the Committee's indulgence when I speak for a few moments on this matter of unfair discrimination. I do so from a personal standpoint. Some Members of the Committee may feel that, at least within the National Health Service, disabled people will already be protected from discrimination by a system designed particularly for their benefit and by staff who are likely to have their interests particularly at heart. Would that were so.
First, there is institutional discrimination. When I was Secretary-General of MENCAP from 1980 to 1987, a large number of people with learning disabilities were then in large hospitals. It was notorious that expenditure per head on food was a fraction of that spent in general hospitals. I could never discover any reason other than unfair discrimination which would explain the discrepancy. I can only hope that things changed when I became Chairman of MENCAP some years later.
Then there is blatant discrimination based on a sense of priorities which puts people with learning disabilities at the end of the queue. A sister on a paediatric ward to which a child with severe and multiple disabilities was admitted for treatment said, "We really do not have time

1949
to look after children like that when there are sick normal children to treat". The high level of untreated morbidity that was found every time that there was a survey of the health of people with severe learning disabilities is a commentary of "Why bother?" on this why-bother prejudice.
A third category of unfair discrimination is the unwillingness to provide the additional support that people with severe learning disabilities may need during treatment. As I said, I can speak from personal experience on this story and the next one that I shall tell the Committee. It concerned an eye operation—she has had several—on my daughter Shelley. It was the first that she was to have and took place some time ago. I was asked to provide the extra nursing cover needed during the recovery period. I had to pay for that. I am happy to say that eventually the health authority reimbursed me but it was after some degree of argument. I can cite other cases where parents have been told by a hospital that they ought to seek private treatment, or that extra nursing cover could not be made available, or that the parents themselves should come in to provide personal care and feeding.
As was touched on by my noble friend Lady Masham, dental problems too provide further occasions of unfairness and discrimination. Many people with severe learning disabilities—my daughter is one of them—cannot cope with dental treatment without a general anaesthetic. It has recently been brought to my attention that troubles with the change of responsibility for dentistry in Northamptonshire meant that general anaesthetics were available only for extractions. I hope that the problem has now been solved, but for some months people's teeth rotted until they had become so bad that they needed those extractions. Again, quoting my daughter's case, she is still awaiting the general anaesthetic at the hospital so that she can have her teeth looked at. That is the state of play that has been going on for some 18 months.
I hope that I have said enough to show why I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the Bill as it stands will prevent the kind of discrimination that I have described.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I believe that I am a lone voice on this matter. I feel that the amendment as tabled is probably unnecessary. I believe that the health service should now be doing everything and anything that it can do to help people. Certainly I look to the Minister to confirm that that is so. But so many issues have been raised which are bordering on clinical judgment that this is something about which we must think carefully. The medical profession in particular values its clinical freedom, and the dentists no less so. It is important that one should be able to decide what is best for one's patient. Certainly, more and more negligence claims are being filed as people decide that what the doctor chose was not best for them. If that could be proved, it would be a different matter. However, it is difficult to decide whether a person was discriminated against or whether it was simply that the doctor was a bad judge.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, quoted cases where I felt that someone was probably in the hands of a had doctor. I hope that there is sufficient machinery
1950
within the health service to deal with that. But I speak particularly because of the comments in relation to dentistry. Dentistry is a real problem. I know that because I have had personal experience of it. The point made regarding general anaesthetic not being available for someone who required it is absolutely right. In my surgery we could and did give general anaesthetic for fillings. I did many thousands of those for all types of people, some of whom had learning difficulties or other disability. They were not all suitable to be treated in an ordinary dental surgery because some required an expert to ensure that the patient did not suffer a heart attack. People with a secondary congenital heart condition had to be treated in a specialist centre.
Lord Rix: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to interrupt. The case to which I referred concerns my daughter. She is awaiting admission to hospital to have general anaesthetic because of her general state of health.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: That confirms what I am saying. Therefore, when the patient comes to the dentist, the dentist must decide whether or not the case is suitable for treatment in the surgery. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, was talking of dentists in general. I had a number of wheelchair-bound patients. I could not treat them unless I borrowed a surgery which was on the ground floor so that the patient could get into it. My surgery was on the first floor. I had one patient who was almost blind and wore heavy leg calipers. She came to my surgery for years and managed to get to the first floor. We treated her all the time and I have nothing but great admiration for how well she coped with double disabilities when most of us would find it impossible to cope with one.
It is a specific problem because National Health Service dentists, particularly in the cities, can only afford first-floor premises, ground-floor premises being much more expensive. An answer may lie in community dental services providing services of that type. I hope therefore that my noble friend will assure me that this is fully covered and that the National Health Service has such obligations already. I certainly would not want to see discrimination against people with disabilities.
7 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments and the problems which have been brought to our attention. The amendments appear to have the effect of making it illegal to discriminate against disabled people in the provision of health services. This is an extremely difficult and sensitive area and I can understand the Committee's concern, though my concern changed at one stage during the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, when he suggested that we may need another Bill. My heart sank at the possibility and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, shared my sinking feeling. We do not need another Bill, nor do we need the amendments. I hope to be able, not just to persuade your Lordships, but also place on record what the position is.

1951
In relation to the specific examples quoted, it is true that, given the size and complexity of our National Health Service, mistakes will be made. That is a human failing. It happens to the disabled and the non-disabled alike, rather like the rain falling on the just and the unjust. It is not therefore a specific problem for disabled people, though I understand the points being made that may particularly affect them. I shall certainly draw the attention of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege to the examples brought to my attention today.
I said that I felt the amendments were not necessary. As we have consistently emphasised, there are no exceptions to the fundamental principle that the National Health Service is there to provide services for everybody on the basis of clinical need—a point made by my noble friend Lady Gardner. We categorically spelt out in the Patient's Charter the right of every citizen to receive healthcare on the basis of clinical need and not on any other factor. Indeed, the National Health Service Executive produced the Patient's Charter in a number of versions—audio cassettes, Braille, large print, video and British sign language, and in signs and symbols for people with learning difficulties. The charter sets out the standards which people can expect of the NHS, including that the NHS will make it easy for everyone to use its services, including children, elderly people or people with mental or physical disabilities. Since the Patient's Charter was first launched in 1991, considerable progress has been made by the NHS in making services more accessible for disabled people.
The Government have specified the improvement of the performance of the NHS for disabled people as a priority in the priorities and planning guidance for the NHS for 1995–96. There have been great improvements in healthcare over the past 20 years or so and disabled people can now benefit from a variety of interventions. Procedures such as hip replacements, which vastly improve quality of life, are commonplace.
These amendments are inappropriate because questions of medical ethics are matters for the General Medical Council and the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting (UKCC) respectively which are independent statutory bodies. The Medical Act 1983 gives powers to the General Medical Council to provide,
"in such manner as the Council thinks fit, advice for members of the medical profession on standards of professional conduct or on medical ethics",
while the UKCC's powers under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979 include that of
"providing in such a manner as it thinks fit advice for nurses, midwives and health visitors on standards of professional conduct".
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quoted the BMA, perhaps underlining the point that there ought not to be discrimination in the health service. I shall go further and quote the General Medical Council, which issued advice on medical ethics in its Blue Book Professional Conduct and Discipline: Fitness to Practise. This states, under the heading, "Principles governing decisions about access to medical care" that,
"A doctor should always seek to give priority to the investigation and treatment of patients solely on the basis of clinical need".
1952
That advice was revised on 23rd May 1995 and approved by the GMC council. Its new guidance is called Good Medical Practice which states:
"You must not allow your views about a patient's lifestyle, culture, beliefs, race, colour, sex, sexuality, age, social status, or perceived economic worth"—
a point alluded to once or twice—
"to prejudice the treatment you give or arrange".
And,
"You must not abuse your patient's trust. You must not, for example deliberately withhold appropriate investigation, treatment or referral".
It continues,
"You should always seek to give priority to the investigation and treatment of patients solely on the basis of clinical need".
For nurses, midwives and health visitors, the UKCC in its code of professional conduct, issued in 1992, recommended:
"As a registered nurse, midwife or health visitor, you are personally accountable for your practice and, in the exercise of your professional accountability, must … recognise and respect the uniqueness and dignity of each patient and client, and respond to their need for care, irrespective of their ethnic origin, religious beliefs, personal attributes, the nature of their health problems or any other factor",
and,
"report to an appropriate person or authority any circumstances in which safe and appropriate care for patients and clients can not be provided."
This code of professional conduct is issued to all registered nurses, midwives and health visitors by the UKCC. The council is the regulatory body responsible for the standards of these professions and it requires members of the professions to practise and conduct themselves within the standards and framework provided by the code.
Maintaining and defending the highest professional standards in the public interest is a complex and difficult job which goes to the heart of the self-regulatory role which Parliament has already entrusted to the statutory bodies. I do not believe that duplicating that role in another context would of itself add to the consideration that patients are entitled to expect from the practitioners who serve them.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and other noble Lords asked whether GP fund-holders would be able to refuse disabled patients. The noble Lord is correct in thinking that GPs, fund holding or otherwise, will not be able to refuse disabled people because they are disabled. We shall bear in mind the points he raised when we come to issue codes of practice and guidance on the new rights of access.
Perhaps I may sum up my speech by saying that the question which has been raised by a number of noble Lords can be encapsulated as: are all medical services covered in the Bill? Noble Lords may say that I should have answered that question at the beginning and then I need not have spoken for so long. But this is an important issue and I wanted to put a number of things on the record so that the position is clear. To answer the simple question, "Are all medical services covered by the Bill?", the answer is yes. But we believe there is no need to have this on the face of the Bill because we cannot list every possible service in that way. My assurance that the Bill covers all health services given to disabled people is now on the record. I am grateful

1953
to noble Lords for giving me the opportunity to make the position absolutely clear. With that explanation and assurance I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: The Minister mentioned the Patient's Charter. What legal value do charters have? Are they not just words? That is the reason why we want "health" written on the face of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Of course they are words. So are all the remarks I make. But the point is that they are words that are backed up, first, by the powerful guidance given to the professionals involved in the health service. That is the first very important point. They are also backed up by various aspects of legislation, including the assurance I have just given that medical services are covered by the Bill. I do not think we need necessarily add one because we could add a number of things which are not specifically on the face of the Bill. We could debate at least until the end of the evening on different issues which people would like to see on the face of the Bill. The Patient's Charter helps to guide patients and tells them what their rights are and those rights are underlined and underwritten so far as concerns this Bill and so far as concerns disabled people by my assurance that all medical services are indeed covered by the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parks: Perhaps the Committee will allow me at this very late moment to add that the Patient's Charter is very strictly enforced through the National Health Service Executive and, at the moment, the regional health authorities which keep monitoring the results all the time.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken in the debate for their interesting contributions. I am grateful to the Minister for his contribution. Perhaps I may pick up one point which he made early in his speech. He said that the two amendments would bring the medical treatment under the law. That is not quite right. The Bill brings the medical treatment under the law. The amendments merely make it clear that the Bill has done that.
Lord Carter: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this extremely helpful debate. Their contributions have underlined the need for the discussion we have had and the need for the ministerial assurance that we received. I know I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we are extremely grateful to the Minister for the very full reply he gave and for the assurance that we needed. He referred to medical services. We are talking about health care services, including community care and the whole range. I think it is clear now that our concerns have been allayed and that there is no need for the amendment. However, we needed to have the debate to make sure that it was not needed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begins again not earlier than 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1995
7.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the emergency provisions Act contains most of the legal powers necessary to counter the paramilitary threat in Northern Ireland. It provides modifications to the criminal justice system, including the mode of trial for terrorist-type offences; arrest, search and seizure powers for the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Army; and certain specific offences such as belonging to a proscribed organisation. It also provides valuable powers directed against terrorist finances. It contains significant safeguards for those who may be affected by the special provisions.
Seeking its renewal for a further year is not simply a reflex action on the part of the Government. It is a carefully considered decision having regard to the advice of our security advisers and also the admirably thorough and dispassionate report of Mr. J.J. Rowe Q.C., to whom we are all indebted. He concludes that renewal for a further year is indeed necessary. We, regretfully, endorse his conclusion.
I should like to explain why that is our view. We have, for the first time in very many years, a situation in which the terrorist organisations on both sides are not killing people and destroying property. That is to be much welcomed, and the benefits are already apparent. Northern Ireland is now a confident place; there are increased business opportunities and less unemployment. There is an atmosphere of hope which has been sadly lacking in the past. We have a wonderful opportunity to build on this, to look to the future and draw a line under the past 25 years of suffering.
The Government have recognised the ceasefires in many important ways. I shall quote just a few. Military activity has been greatly reduced and two major Army units have been relocated from Northern Ireland. All the roads which link Northern Ireland with the Irish Republic are being reopened. Many security installations have been removed; and it is no longer necessary for police officers and soldiers to operate the vehicle checkpoints which used to cause such disruption to people seeking to go about their business. We are glad to have been able to take these steps and, as the ceasefires continue to hold, more will be possible.
But we have no confirmation of the peace. The paramilitary organisations on both sides remain in being and they retain the capacity for violence. Not a single weapon or item of equipment has been voluntarily given up. The terrorists are still recruiting new members. developing new methods of operation and gathering

1955
information on potential targets. They still engage in the most brutal forms of intimidation; savage beatings remain commonplace as they seek to enforce their own brand of discipline; and let it not be forgotten that not all the groupings have called a ceasefire.
The powers we are debating today provide a deterrent against this kind of activity and a means of countering it. They are also a reassurance that the Government are determined to see a permanent end to terrorism. They are being used much less frequently than before, and we all wish to see the trend continue, but our judgment is that they should remain in existence for the time being.
But we do not wish to keep them in place for ever. The Government have always looked forward to the day when they will no longer be necessary. Section 69 of the Act provides a mechanism whereby specific provisions can be suspended and brought back into force by order if necessary. Section 34—the power of executive detention—is already subject to suspension. We hope that it will prove possible for further provisions to be moved into the same category, and we will keep this matter continually under review in the light of developments. This is another recommendation from Mr. Rowe which we are entirely happy to accept.
Let me look still further ahead. It is only right that there should be a wide-ranging look at all the options for permanent counter-terrorism legislation once a lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland. I can now say that the process will include a fully independent review of the continuing need for this Act and the Prevention of Terrorism Act. It is, however, a matter for judgment when it would be right to start this. I have already explained why we have to be careful. It is likely that we shall have to conclude that it will be premature to mount such a review in time for the legislation which will be necessary to replace the current Act when it expires completely in August 1996. If that is the case, next Session's Bill will be explicitly time-limited pending the introduction of entirely new legislation to deal with any residual terrorist threat to the United Kingdom.
This Government are therefore absolutely committed to overhauling the emergency legislation when circumstances permit and a lasting peace has been confirmed. The only question in our minds is when it will be safe and sensible to begin the process. The answer to that question is, sadly, "Not yet".
In the meantime, I should like to place on record my unstinting admiration for the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Army and the other security agencies over the years. Many have paid the ultimate price; and many others, and their families, will continue to suffer in years to come. We hope that their task of upholding democracy is very nearly over and that the police force can continue to develop in the service of the whole community.
I should like now to say something about the holding centres at Castlereagh and elsewhere which have played such a central role over the years. The Government have been keen to eliminate the controversy which has sometimes surrounded them. We have in place an independent commissioner, Sir Louis Blom-Cooper QC, who has now produced two annual reports. We have codes of practice concerning the detention and
1956
questioning of suspects. From the beginning of this year, Sir Louis has been able, subject to certain conditions, to sit in on actual interviews.
We can now go further. Having consulted the Royal Ulster Constabulary, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in another place earlier this week that he was prepared to introduce, in the Bill to. replace the present Act, and if the security situation still rendered it necessary, a scheme to enable interviews to be electronically recorded. We all hope that by then such a scheme will no longer be necessary and that procedures will suffice for all suspects; but if recording in the holding centres is still appropriate, it will be introduced.
Northern Ireland has changed remarkably over the past year. I believe that among most people there is a will to consolidate the existing situation and to secure a lasting political settlement. All our efforts are bent towards that end.
But I have to tell the House today that in our considered judgment the powers contained in the emergency provisions Act must remain in existence for the time being. I do not say it with pleasure and I trust the time will soon come when it is safe to dispense with the Act. I hope and pray that terrorism has had its day, but until we can be certain that the threat has been entirely lifted it would be utterly irresponsible of us to drop our guard and this Government will not do that. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th May be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
7.25 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the comprehensive and lucid way in which she introduced the renewal of the order. The order comes up for consideration this evening when the situation in Northern Ireland is quite different from what it was in previous years when such orders were debated. All of us in Northern Ireland have now enjoyed a ceasefire for almost 10 months, and we earnestly hope that it will be permanent and irreversible.
The ceasefire was fully taken into account by Mr. Rowe QC in his interesting and detailed report on the operation of the emergency provisions in 1994. In his report, he faced up to the realities of the situation in Northern Ireland, and I can understand and agree with his recommendations. I wish to support the renewal of the order for one more year. In my view, there is no other way.
As I have said, we have enjoyed a ceasefire for 10 months, but it has been marred by two murders and a continuation of the bestial and brutal punishment beatings which have been perpetrated by both sets of paramilitaries and in which 131 people (mostly young men) have had their limbs bashed with concrete blocks and bars and have been seriously injured. Unfortunately, that is only one indication of the determination of the paramilitaries to maintain control over what they regard as their areas. Everyone hopes that the ceasefire will be permanent but, as yet, there is no general feeling of confidence that it will be.

1957
As the Minister said, the paramilitaries, and in particular the IRA, have not been stood down. In certain areas, they are actively continuing to target individuals, who find that their movements are being watched and, on occasions, that they have been followed on their journeys home. The recruiting and training of the IRA is continuing. Weapons are being moved about. All that is generally known, and is mentioned by Mr. Rowe in paragraph 13. In addition, some groups are stepping up their racketeering and there is evidence of involvement in drug pushing which is becoming very serious. In the Republic of Ireland, there has been a spate of kidnappings of wealthy business people, ransoms have been paid, and a figure of £1 million has been mentioned. There has been little publicity, but it is clear that the IRA is determined to keep its cash boxes full.
On the wider front, Sinn Fein has been conducting a high level and clever campaign demanding to be fully recognised as a constitutional political party. It has been redefining words and phrases. For it, "demilitarisation" means removal of the Army, disarming and disbanding the Royal Ulster Constabulary but not giving up any of its own explosives and arms. In the name of "democracy", it requires Brits out; it does not recognise the wish of the majority in Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Its "democratic" objective is for the island of Ireland to be governed from Dublin by a government of its choice. It blames everyone else and in particular our government for holding up what it calls the "peace process". It has obtained concession after concession. It is now talking to Ministers. They have shaken hands all round, but there is no suggestion that the IRA will surrender arms or explosives.
There is widespread feeling in Northern Ireland—I can say an almost universal feeling—that Sinn Fein and the IRA have had concessions enough. They must now deliver if they are to be treated seriously. If they are sincere about peace, they should at once give up all their semtex.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord and ask a question. Does he agree that similar pressure should be exerted upon the Protestant paramilitaries?
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I agree. That applies to all paramilitaries. The semtex is particularly dangerous. It should at least be given up as a starter in the disarming process.
It is easy to understand that Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness are in difficult positions. They have now to persuade the IRA brigade commanders that they must give up explosives and weapons. The Government have been sympathetic to their position. They have shown by action that they wish to help towards peace. All the roads have been reopened. The Army has been reduced, and security has been very obviously relaxed. To make further concessions without receiving anything substantial in return will lose the Secretary of State and the NIO all credibility in Northern Ireland.
In Northern Ireland generally, we now need time as well as peace in which to build intercommunity relationships and mutual confidence. I am glad to say
1958
that there is already evidence of such work. The security forces are supporting it and giving all the help that they can. Great efforts are being made to avoid confrontation and aggression. Police divisional reports show that they are moving as fast as circumstances will allow towards assisting intercommunity activities, and they are moving to concentrate upon racketeering and drug trafficking. It is sad and reprehensible that the chairman of the police authority, a salaried government appointee, should condemn publicly the Chief Constable's report before it was even made public. If the allegations have foundation, there are much better ways of handling such matters.
The Minister paid tribute to the work of the police. In the past few days pressure in Northern Ireland has been rising to bursting point. I would say that the Province could explode, because word has been passed down that the widows of the police, Army and intelligence officers who were killed in that crash on the Mull of Kintyre more than a year ago will be entitled to only £100,000 compensation because those officers were not on duty at the time, and the helicopter could be regarded as a common carrier. Therefore under the Geneva Convention £100,000 is the limit.
That is outrageous. I have never felt such a general sense of outrage. I was glad to hear that there has been some change of heart on that during the day. I hope that is true and will be acted upon quickly. The only way to deal fairly with those poor people is to treat each individual in accordance with her needs. Some have more young children than others, greater educational needs, and so on.
The Secretary of State's announcement that he will review the emergency provisions is welcome and important, but I suggest that he should commence the review now when the need, the problems and the difficulties are fresh in everyone's mind. I trust that the Secretary of State will not make the mistake of importing solely experts from outside who come over for a short time and tell us what we should have. It is vital that we have some local people on the review body, and there are many engaged in community work who are well placed to give advice from ground level.
It would be wonderful if in one year's time we were to find that the emergency provisions were not necessary. But, even if it becomes clear that we should he free of terrorist violence, it must be recognised that there are tightly run, well-organised, and technically proficient organisations on both sides which will not go away. They will involve themselves in every racket and money generating scheme, including drugs, that they can think of. They can be expected to continue to pressurise witnesses and to pervert the course of justice in every possible way. It is certain that at least some of the emergency provisions will continue to be necessary for some years so that the police and the courts can put those evil gangs out of business. I am sorry to mention that, but it is the situation on the ground. I am sure that such people will not go away just because there is peace.
In the coming months, it will not be easy. There are various pressures afoot, but the ceasefire must hold without the Government giving any more concessions. The new sense of hope throughout Northern Ireland can

1959
be felt. Of the many good things happening, one is the drive to increase employment opportunities, something in which most of industry and the interested bodies are involved. The work to increase employment and the opportunities for employment is being enthusiastically and competently led by the Minister responsible for the economy, the noble Baroness, Lady Denton. Her work has been widely commended and appreciated.
What we need is time for everyone to understand the benefits which peace can bring so that, although we may suffer from some terrorist activity, the terrorists will have no support whatsoever and no safe houses.
7.36 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, after that admirable speech I hesitate to speak, but I shall. It is now 18 months since the Joint Declaration, and some 10 months since the IRA declared a ceasefire; qualified, however, by Gerry Adams a month later in September when he said that the violence might be resumed,
"two or three years up the road".
On 9th December last year an exploratory dialogue began between NIO officials and representatives of Sinn Fein. One of the objects of those talks was to examine the practical consequences of the ending of violence.
I think the public expected that such discussions would lead to practical arrangements to enable the IRA, as well of course as the Loyalist paramilitaries, to hand over its arms, and, above all, the large quantities of semtex explosive and such weapons as rocket launchers, neither of which could be considered defensive weapons needed to protect the brave soldiers of the IRA against, for instance, the police.
Such arrangements were, and are, all the more urgent since it is universally accepted that Sinn Fein cannot take part in the necessary dialogue with the other political parties and with the Government, which forms part of the democratic process, until they can come to the table without an Armalite held behind their backs.
On 10th May this year negotiations took another step with the initiation of exploratory talks between Sinn Fein and a Government Minister, Mr. Ancram, and in May also the Secretary of State found himself shaking Mr. Gerry Adams by the hand in the US and, according to Mr. Adams yesterday, had a useful meeting.
What has been achieved since August last year by the British Government, Sinn Fein and the IRA? The great and undeniable blessing, for which every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland and their friends everywhere give thanks, is of course 10 months without a bomb or a killing, apart from two murders by the IRA. It will be said:
"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war",
but there are limitations to that. For what have Sinn Fein and the IRA achieved, and let no one accept the pretence that they are not one body?
The record of all but one of the Sinn Fein negotiating delegation demonstrates an active IRA past. I wonder how Tony Lake would feel if he had to negotiate as a British Minister with a man who openly regretted that his attempt to blow up a British Prime Minister had failed.
1960
Sinn Fein has secured powerful US support, despite the fact that it represents only one-third of the nationalist vote in the North and a derisory 3 per cent. in the South. But it wishes to create and dominate a united Ireland in its image. It is widely compared with the ANC in South Africa. I personally believe that it is an insult to Nelson Mandela to put Gerry Adams on the same plane. It is as though we were to receive and fete in this country Louis Farakan, or the leader of the Conservative Party in New York state, as serious political contestants for the US presidency.
Sinn Fein now has an office in Washington and the right to raise funds. It has now opened another office in Brussels whose stated aim is to inform the European Union and to persuade it to play a greater role not just in financing the peace process—perhaps, in passing, I may remind the House that we are one of the two net contributors to the EU—but in the political search for a just solution. Meanwhile, we are dismantling checkpoints, withdrawing troops and allowing Sinn Fein to move further and further into negotiation. We are publicly examining the role of the RUC in the knowledge that Sinn Fein's declared objective is to replace it with a people's militia of the IRA's choice. I do not know what effect that must have on police morale.
We are accepting the continuing punishment beatings by paramilitaries on both sides. We know that the IRA continues to recruit and target future candidates for killing. It was said in the debate on this measure in another place that there is reason to believe that the IRA is accessing computer records in the Housing Executive and the Inland Revenue. I refer your Lordships to col. 528 of Hansard of 12th June.
Strangest of all, we are taking, it seems to me, very little trouble to use that useful weapon, the truth. Gerry Adams has said publicly that the question of decommissioning was never raised with him in his talks at the White House. President Clinton said that it was. Is President Clinton indeed going to come to Northern Ireland this autumn to rejoice in his contribution to the peace process? That would be a vintage exercise in cynicism and on a par with the Irish Government's many equally helpful intrusions into our affairs. Lately we do not seem to have heard much about Clauses 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, nor about Dublin's careful retention of the Offences Against the State Act while urging us to give up the measure that is before us tonight.
Yet, for all this assiduous diplomacy from the US and from Dublin, and no doubt soon from Brussels, not one ounce of semtex has been handed over and Mr. Adams is now claiming that we are jeopardising the peace process by our unreasonable demands. The unionists are, of course, said to be cast with us as the villains of the piece, responsible in their bigotry and their unreasonable dinosaur attitudes for the breakdown of the peace process once the IRA and Sinn Fein have extracted the maximum advantage in terms of concessions by us, which are not reciprocated. Yet it is the unionists who actually made proposals in February this year for an international commission to work out ways of handing in illegal arms.

1961
I presume that that was never taken further by the Government because today's Times reports that Sir John Wheeler is saying,
"the Government would find ways of helping paramilitaries to decommission their weapons within the law".
The same item reported Gerry Adams as saying that the IRA would not hand over weapons before a political settlement. He also said in the Irish Times this week that:
"Even a symbolic gesture of decommissioning arms would symbolise an IRA surrender and is hardly a reasonable or justifiable demand by the British".
In heaven's name, what have the Government been talking to Sinn Fein about since 9th December last year? Did Gerry Adams tell President Clinton that the IRA would not lay down its arms until after a political settlement? And if he did not, what precisely does President Clinton believe that he did to advance the peace process by choosing to believe and to give freedom to raise funds to a man who would not know the truth if it hit him in the face? On second thoughts, he said one truth in yesterday's article to the Irish Times. He said that Sinn Fein cannot deliver an IRA surrender.
Why, therefore, are we wasting time talking to Sinn Fein if it cannot deliver. Why, incidentally, do we allow the word "decommissioning" to be used about the surrender of illegal arms? Its use makes it easy for the IRA and its supporters to create a false parallel by demanding decommissioning from the British Army; in other words, withdrawal from a part of the United Kingdom. There is no parallel between the legitimate Armed Forces and the illegal arsenal of the IRA, just as there is no parallel between Private Clegg doing his military duty and the IRA killing for choice.
I recognise the fact that negotiations cannot be successfully conducted in public and that the Government cannot be expected to show their hand. However, I believe that it is high time that we had a debate in this House on an issue of such paramount national importance as Northern Ireland and its future before Gerry Adams' description of it as a six-counties statelet under colonial rule becomes accepted terminology in the White House and elsewhere.
So far, Sinn Fein and the IRA have outmanoeuvred us over and over again in securing international support and in edging their way into the political process without making one single concession. They have not even given to the grieving families the details of where those they have murdered lie buried. And now they are on the offensive again, blaming us for the stalling of the peace process. Already an Irish Times leader is speaking of,
"worrying rumours that elements of the provisional IRA in South Armagh and in Fermanagh, South Tyrone, have begun to grow restless at a perceived lack of progress".
Next there will be an incident which Sinn Fein, totally divorced as it claims to be from the IRA, will greet with pained regret and attribute to the intransigence of the British.
1962
Moreover, Sinn Fein continues to persuade the world that it is the only authentic voice of all the nationalists in the North when it is not. I doubt whether any of those Catholics would wish to see a united Ireland run by Sinn Fein and the IRA.
I may be thought to have painted too black a picture. I do not wish not to recognise the courage and good will which the Government have shown and their patience and wisdom in being seen to consider and entertain all points of view and reject none. That has been noted in America, at least outside Tony Lake's office, where the Oklahoma bomb has made people think rather differently about men who make their point with bombs.
But there comes a time when justice must also he done to the legitimate wish of the whole population of Northern Ireland to see a permanent end to violence so that a political solution can be found. The condition that the Government have made is not a whim but a reasonable condition. That is why we must continue to insist that the IRA gives up its semtex. Meanwhile, we must maintain the proper safeguards afforded by the measure before us tonight. We have a right and a duty to protect the peace.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, in 1966, when I was first elected as Member of Parliament for West Belfast, Northern Ireland saw its first sectarian murder. It was carried out by a loyalist paramilitary organisation, the UVF. A young barman, Peter Ward, was shot and killed.
During the 30 years which have elapsed since then, Northern Ireland has seen more than 3,500 terrible murders. I urge the noble Baroness in any discussions that the Government may have with Loyalist paramilitaries or IRA paramilitaries not to forget the deep feelings of hurt which still exist in Northern Ireland among the relatives of those people who were most foully murdered. I am in touch with many of those people. Indeed, some of my closest friends were murdered. The relatives find it most distressing—I know that I do—to see people who served a sentence in prison as convicted murderers now in their pinstripe suits walking up to the Northern Ireland Office and shaking hands with British Government Ministers. Many people in Northern Ireland resent bitterly the place which is now being given to the loyalist paramilitaries and the Sinn Fein IRA paramilitaries.
They have claimed the credit for bringing about the peace and ceasefire in Northern Ireland. They are not entitled to it. The people who are really entitled to the credit for showing great resolution and courage are the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland. If anybody is to win a Nobel peace prize, it should be awarded to the population of Northern Ireland and not to any single individual, because it was those people who suffered so greatly.
Since I arrived in this House, this is the first time that there has been peace in Northern Ireland. I certainly reinforce what has been said by the noble Baroness in relation to the security forces. The police, the army and other members of the security forces are entitled to a great deal of credit for the present circumstances. It was

1963
because of their actions and the support which they received from the overwhelming majority of the population in Northern Ireland that the paramilitaries eventually decided that for however long they wished to carry on their campaign and however many more murders they committed, they were never going to win. That was an extremely telling factor in the paramilitary organisations calling a ceasefire.
Although there has been peace to a certain extent—policemen and members of the security forces have not been murdered—there is still no great peace in Northern Ireland. Guns have not been fired but 131 very brutal, vicious beatings have been carried out by both sets of paramilitaries. The victims of those brutal attacks do not see any peace in Northern Ireland.
When I was a young boy, I remember going to Russia on a convoy and we were issued with balaclavas. It was the first time that I saw a balaclava. We wore them to protect us against the weather on those convoys. Little did I know that I would live to see the day when a balaclava would mean something entirely different; that it would be worn by murderers, both loyalists and the IRA, to hide their faces from justice. The same may be said of baseball bats. As a country, Northern Ireland is not well-known for playing baseball and I do not know from where the people obtain the bats. But again, I never thought that I would see a baseball hat being used as a weapon of war. That is a weapon which is used now to intimidate anyone who does not agree with the loyalist or republican paramilitaries.
In any discussions that the Government have with the paramilitaries, I urge them to insist that the beatings must stop. There can be no peace or involvement with the paramilitaries while they are still supporting such activities in Northern Ireland.
I was extremely concerned to see the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic trying to establish a link between the Private Clegg case and that of the paramilitaries. There is absolutely no link. I do not defend Private Clegg here. He has received massive support, particularly from British Army personnel. But it may well be that they are not aware fully of all the circumstances which existed on that night when that young girl was killed.
It was not an entirely innocent operation carried out by the paratroopers that night. That car was driving away when the shots were fired. When the paratroopers realised that they had made a mistake and that they should not have shot at the car because it was driving away from the scene, one of the soldiers laid down and his comrade broke his leg so that he would be able to say that the car sped past him and they thought that it contained terrorists. Therefore, that was a deliberate cover-up of an incident which should never have taken place. The Clegg case should he treated on its own merits. In reading all the newspapers which have been demanding Private Clegg's release, the British public should be made aware of the circumstances in which that murder was carried out and in which that young girl was killed. They should he made aware of the feelings of distress which exist among her parents, relatives and the people of Northern Ireland. However, any attempt to
1964
bring about a link between that case and the loyalist and republican paramilitaries who are now demanding release should be resisted bitterly by this Government.
There have been reports in the Irish newspapers of terrorists in prison who wish to be released in conjunction with moves that are taken on the Clegg case. One of the IRA prisoners is a Brendan McFarlane, who blew up the Bayardo bar in the Shankill Road some years ago. Three women shoppers passed by the pub when it was blown up and he used a machine gun on them and killed them. Five people were killed in that incident. The IRA wants to link that case with that of Private Clegg. There is absolutely no comparison.
Another prisoner, Doherty, is also supposed to have a link with the Private Clegg case in seeking remission. He killed Captain Herbert Westmacott and when the army surrounded him after he had killed Captain Westmacott, the very, very brave IRA soldier demanded that a Catholic priest should come to get him out of his difficulty, and the priest was sent for. There is nothing very soldierly or courageous about that.
Another loyalist prisoner is seeking release in the same connection. He brutally and foully murdered a number of people purely and simply because they were Catholics. Those people should not be linked in any way with the Private Clegg case. I urge the Government to resist any attempts to do so. Moreover, it should be noted that if a policeman or a Garda is killed in the Republic and is sentenced to imprisonment, the killer is not given any remission. He stays there and is not released on humanitarian or compassionate grounds.
Therefore, I suggest to the Government that, in any dealings that they have with the republican or loyalist paramilitaries, in particular the IRA, they should demand something from them before they make any further concessions. They should he demanding the return of the bodies of the people whom the IRA have murdered over a period of years. Their relatives have been seeking desperately to find out where the bodies may be so that they can begin the grieving process.
After all, if the IRA or loyalist paramilitaries are asking for a transfer or release of prisoners on humanitarian or compassionate grounds, what could be more humanitarian or compassionate than the return of the bodies of those people who were murdered so foully by those paramilitary organisations? That is one point on which I feel extremely strongly and I urge the Government not to make any further concessions to paramilitary organisations until they see the return of those bodies and the paramilitary punishments stopped.
The second thing that I should like to bring about has been referred to already by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke. I know that it is not a matter strictly for the Minister but it is in relation to the Chinook widows, as they have become known. Thirty nine members of the security forces, who laboured all their professional lives to bring about peace in Northern Ireland, were killed in that terrible accident in the Mull of Kintyre. They had devoted their whole life to trying to stop the activities of murderers' organisations in Northern Ireland. They lost their lives. Many of them left wives and young children. Some weeks ago there was a leaked report from somewhere—and I know not where—that the

1965
Ministry of Defence had decided to limit the amount of compensation which would be paid to them. In accordance with a provision in the Warsaw Convention, the ministry had decided that it was a civilian rather than a military plane. Where did that come from? That caused great disquiet among everyone in Northern Ireland that the ministry would be so vindictive as to attempt to limit the amount of compensation. Today we are informed by way of a parliamentary Written Answer—and that is not the best way to give information—that there may be a change in the situation.
I talked to one of those young widows, who has three young children. She asked, "Gerry, do you think it is fair that, while my husband was a chief inspector and earned £30,000 a year, the only compensation that I can get is three years of his salary?". If that is the attitude of the Government, it would be a total and absolute disgrace that would never be accepted by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. I only hope that the reply in today's Written Answer is indicative of the fact that the Government will be far more generous in treating the dependants of those people who spent all their professional lives trying to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
In that respect, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland recently made a speech in which he said that, since the cease-fire had come about—which was brought about in no small way by the activities of those who lost their lives—the Government were saving £1 million a month. I believe that the Government should be prepared to be very generous to the widows and orphans of those men who lost their lives in such tragic circumstances.
At present, we have an atmosphere of peace in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I was there last week and I was delighted to experience it. I hope that it will continue. In fact, it has enabled a book to be written entitled Peace in Ireland. It has been written by David Bleakley, who was a former Northern Ireland MP and served with me in Stormont. He has analysed the reasons why there is a cease-fire and why peace will be an ongoing process. I urge my noble friends in this House to read that book. It is written by a man who lived in Northern Ireland, who understands the politics of the Province and understands the feelings of both communities. I was absolutely delighted when I saw the book for the first time at last to realise just how close we are to maintaining peace in Northern Ireland.
I should like to repeat the three points that I made this evening. First, a very generous attitude should be shown by the Government towards the widows and orphans of the Chinook helicopter disaster; and, secondly, no linkage whatever should be made between the Clegg case and the release of paramilitaries. Thirdly, the Government should insist, before any concession whatever is made to loyalist paramilitaries or republican paramilitaries, that the punishment beatings should be stopped, and that those responsible must identify the places where the bodies of murder victims lie and ensure that the bodies can be returned to their relatives.
8.4 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I support the Minister in her introduction of the measure. The noble Baroness made a very lucid speech that included many points with which I entirely agree. However, I should first like to make two points. I want to see a lasting and enduring peace in Northern Ireland, and I condemn all terrorists no matter what ideology they pretend to be serving.
The situation is now greatly improved. But, as previous speakers said, there is still terrorist activity and those concerned are getting money from robbery, from intimidation and from drug trafficking. In another place the Secretary of State said that from 31st August to the end of May there were 131 horrific so-called "punishment" attacks. I believe it is time that people realised that we are not dealing with a few idealistic people; we are dealing with a determined Mafia which is prepared to go to any lengths.
The threat to civil liberties does not come from the measure we are considering; it comes from terrorism itself, the structure and organisation of which appears still to be largely intact. I am glad to see the continuation of the Diplock courts which, as noble Lords know, are courts where a judge sits alone without a jury in certain criminal cases. I believe that that is important, not merely to ensure that justice is done but also because it would be most unfair to jurors at the present time to he brought in to try cases of that nature. I have in mind ordinary men and women, members of the public, who are selected at random and asked to perform a public duty. To expose them to intimidation and threats would be most unjust.
I support what has been said tonight about the accident at the Mull of Kintyre. I do not know the exact position. However, I have read the leaks and I simply hope they are not true. I say that because I do not believe that this House would wish to see the relatives of such men who were performing a valuable service shoddily treated. When one looks at the damages that some receive for defamation and then at what might well be offered to the widows and children of those men, it seems pretty unbalanced.
There has also been an agitation led by Mr. Gerry Adams to release those who are euphemistically termed "politically motivated prisoners"; in other words, men who have committed crimes of the foulest kind and have been rightly sent to prison. All this is at a time when the IRA and other such organisations are still retaining arms. The idea of letting out men who previously used arms and who might well return to use them again when they become available is an affront to common sense. We have already made too many concessions of that type. It is time that it stopped. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, made a very valid point when he said that we must remember the relatives of those who have been murdered and what their feelings would be if those murderers were let out on to the streets.
I do not believe that it would be any service to the community if we were to remove such measures of protection. Indeed, we would not be performing our duty to the people of Northern Ireland if we did so. Let us remember that most of the measures will not be used if

1967
they are not needed. They are only there in case they are needed and because they can be brought into operation swiftly. As I said, I support the Minister in her task of putting the measure through the House.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly make a statement about the very good speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, and the excellent steps taken by the Government to continue with the prevention of terrorism Act. I do not believe that there should be any time limit at all on it. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, said "one year". I do not believe that it is in the favour of the whole of the British Isles to have any time limit.
It should be remembered that we all appreciate how many people have died in Northern Ireland. We have not heard a single mention of how many people died here; how many people were blown up outside Knightsbridge barracks. It is essential for all of us to understand that here in England, we have had people from Northern Ireland coming to the mainland and blowing the blazes out of us. I would say to the Conservative Party, "Remember Brighton". We must not have any limit on this measure. We understand that Mr. Adams is in Northern Ireland and also in the United States regularly. Let the United States understand, by the terrible thing that happened in Oklahoma, that it is not fair on any nation that the IRA or any form of terrorism is given any leeway. A penny from the United States seeped into this country in one way or another brings in arms. We must continue with this Prevention of Terrorism Act.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, this debate has inevitably aroused extremely strong emotions. We have heard some eloquent and moving speeches tonight. I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction of the order. All those of us who work with her know what a consistently constructive role she plays in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
We have heard much about the need to be careful and to be cautious. As will become apparent, I share those views but I think it is probably right from these Benches to be clear about one thing. Anyone who cares, as I certainly do, about fundamental freedoms and basic human rights, or even anyone who places himself or herself in the long and honourable tradition of British civil liberty, will find many of the measures in the EPA intrinsically objectionable.
We are all much indebted to Mr. Rowe for his report. He himself states that the EPA cuts down some civil rights which the ordinary law provides. Such provisions as searches of people's homes, searches in the street, the absence of trial by jury, and other emergency provisions can only be justified, as the title of the Act itself suggests, by an emergency; otherwise they cannot be justified. Therefore the test is whether they are now necessary to protect the safety and the liberty of the citizens of Northern Ireland against an armed terrorist minority who threaten their safety and deny their liberty. That is not an easy question to answer definitively in the new situation.
1968
On the one hand, as many noble Lords have said, there is a blessed ceasefire which begins to look increasingly permanent and there is some political progress, albeit horribly slow and grudging. On the other hand there has yet to be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said, either a symbolic or a substantial surrender of arms of any sort by the former terrorists. There is a continuing and nauseating series of so-called punishment beatings, to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in his habitually eloquent remarks, referred. There have been 131 since the ceasefire; 69 of them republican and 62 loyalist.
On the positive side again, military activity to assist the RUC is now running at only 25 per cent. of its pre-ceasefire levels. On 12th June the Government were able to announce that the first border checkpoint was demolished. Yet again, as other noble Lords have said, on the negative side of the equation there is still—some would argue there is even more—extortion, racketeering and criminality to raise money. Therefore, there is a difficult balance to strike and I have a great deal of sympathy with government Ministers who have to make these decisions. My own judgment is that the situation is still extremely fragile and dangerous and will remain so. However, day-by-day, I do not believe we are any longer looking at a full-blown emergency. We should ask ourselves this question. Faced with the situation today as if it had just come about rather than being the product of 25 bloody years, would we really he introducing today such draconian legislation? The answer is. "Probably not". On the other hand, we do not start with a clean sheet. We have to start, as so often in life, from where we are.
In the circumstances we on these Benches will support the Government tonight for two reasons. First, we believe that change should run just behind the security situation rather than running well ahead of it. Secondly, we think that these powers should he reviewed independently, comprehensively and objectively rather than being suddenly removed by this House or by Parliament in a political spasm which would neither be prudent nor give the right signals. On the question of the right signals I would say to the noble Baroness that we believe it would be the greatest possible folly to allow any of these powers to become bargaining counters in a so-called negotiation with Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness, or for that matter with the former loyalist paramilitaries. They are either objectively needed or they are not. We would much rather see a comprehensive and independent review ending in a substantial reduction of special powers in the new situation and perhaps consolidation with a much reduced Prevention of Terrorism Act than any piecemeal series of ad hoc bargains. The noble Lord who spoke before me referred to the question of timing, as did the noble Lord. Lord Cooke. I say that the review should start sooner, say on the anniversary of the ceasefire, in time to influence the 1996 legislation. I hope that when the noble Baroness responds she can give us some idea of timing and of whether we have to wait until 1996 for the start of a review.
I wish to raise one or two specific points about the order. I welcome the fact that, as Mr. Rowe recommended, and as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, before him recommended—as the noble Baroness will know, I have consistently pressed for this in the House—

1969
we are now going to have taping of terrorist suspect interviews. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can tell me whether the term "electronic recording" includes video as well as audio. Why cannot this start right away rather than when the current Act is replaced?
I move on to the question of internment. I am slightly confused here because Mr. Rowe, in his previous report, called for an entirely new EPA which would combine the current EPA and the PTA without powers for internment whereas in his latest report—the one we have before us now—he is calling for the Act to be renewed as it stands (as we know) but for internment powers to remain lapsed. I would say from these Benches that we believe that internment powers in Northern Ireland are, and have been proved to he, counter-productive and that they should not remain on the statute book.
There is the question of the so-called Diplock courts, to which several noble Lords have referred. I am quite clear that the time has not yet come for the trial of scheduled offences by jury. However, there continues to be considerable public disquiet in Northern Ireland about Diplock courts as they are currently constituted. We on these Benches have consistently called for three judges to sit, not one. I believe that there are now compelling reasons why that system should be introduced. Mr. Rowe, in his report, argues that a move to a three-judge Diplock court would result in three times the number of interjections, and that consequently with the weight of business the courts could not cope. But, of course, since the ceasefire, the weight of business has fallen considerably. There are now 130 scheduled cases awaiting trial whereas there were 382 in September 1994. I myself believe that interjections in cases of such considerable gravity arc not necessarily a bad thing; after all, that is what judges are for. However, I wonder whether the Attorney-General might not decide, perhaps with the onus on him to explain, which cases need Diplock trials rather than those which do not.
Turning to the question of terrorist funding, I believe this to be an exceptionally serious issue. I wonder whether the Government will consider the consolidation of all legislation dealing with terrorist funding. As the noble Baroness will know, since August 1994 nearly £1.5 million has been stolen during armed robberies on behalf of proscribed organisations and there have been vicious attacks, to which noble Lords have referred, directly related to loyalist and republican racketeering activities. Therefore, when Parts I, II and III of the emergency provisions are no longer needed there is likely still to he, sadly, large-scale financial crime in Northern Ireland. We must have adequate legal measures to combat that. While Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 go some way towards strengthening anti-racketeering powers, we believe that current legislation needs to be consolidated.
I move on to the question of custody time limits, which I have raised previously in this House and with the noble Baroness. Mr. Rowe suggested in his February report that if a time limit were to he introduced from the time of remand to committal it should be reduced from 38 weeks to 10 weeks, in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. With the time spent in custody on remand decreasing now
1970
that there is a lighter burden of cases in Northern Ireland, would it not now be practical to have normal custody time limits? As a matter of information, the number of suspects being questioned about offences connected with terrorism has reduced by two-thirds since the ceasefire.
I turn now to the question of remission. The question of prisoners is one of the most sensitive of all. I should he very surprised if it is not more important for the former terrorists to deliver results in terms of prisoners—their core constituency—than in any other respect. I do not believe that there can be any question of a general amnesty, for the reasons of hurt which several noble Lords have described. However, that should not stop us bringing the treatment of prisoners in Northern Ireland more into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I warmly welcome the extension of compassionate leave by the Secretary of State, which is apparently contemplated as the first of a number of measures to deal with prisoners in Northern Ireland.
Would it be possible to address the question of a pre-release programme? Currently prisoners get pre-release parole in the last year of their sentence. Could that be extended to allow prisoners to be eligible in the last 18 or 24 months of their sentences? The current Christmas and summer release schemes which allow prisoners home for fixed periods could be extended. I believe that that is an area in which the Government could show humanity without in any way condoning the actions of people who are in gaol for horrendous offences.
Finally, like other noble Lords I should like to mention the role of the RUC. The RUC is responding to the ceasefire in a most impressive way. It is worth noting that the percentage of Catholics now applying for jobs in the RUC has risen from 12.2 per cent. to 21.5 per cent. That is a notable step forward in commanding the support of the whole community for the RUC and making it what the IRA does not want it to be, the police force of the whole community. The RUC is having to respond to major changes in its role and deployment, which is difficult for any organisation, in a most constructive way. It is rising well to the challenge. It is appropriate, and I wish to join with other noble Lords, to express appreciation of what the RUC has achieved.
It is Parliament's duty to assist a very difficult, step-by-step return to a decent civil society in Northern Ireland. That is certainly something that the long-suffering people in Northern Ireland deserve. It will require both imagination and prudence. I hope that the Government continue to exhibit both.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. She knows that. I believe that I reflect a generally held view that we would all welcome tonight a definitive, generous answer to the question of the Chinook compensation. It is grossly unfair and unsatisfactory that the dependants and grieving relatives should be left in limbo.
There is other business to follow this debate and others wish to speak in that business.

1971
A long time ago, in 1992, the Secretary of State made his notable Coleraine speech:
"In the event of a genuine and established cessation of violence … the emergency legislation would have served its purpose. Normality could return".
The philosophy behind that speech must be that the present provisions are a distortion of legal and political activity. They distort political life. They can be justified only on the basis of proved and demonstrated state necessity. The real question is whether that proved necessity still remains in that form.
In his report, to which I pay tribute, Mr. Rowe indicated that any new EPA should not contain the power of internment. Is that the Government's view? Sir Louis Blom-Cooper has further recommended the electronic recording of interviews with suspects under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Mr. Rowe agrees. Is that to be put in hand?
Will the review, which is so urgently needed, be fully comprehensive? I urge the Government to take at least three steps in that regard: first—and I respectfully concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Cooke of Islandreagh, said—to announce that the review is to commence in the immediate future, as there is no time to be lost and no useful purpose to be served in putting it off; secondly, to entrust that inquiry or review to a senior judge, not a senior lawyer; and, thirdly, to consider carefully whether the assistance of at least one assessor with intimate knowledge of Northern Ireland should be obtained so that that assessor could sit with the judge to assist in the work of sifting evidence and coming to a conclusion.
There has been a significant but not complete fall in terrorist violence. There are serious questions as to whether the full continuation of this legislation is causing serious wounds to political and judicial life. There is no sensible reason for believing that the Diplock courts could he done away with overnight. I have spoken to no one who has any knowledge or sensible regard for the administration of law who believes that. But doing away with Diplock courts must he the terminus of our endeavours.
Bearing in mind the general good will and the support that we have given to the Government on the general conduct of business in Northern Ireland, we should avoid the tendency to put off the general review of the PTA and EPA. We would end up yet again with legislation which was not properly considered and, more to the point, not justified or necessary.
I mean no disrespect to the importance of this occasion, but we have discussed these matters in similar circumstances on many previous occasions. The rule should be that no infringement of a citizen's liberties, no impeachment of anyone's civil rights should be tolerated by this House without clear, demonstrable reasons for retaining all the sections or re-enacting them in due time.
I believe that there is general agreement that the review needs to start immediately. It does no service to the people of Northern Ireland to put it off until 1996.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we have had a most valuable debate this evening. As a Minister for
1972
Northern Ireland, perhaps I may say that in this House we compensate for our limited numbers by the quality of the contributions made by each and every noble Lord on this issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I am conscious of the business which follows, hut I also recognise that this is a crucial issue for Northern Ireland.
I shall seek to address many of the points raised. I shall read carefully the Official Report. If I have missed any points, I shall write to your Lordships.
Many major issues were raised. I thank noble Lords for recognising that the decision that we have taken is not one that any of us welcomes having to take, but is a necessary decision. Perhaps I may assure the noble Lord, Lord Cooke, that we are not in the business of making concessions. We are reacting to a new climate. We are reacting to a change which those of us who live in Northern Ireland can so easily experience now. I was delighted to hear that that was what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, found on a recent visit. However, no action that has been taken is irreversible. Decisions have been taken from the point of view of security, not on political grounds.
Noble Lords have great concern about the timing of the review. It is important. It must be independent. The nature of its constitution—obviously the views expressed tonight will be taken into account—is an important issue. If your Lordships wish to add to those views, we shall he happy to hear them.
However, if we were to start now the process would involve "if" and "as" and "when". It is important in considering the value of the review that we should he in a more stable situation. The moment the time is considered right, decisions on the review can he taken.
That applies to many of the points raised tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Cooke, recognised the privilege of my job in Northern Ireland. Jobs arc the best cement for peace. We continue to use every effort we can to cement that peace.
I can well understand the frustrations expressed by my noble friend Lady Park. Perhaps I may assure her and noble Lords on the other side of the House that we do not accept punishment beatings. We and the police work tirelessly to try to bring those to an end. They must come to an end. I find it terrible that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, can actually quote a league table of beatings. It is totally unacceptable.
Whatever my noble friend's frustration, arguments with words are infinitely better than killings. We have constantly to be aware of that. I understand her frustration when our European money is being used to support an office for Sinn Fein in Brussels. My own personal frustration is that, as Sinn Fein travels the world fund-raising, I wish that it would seek to persuade its "friends" to look at inward investment in Northern Ireland. If Sinn Fein could attract people to invest and create employment in Northern Ireland, we should see some evidence of value; there is no such evidence at present. However, we were grateful to President Clinton for his insistence at the Washington Conference that decommissioning is important.
I am sure that my colleagues will he equally pleased to hear of the recognition of the work being done by the RUC. Continuing peace will require the police service to

1973
adapt to new circumstances. The chief constable, the police authority and the Government welcome the opportunity that that will provide, and the way in which there is already response from the RUC. The noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, rightly draws attention to the importance of the fact that more Catholics are applying to join the force. We need to make progress.
I say this categorically to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, on the issue of Private Clegg. That matter will be treated independently according to the requirement of the law. There can be no question of the outcome being bartered, balanced against or whatever. Everyone in Northern Ireland is subject to rule of law. There are no exceptions. Nor can exceptions be made in any circumstances. I hope that that will reassure the noble Lord.
Perhaps I may take up another point which many noble Lords raised: the reflection of the enormous concern in the Province for the position of the widows of those people so tragically killed in the Chinook disaster. I am sure that I express the view of every single person in this House in sympathising very greatly with those incredibly brave women and their families. I had the privilege to attend the memorial service. I have rarely seen such courage and strength as was displayed on that occasion.
I am delighted to say that the story which caused so much concern is, like so many leaks, half a story. The legal advice to government was that the Government's liability in respect of passengers is limited by the Carriage by Air Act Order 1967. I can assure your Lordships that the Government's view is that the limits set out in the order are too low. Therefore MoD will consider compensation claims in excess of the Act's provision. Therefore the story was not as presented.
Perhaps I may also point out that the Prime Minster has pledged to take a personal interest in the Chinook widows' compensation claim and has said that he will set out in writing the thinking behind any compensation made to the widows of those who died in the helicopter crash. I hope and believe that that should totally reassure your Lordships on that issue.
My noble friend and others questioned the negotiation on decommissioning of arms. We are pressing to achieve three aims: a willingness in principle to disarm progressively; a common practical understanding of the modalities—that is to say, what decommissioning would actually entail; and, in order to test the practical arrangements and to demonstrate good faith, the actual decommissioning of some arms as a tangible confidence-building measure and to signal the start of a process. That is essential, it is important, and there can be no going back from it.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, so accurately, that the peace belongs to the people. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, joined with him in pointing out how deep is the pain of so many people in Northern Ireland. There can he no hurrying of the time that it will take for those wounds to heal and for forgiveness to enter into thoughts. It is not for us to try to speed that up; it is for individuals. But perhaps I may agree with the view expressed tonight that the return of the bodies in situations where families are not aware of the resting place of their loved ones would help greatly in the process.
1974
I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, too, that the savings made—I may question the figure he quoted—are being used in Northern Ireland. I am pleased that some of that fund is being used to build a community work programme for the long-term unemployed. That is a commitment that we have made.
The Government are delighted that this House recognises the risk that would probably extend to juries in the current climate. We would not wish that risk to continue. I stress that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland, only criminals.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for pointing out that the pain is not limited to Northern Ireland: many in the United Kingdom have suffered just as grievously. That should not be forgotten and their contribution and that of their families towards showing that violence is no answer to any question is evidence of how far we have gone. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Holme, that innocent people have human rights too. When we consider the situation, the protection of the innocent is not always taken into account.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, if the noble Baroness cares to study the early part of my remarks, she will find that I made that very point.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I apologise if I missed it. The point is important and I am delighted to know that the noble Lord said that. It is important that we consider the needs of the majority in Northern Ireland and that the powers should exist but only be used in an emergency. There is every evidence that that has happened. We would not expect to bargain in any situation, we would look to react to the facts and the climate. We would not wish to act in a piecemeal fashion on any issues and I believe that that is the answer to the questions raised by the noble Lord about needs in specific areas.
I shall look more closely at the issues raised and will write in detail if there is a need. I believe that we should consider the whole issue, examine the future for Northern Ireland and then bring forward the opportunities. The issue of electronic recording still has to he examined, but it requires legal action and then legislation. There is a timetable for it, which is why it is not easily possible now.
I have concentrated tonight on explaining why we consider the Act still to be necessary and outlining our future intentions. As noble Lords have confirmed tonight, there is still a strong latent threat from terrorism and while that remains we shall retain the appropriate powers to deal with it. As has been the case over the years, those powers will continue to he exercised with sensitivity and with due regard to all the safeguards which are so necessary in a democratic society. We keep under consideration the possibility of suspending them and, at the appropriate time, there will he a wide ranging and totally independent review of the need for the Act and for the Prevention of Terrorism Act which is, of course, the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
I hope that tonight has made it clear that our response to the cease-fires has not been in any way grudging or tardy. We have made many welcome and some quite

1975
major adjustments to our security profile. We all hope that continuing action in the area to the benefit of the normal way of life for the people of Northern Ireland is possible. But for the time being the emergency provisions Act must remain in existence as an insurance against the resumption of violence and as a deterrent against those who are still involved in paramilitary activity. We owe the people of Northern Ireland no less. I commend the order to the House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may trespass on the time of the House for a second. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, there are widows waiting in darkened houses wanting to know their position. Will he be able to telephone them tonight to say that they will be compensated on the full basis of civil liability?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as the noble Lord understands and as I hope I made clear, the story which distressed not only the widows but every person in Northern Ireland, that there would be a limit of £100,000 on their compensation, is not true. The issue of compensation is a matter now between the MoD and the widows and their representatives. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, can give comfort to the widows tonight. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Disability Discrimination Bill
8.45 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 12.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 9, line 11, leave out ("(subject to any regulations)").
The noble Lord said: I wish to move Amendment No. 60 and in doing so to speak to Amendment No. 68. Their purpose is to simplify and clarify the wording of parts of Clause 12.
Amendment No. 60 removes from Clause 12(3)—the list of examples of services covered by Part III—the words "subject to any regulations". The provision is superfluous and might be read as creating a power to make regulations affecting the examples. The Government have no intention of making such regulations and the amendment clears up any potential for confusion.
Amendment No. 68 seeks to make clear that there is a regulation-making power in subsection (5) which can be used to narrow the exemptions for education, transport vehicles and, should further exceptions prove necessary, other services. The amendments improve the wording of the Bill and I trust that the Committee will support them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 62:
Page 9, line 25, at end insert:
("() legal services, including the services of any court or tribunal and of agencies of the criminal justice system").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment concerns legal services. I am in difficulty because the Committee will understand that there are major debates to come and we shall be sitting here until two o'clock. I therefore feel that we should not move some of the less important amendments so as to discuss the bigger ones more thoroughly.
[Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 63 had been withdrawn front the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 63A to 64A not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 9, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert:
("() For the purposes of this Part, references to a service provider who discriminates against a disabled person shall include references to a service provider 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;

(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 Baroness said: I should like to explore this amendment even at this late hour because it raises an issue on the first section of the Bill. It concerns perceived effects. In the Bill the Government have such a tough definition of disability in terms of substantial adverse long-term effects that many people will experience discrimination because of their partial disability or because of a perception of disability but they will not be protected in the field of goods and services.
We argue that if a person had a major disability—for example, an impairment which had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out daily activities—and because of it he would experience discrimination, he would be protected under the law. However, if a person had a minor disability which did not substantially affect his daily activity but the employer falsely believed it would, that person could experience discrimination and would not be protected under the Bill. Worst of all, if a person had no such disability but had a reputation for it—for example, a mental health problem or a perception about HIV—and experienced discrimination, that person would have no protection under the law. I suggest that if there is one thing worse than being discriminated against because a person has a severe disability, it is to be discriminated against when a person is thought to have a severe disability but does not.
In Committee on Tuesday we discussed this problem largely in relationship to employment. Many Members of the Committee on all sides of this Chamber recognised that there was a problem, even if the amendment perhaps did not appropriately or entirely respond to it. The Minister argued on the one hand then that employers were entitled to exercise judgment or discretion. On the other, he argued that he could not in any case enter into the field of perception. That was his argument for asking the Committee not to take the amendment further.
We did not accept then that the Minister's response was valid in the field of employment. We shall return to it. We believe that it is even less valid in relation to the provision of goods and services. In employment, at least the situation is competitive. A judgment has to be made as to which one out of four or 40 people may get a job. We recognise that an issue of judgment and discretion is more likely to come into play. However, with goods and services the question of competition seldom arises. People do not have to choose one person over another and exercise judgment which makes it difficult to challenge perception. Goods and services are for general consumption. We are talking about access to public buildings, accommodation, employment agencies, places of recreation and the like.
There can surely be no justification for discriminating on grounds that judgment be exercised in this field. Whether someone has a substantial impairment, a minor impairment, or merely a false reputation for having an impairment, in none of those cases should discrimination be experienced in the field of goods and services. For those reasons, I beg to move this amendment.
Lord Addington: I support this amendment for the many reasons that the noble Baroness stated. If you are providing a service and you fail to serve a customer, you deny that person something absolutely. As the noble Baroness said, there is no chance of being able to come back on this matter on grounds of competence. It is usually a snap decision. Examples are: providing a hotel room, serving somebody from behind a shop counter or something of that type. If a person is denied, he or she has no recompense and their life can be destroyed.
If we put the provisions of this amendment, or something very like it, on the face of the Bill, it would stop people being able to discriminate against a person carrying out the most mundane parts of their life. We are not talking of a job, where there is a structure that can be returned to. It is almost inconceivable to take legal action against everybody who refuses to serve you in a shop. If your local shop refuses to serve you and you take legal action against it, first, the shop may not be there at the end of it and certainly you may have to walk further to get your groceries. This is the type of nasty, petty discrimination that we are dealing with here. I certainly hope that the Government will be able to respond favourably to this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not intend to repeat at length the remarks made that I made on Tuesday when the noble Baroness sought to extend the coverage of the whole Bill to people who are only perceived to have a disability. Noble Lords will remember that I pointed out that the Government are determined to keep the definition of disability as close as possible to the commonsense view of what constitutes a disabled person. It would be extremely difficult to establish legally what was in the mind of the service provider who is accused of having "perceived" a disability. Any such change would confuse an already complex definition and leave it totally unclear as to who is and who is not covered by the Bill.
1978
As I mentioned on a number of occasions on Tuesday, this is not a general anti-discrimination Bill. In my view, these arguments are every bit as valid for service providers in Part III as they are for employers in Part II. I do not accept the argument that suggests that it is more important to consider what a service provider thinks on the grounds that, unlike an employer, he is unlikely to have details of his customer's impairment, or lack of one. In my view, the fact that he will nearly always he acting on first impressions makes it more important, not less, that we have a commonly understood definition. The absence of material evidence about a person's impairment, or lack of one, would leave service providers more vulnerable to spurious actions brought by people who claimed to have been perceived as disabled. In any case, the very fact that a service provider will usually be acting on the evidence of his eyes will mean that people who have a minor impairment but who are not disabled for the purposes of this Bill, and of course people who have no disability at all, are generally unlikely to be treated any differently than any other member of the public.
Finally, the noble Baroness's amendment would seek to remove the subsection that confirms that the provision in Clause 28 which enables people to bring actions where they have been victimised applies to able-bodied people and disabled people alike. The prohibition of victimisation against those who have, for example, given evidence in court in support of a disabled person who had previously been discriminated against is an important element in the Bill and corresponds to a similar provision in race and sex legislation. In fact one could argue that the provision is all the more necessary in disability discrimination legislation because the victims will often be among the most vulnerable in society.
I do not suppose that I have surprised the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness by indicating that they have failed to convince me on this issue, just as they failed to convince me on the related issue of employment. I hope, having explained the position and in particular pointed out what I suspect is one of the unintended consequences of the amendment, that the noble Baroness with withdraw it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister will not be surprised that again I am disappointed. I thought that with goods and services we had moved into a different area from employment, one where judgment and choice in a competitive situation did not apply. I thought that the Minister would be more supportive of the amendment in this context.
The Minister said that this is not a general anti-discrimination Bill. I agree. But we arc trying to make it a general anti-discrimination Bill in the context of discrimination against those with a disability, whether the disability is substantial or moderate, or whether it is merely the perception of disability, in the field of goods and services. I am very unhappy with the Minister's response. I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee.
8.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 65) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 94; Not-Contents, 50.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Jay of Paddington, B.

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennet, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Attenborough, L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Longford, E.

Barnett, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Mayhew, L.

Chandos, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Craigavon, V.

Monkswell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

David, B.

Ogmore, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Parry, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Diamond, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Dubs, L.

Redesdale, L.

Eatwell, L.

Richard, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Russell, E.

Fitt, L.

Seear, B.

Foot, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Serota, B.

Geraint, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Stallard, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Stedman, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hamwee, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Haskel, L.

Tope, L.

Healey, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Whaddon, L.

Hollick, L.

White, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Hughes, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Denman, L.

Balfour, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Biddulph, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Downshire, M.

Blatch, B.

Ferrers, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gage, V.

Burnham, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Goschen, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Henley, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Howe, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Inglewood, L.

1980

Long, V. [Teller.]

Renwick, L.

Lucas, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Lyell, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Seccombe, B.

McConnell, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Swinfen, L.

Torrington, V.

Marlesford, L.

Trumpington, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ullswater, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Wakeham, L.

Renton, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.5 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 9, line 29, leave out ("Subject to any provision to the contrary made by regulations") and insert ("Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth)Baroness Darcy (de Knayth) moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 10, leave out lines 5 and 6.
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 70, 90, 91 and 92. Amendment No. 150 does not need much speaking to.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 is to bring further and higher education into the Bill. Without these amendments it would be quite legal to discriminate unreasonably on grounds of disability in the field of education, unlike employment and other services.
I should like to say at once that this is a probing amendment to promote discussion and consider why we believe that it is necessary, what is "reasonable" in the field of education and how we could contain costs. That is why I was initially reluctant to group these amendments with the government amendments. However, I agreed, and I shall keep my remarks separate. I hope that they do not seem too muddled or too lengthy.
Skill, whose 21st birthday occurs this year, had the opportunity to look back and see what progress had been made over those years. It believes that there has been huge progress and that colleges and universities should not feel too concerned about bringing further and higher education into the Bill. Skill has had letters from further education colleges wanting further education to be included in the Bill. There are many good institutions of further and higher education which make overall long-term strategic plans and meanwhile respond to the needs of individual students. But some other institutions are less good. The government amendments are welcome and go a good deal of the way to cover strategic planning. Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 are needed to help individual students who encounter problems before and after entering college.
The Minister may feel that I am applying a belt to his braces, or vice versa, but that is not so. These amendments are trying to prevent the seams splitting, the buttons

1981
falling off and holes developing in the pockets. We need both amendments. I can give the Committee examples of the problems that occur for students in higher education and the reasons why I feel the amendments are necessary.
In further education students are still turned away unnecessarily from local colleges because of their disability. Sometimes the colleges are unwilling to make small changes to buildings and there are examples of students not receiving the support when they enter that they were originally promised. In relation to higher education, one medical school has a policy not to admit dyslexic students. One applicant who did not disclose her dyslexia on admission was accepted but was refused modifications to her exams. Those are the sorts of modification that would have been allowed on any other course in the institution. Is the medical school acting unreasonably in those cases? Its blanket policy of discrimination is unreasonable. There are effective and successful dyslexic doctors—that may explain their writing—but that is not the point. The individual student is also experiencing unreasonable discrimination in that she will not be able to prove her worth if she is not given the wherewithal to complete her exam.
Many problems are to do with exam time, the difficulty in papers being produced in large print or on coloured backgrounds for people with dyslexia, and separate rooms and an extra invigilator not being made available. If one is given extra time to do an exam, it is disrupting if everyone else leaves half an hour before the end. After five minutes of disruption it is often difficult for the student to settle down again.
Everyone is worried about costs. But we must remember that it is only unreasonable discrimination that will be illegal. Only reasonable steps, for example, would be necessary on overall access and, similarly, it would only be reasonable responses to the specific student that were necessary. For example, if a college had just spent a lot of money on strategic accommodation, it may not be unreasonable to refuse entry to an individual student who had high cost requirements. On the other hand, it may be unreasonable to refuse a student who did not require much accommodation. "Reasonableness" must be to do with common sense.
I am cheered that the Minister is creating a new Part IIIA, called "Education". It gives us the opportunity to draw up a new definition of "reasonableness" applicable to that part of the Bill and regulations, which could include a scale of additional costs. For example, one may not be required to spend more than a certain amount per student and on not more than a certain number of students per school year. That is something which should be discussed; it may vary with the size of the college, the access and so forth.
I turn to the Government's amendments. I welcome the new Part IIIA. To begin with, I welcome the heading because it brings education into the Bill. It is a little move towards what we wanted. Have the Government had any further thoughts on including a more positive, though perhaps still declaratory, statement in the Bill in relation to education? Amendment No. 90 on schools is extremely welcome. It will mainly help people without statements but perhaps we can take this opportunity to do something
1982
for those pupils with statements as well. That is perhaps a conversation for another day before the next stage. I welcome also the amendment in relation to the teacher training agency. That is something we were trying to introduce during the Education Act 1994—I see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, is nodding in agreement.
Amendments Nos. 91 and 92, covering further and higher education, will make strategic changes, as I said. They will not provide direct protection for individual students and that is why I feel our amendments are necessary. The amendment requiring the FEFCs to make annual reports is welcome if it means that positive attention is paid to students who have previously been overlooked or seen as unimportant. The amendment requiring colleges to make clear statements about the facilities they offer is welcome because it means that students will be clear about what is on offer. However, it will not prevent colleges from saying that they do not intend to do very much. I would welcome the Minister's assurance that that is not the case.
The amendment requiring higher education funding councils to have regard to the needs of disabled students is welcome. It will mean that they have a duty that parallels that of the further education funding councils. Those duties have been seen as important influences by students and teachers since they were introduced. The amendment will also require universities to declare what they will offer disabled students. This amendment, like the equivalent for further education, is welcome, but again it will not guarantee that universities will necessarily improve opportunities. I should like an assurance about that from the Minister as well.
I have said quite enough. The amendments are very welcome in as far as they go but they do not go quite as far as I should like. I look forward to a full discussion about how we really could contain the cost. People are worried that it will escalate. I very much hope that we can continue the discussion, perhaps outside the Chamber. If the Minister would indicate at the end of the debate whether he is willing to do that, I should be very grateful. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness David: The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has given such a full description of what the amendments aim to do and such a very good critique of the Government's amendments that I think it would be redundant for me to go on at this stage before we have heard the Minister's response. All I want to say at this moment is that I very much support her amendments. We are grateful that the Government have produced their amendments and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Before my noble friend replies, I wish to ask for clarification about government Amendments 90, 91 and 92. Amendment No. 92 applies to higher education in Scotland. Amendment No. 90 refers to the Education Act 1993, but I am not sure whether that covers Scotland for the purposes of that amendment.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I only wish to say in a very brief intervention that I very much welcome what the Government have done in going so far to try to meet the concerns that we all have. I also very much support what the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), has said. We need both her amendments and the Government's central proposal. I hope it will be agreed that if there is a very big difference between giving people encouragement to do something and requiring them to do something that will make a big difference to what happens to students. From what I have heard it seems that the cost would not be unreasonable. I hope that that is true. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Lord Rix: We have moved a long way in a short time in that we can now be debating discrimination within further education against students with a severe learning disability. It therefore seems not unreasonable that, having got this far, we should want to go further.
The remit given to the further education funding council under the 1992 Act is to fund what I might call basic courses where such courses are specifically designed to lead on to further things. That causes difficulties in the case of someone with severe learning disabilities whose current need is to build on the incomplete basic education provided by school and who may or may not be able to move on to other things as other students are. A great deal of energy and imagination has been invested in designing basic courses which come within the terms of Schedule 2. The energy can be much better invested in concentrating on the needs of the students and the ability of the teaching staff to deliver what the students need. The unfair discrimination lies in putting in hurdles under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which impede students with severe learning disabilities and do not impede students without severe learning disabilities. The Government's amendments do not resolve this problem because they do not override a barrier which is written in statute.
Earl Russell: I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), on the way she has moved the amendment. The cases she has recited cause concern inside universities as well as outside. Something must be done to make sure that we do not get too many of these cases turning up in future.
In anything involving higher education I must declare an interest. I am concerned here particularly with government Amendment No. 91 and particularly with subsection (6) of that amendment. We are offered these amendments on the understanding that they are two competing amendments. It really rather seems to put me in the position of Paris; but I may say that in that contest the Minister is at a disadvantage for whatever his many and great virtues he is undoubtedly not a goddess.
There is something of a history which I am afraid that I shall have to tell the Committee in some of its detail. There is as much concern in the universities as anywhere else to try to do things to help people with disabilities. We are quite used to the idea that academic freedom is subject to the law of the land. It has been that way in cases of racial discrimination and of sexual discrimination. I have never heard any academic voice argue that it should not be so. I hope that that point is
1984
clear. However, what tends to cause us concern is any intervention by outside authority in matters of specific curriculum and academic content. I am not talking only of the Government. There are many things in matters relating to the curriculum that I would not alter on the demand of my own college principal unless he happened to be in my subject, and on at least one occasion I have had to tell him so and he has accepted it.
Universities rely heavily on Section 68(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, which was carried in the Lobbies on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It lays down that terms and conditions imposed by the Secretary of State:
"may not be framed by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed) or to the criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff and for the admission of students".
I hope that your Lordships understand why that is crucial. We were extremely grateful to hear it reaffirmed in pretty well the same words by Mr. Boswell speaking in another place on the 7th of this month. It therefore caused us some concern that initially the wording of the government amendment involved an amendment to Section 68(3). That has disappeared and we are extremely grateful for that, but because we do not understand, and have never understood, why it was there in the first place, we inevitably look the amendment slightly more carefully in the mouth than we would do otherwise. I think that that is understood and accepted.
I am extremely grateful to both Ministers, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and through them to their officials, for a great deal of consultation over the past week which has produced a great deal of improvement. If the final stage of that consultation—or what I hope is the final stage—is taking place on the Floor of that Chamber, I am afraid that that is because we started a little late. On 4th April we gave a warning to Mr. Boswell that there was a problem, and serious consultation began on 5th June, after which we had three different forms of amendment within four days. No wonder we have not quite kept up with each other, although I know that we have all tried extremely hard, for which I am grateful.
I want to ask, with the case of Pepper v. Hart in mind, a few detailed questions about the meaning of the disability statements. First, what is meant in new subsection (4B) by,
"information of a specified description"?
What is meant by "the provision of facilities"? There are two ways in which one could understand that. One could understand that it means information which is crucial to people with disabilities, such as that relating to ramps, lifts, induction loops for the deaf and the provision of braille facilities. All of those things cause no problems. If policy statements on those are wanted, that is entirely agreeable and entirely right and proper. What would concern us more would be if policy statements asked how far each individual course was suitable for disabled students because, of course, we all understand that there is no such thing as a course which is suitable for disabled students, fullstop. It depends on the nature of the course and the nature of the disability—
Lord Addington: And the student.
Earl Russell: Yes, as my noble friend Lord Addington reminds me, no doubt on the nature of the student too. But that I think is beside the purposes of the Bill.
For example, one might be entirely happy about a deaf student working with sulphuric acid. One might not be quite so happy about a blind student doing the same. So, if what is being asked for is a list of which courses are suitable for disabled students, the vice-chancellor will have to list 100 courses, cross-referenced to 100 disabilities, and he will forget at least 100 other disabilities. Because we all know every time we go through a list of briefs on disability in every one we pick up several disabilities which we had never previously imagined; we had never heard of them. So that by itself would be a considerable body of work.
But when we get into the curriculum and specific courses, especially specific courses, there is a rather bigger problem. We of course understand, and we accept, the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, writing to me on 8th June:
"It is not the intention that the higher education amendments will have the effect of compelling institutions to make changes. Institutions will continue to decide themselves what provision they wish and are able to offer".
I thank him for those words. We understand them. We accept them.
But of course there is inevitably a pressure. What concerns me is the possibility that the pressure which does, and ought to, exist to make courses more accessible to students with specific disabilities when we can do so might blend with the pressure which is there all the time to reduce costs. For example, if one discusses field trips for geologists, it might be argued, very much in the way medieval history suffers in the politically correct climate of California, that these things should be cut out because they are not quite suited to the people to whom they are to be offered.
If we get into that sort of territory, that will cause inside the universities considerable anxiety. If we do not get into the territory of exhaustive paperwork or the territory of pressure on curriculum content, then, if there is any curriculum element in these disability statements, I should like to know what it is for because I do not see it.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness raise different sorts of questions. If I may—I have given her notice of this—I should like to ask her a few questions about what is the effect of the amendments. If she cannot answer them instantly, if she says to me, like a Minister, that she will write to the noble Earl, that will be entirely acceptable to me.
First, there is no problem about our being subject in universities to the law of the land. When I wrote a book on academic freedom I put in a whole section arguing that that was the case. One of the reviewers asked whether I really needed to say it. It seemed that I did. Also, there is no problem about being subject to the courts, because the courts do not have an education policy. So that much is all right. But the question of costs, the noble Baroness herself said, is crucial. It is right that universities should be under pressure to spend money—we are under pressure internally whatever happens externally—on better facilities for the disabled.
1986
When we talk about access, we hope that we mean access in the physical sense rather than in the wider intellectual sense. The problem is one of priorities. If I could say what I think in equity ought to be the case, I would be glad to know whether it is the effect of the Bill that it will become the case. Let us take together four possible causes for spending money. First, there is asbestos in the roof; secondly, financial hardship: one has £2,000 and one might save four students from being unable to do their degree work properly. Thirdly, there is the library: 30 per cent. of students unable to complete essays because they cannot get the books; and, fourthly, a need for access by ramps to the main lecture theatre.
What I believe should in equity be the case is that the asbestos should come first on grounds of medical necessity and that the other three factors should count equally. Would it be the effect of coming within the Bill that those three factors would count equally and that they would have to work on the system of Buggins' turn or, by force of law, would one necessarily come above the others? If it is the first, that seems to me to be entirely reasonable and acceptable. If it is the second, that might be a little more worrying and would raise the question of who decides what is reasonable. Two of those three factors are in areas where the Department for Education tends to see no evil. So the question of who judges what is reasonable might be crucial.
Finally—and I am sorry to have taken so much of the Committee's time—I must ask the noble Baroness the same questions that I have asked the Government. Can she give an undertaking that coming within the Bill would not create any pressure to change the content of courses? There will be places where the content of courses may and should be changed in order to make the courses more accessible to disabled students. But that is a decision that must be taken by people qualified in the subject. It cannot be taken by anyone else either inside or outside the university.
If the noble Baroness can assure me that coming within the Bill would not threaten that principle, that would weigh very materially with me and I should feel happy with it.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: The Committee will be interested to hear the Government's response to the seminar. We look forward to hearing the Minister's views. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) on the splendid way in which she introduced the amendments. I was convinced by them and I am certain that the Minister too will be convinced. He was listening to her so carefully.
I wish to focus on Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, which bring education into the scope of the Bill. The importance of the amendments relates to and reflects the importance of further and higher education. It is all too easy to overlook that. Of course, education is crucial because it enables people to develop their capabilities and to obtain jobs. That is important for the person and for the economy. However, we cannot afford to waste the talents of disabled people. The theme of all the political parties is

1987
training and it is especially important that disabled people, because of their physical limitations, train their minds.
Information technology is most significant for the future. There is little that disabled people cannot do in the field of information technology. We now have computers which can literally be controlled with the blinking of an eye. We see disabled people doing that; that is, winking at computers and having them open doors, operate typewriters and so forth. All that is incredible and it represents the kind of world into which we are moving.
But disabled people will require training if they are to take advantage of the great opportunities. They need specialist training in the same way as everyone else. However, despite those facts, education is omitted from the Bill. We know that discrimination is widespread in both further and higher education.
A few universities such as Staffordshire, in which I have declared an interest, have sparkling voluntary initiatives. Other universities such as Durham, Bristol and the Open University have special arrangements such as access schemes for deaf people. But that is patchwork provision throughout the country. Perhaps I may give one example. Deaf students are very under-represented in British universities; there are only 300 deaf students in higher education. Now that figure speaks volumes about the amount of unwitting or deliberate discrimination in British universities, because no one can convince me—and I hope that the Minister cannot be convinced—that all the other deaf people do not have the capacity for higher learning and are not good enough to go to university. Because of discrimination, there are only 300 deaf students in our universities. I hope that the Minister will address his mind to that.
The government amendments tabled by the Minister are merely inching forward at the speed of snails and are totally inadequate. We really need robust and radical change. That is not spelt out yet by the Government. We need to provide disabled people and disabled students especially with the protection of the law.
The universities which are concerned and considerate need appropriate funding. I know from my discussions with various officials of universities that currently they are so badly squeezed that making provision for disabled students is very difficult. No one suggests that there should be a massive investment programme overnight, and I am sure that the Minister is glad to hear that, but we are hoping for massive investment in due course and the sooner the Government can begin, the better. There is no difficulty about over-burdening the universities—I am sure that someone will raise that point—because colleges and universities are well protected by the "reasonable" clauses of the Bill.
I conclude by saying that, unless we include education in this Bill, gifted disabled students will suffer discrimination on the same monumental scale that they have been suffering for past decades. They will be denied the opportunities to which they have as much right as any other people.
Lord Addington: Most of the problems which disabled students face relate to actually getting to a university. Higher education establishments and
1988
universities are able to offer flexibility to disabled students because those establishments have academic freedom. Many higher education establishments have proved to be extremely flexible because they have that ability. When establishments grant their own degrees they can make their own rules and, therefore, disabled students can be accommodated. The higher education sector has certainly shown a great deal of goodwill in that regard—and certainly for many dyslexics. Indeed, that flexibility was shown to me. We should bear that in mind when considering these amendments.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: From these Benches, we too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) on her presentation of the amendments and the way in which she has probed the Government on their intentions in this area.
Many of the points which need to be made have been made already by previous speakers. In particular, I wish to support the points made by my noble friend Lord Ashley. It is extremely important to recognise that the first hurdle is by far the greatest hurdle for students with disabilities.
All human beings tend to under-achieve their maximum potential. But the ability of those with severe disabilities, many of whom have been denied access to mainstream education, to achieve degree-level status in the courses which they follow once they reach university has been proven time and time again.
In speaking to these amendments, in particular I should like to endorse the reference made by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) to non-statemented special needs. That is a category of special needs which has often been overlooked and which is unprotected by the statementing procedure. Among that group of potential students there are many who are falling far short of the opportunity to achieve their full potential.
From these Benches, we welcome the new Part IIIA, which puts education on the face of the Bill. But we still have a deep anxiety that the fundamental civil rights of those seeking the right not to be discriminated against in the provision of education are not being addressed by the Government. It would be churlish not to recognise that the Government have moved their position. However, we shall read extremely carefully the Minister's justification for not including education in full as a service.
I have heard the Minister speak on several occasions about the difficulties and the costs. I can do little more than echo the words used in a previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He said that the whole content of the Bill deals with and stresses the fact that the justification is that reasonable action is taken and that reasonable decisions are made. The principle of the Bill, based as it is upon that concept of what is reasonable, surely cannot be denied in relation to such an important route to full participation in life as the access to education.
As I said, we believe that the Government have moved. We hope that they will move further. We look forward to hearing and reading in detail the Minister's response. But we may perhaps return to the matter on Report.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may take a few seconds of the time of the Committee to respond a little further to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of

1989
Stoke. Like the noble Lord, I was distressed by his figures regarding the number of deaf students in universities. But, of course, universities can only admit those who actually apply. In disability, as in race, one always has to ask whether the winnowing process may be going on lower down. The only quantitative measure of discrimination is to take the percentage of applicants and the percentage admitted. With disability, both of those are identical within two decimal points, at 2.7 per cent. Therefore, there are many factors to blame. I do not think that it is lack of goodwill; at least, I hope that it is not. If the noble Lord can show me any case where it is, I will be happy to take the matter further in any way that I can.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry that the audience appears to have vanished from the Chamber. Indeed, I was rather looking forward to performing to a full Chamber for the next half hour or so. But, there we are, I shall have to make do with the season ticket holders, if I can so describe those Members of the Committee who are usually with me during the long hours on the Bill. I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has returned to the Chamber. I was somewhat worried because I was deprived of the chance of responding to him on his previous amendments. I thought that we had, perhaps, lost him overboard. However, I am delighted to see that the noble Lord is back in his place and pushing me as hard as he can.
Unfortunately for the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, my attention was drawn to an interview that he gave in the BBC's, "See, Hear" programme earlier this year, when he spoke to a Canadian MP, who I believe was deaf. I suspect that the noble Lord gave the game away on that occasion. However, the noble Lord allows me to look at and listen to his speeches and they give me a slight feeling that he is trying to push me further than he expects, or even wants, me to go. The noble Lord said:
"I believe in demanding everything and letting Ministers try to knock you down. Then you reach something satisfactory for the people concerned".
Therefore, in future, when the noble Lord tries to appeal to my conscience and I knock him down, I shall not feel as guilty, because I shall realise that that is not just what he expects but that he will probably think that the position we arrive at is a reasonable one.
I should say first of all that I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), for agreeing that her two amendments and mine should be in the same group. I think—especially given the hour—that that prevents our having two debates reasonably close together where we would have covered almost the same ground. I hope she will accept my thanks because if this had not happened I would then have had to make two long speeches. That is all right for me but the Committee might have found the sound of my voice a little wearing by the end of the evening.
We have considered carefully the arguments both in this Chamber and in another place, and indeed the discussions which have gone on outwith either Chamber, for including further and higher education within the scope of Part III of the Bill. I reassure the Committee that we place a high priority on widening access, but we must consider the practical effect of including further and
1990
higher education in the Bill. The inclusion would at a stroke undermine the strategic role that the councils play. Each institution would have to consider adaptations without any regard to provision elsewhere. That would inevitably lead to piecemeal arrangements and a dissipation of scarce resources. It is not a result which I believe the Committee would wish to see.
I recognise of course the appeal of an argument which cites the difficulties experienced by some individuals under the current arrangements and suggests that were further and higher education to be included within Part III of the Bill these might be overcome at a modest cost. First, while the cost of some alterations may be modest, in aggregate they will be significant and will consume resources which might be spent to even greater effect as part of a coherent programme. Certainly, it would be a delusion to believe that resources will be available to fund both approaches. And the view that such changes may be contained in regulations, perhaps under Clause 14(4) or 15(6), is mistaken. Those regulation-making powers refer to circumstances in which a provider of services is to be taken to be justified in treating a disabled person less favourably or to circumstances in which it is not reasonable for a provider of services to have to take steps. How is one to describe such circumstances, given the diversity of curricula and practices, the range of resources available to institutions, and the current state of adaptation of buildings? The regulation-making powers reflect, rightly, a different approach and are not intended to cover the situation where the funding councils play a strategic role.
I know there is an argument that the threat of court action will ensure that laggard institutions will become more responsive to the needs of disabled people. If the aim is to secure access, the existing complaints procedures in FE, strengthened by the government amendments, will give the further education funding councils the power to ensure that colleges make available adequate information and the provision set out in them. The councils' planning and reporting arrangements, also strengthened by the government amendments, provide a complementary security at national level.
In proposing her amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked for reassurance about the disability statements in FE. FE colleges and the councils already demonstrate the progressive improvement in facilities. I anticipate that statements on the part of the colleges will show further improvements. I wish to emphasise to the noble Baroness that FEFC annual reports are not just retrospective, they are also prospective; in other words, they look at the plans for the future. Before I leave the amendments I should say that some of the points the noble Lord, Lord Rix, made are perhaps more relevant to Amendment No. 149 which is not to be taken today and will be discussed on 27th June. However, I shall certainly bear in mind the points he made.
Against the background that I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, I wish to explain our proposals for addressing what we accept is a problem to which we should attempt to find a solution. Therefore, I should like to explain the thinking behind the government amendments and the way in which they build rationally upon existing provisions.

1991
The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 set out the framework for further education for students with learning difficulties and disabilities, which I am assured is referred to as SLDD. As I remember from my sojourn in it, the world of education is littered with acronyms. The Act requires the further education funding councils to act in a strategic manner to secure sufficient and adequate provision of further education, taking due account of the needs of the population in terms of location, equipment, aptitudes and abilities. They have particular responsibilities in respect of students with learning difficulties and disabilities.
The FEFCE has set in place three complementary mechanisms for discharging that comprehensive legislative duty. First, it requires colleges to submit strategic plans, including analyses of local needs. Secondly, the council's funding methodology has been designed to take into account the particular needs of students with disabilities. Thirdly, the FEFCE's inspectorate includes a specialist team with specific responsibilities for reporting on the quality of provision for disabled students in FE sector colleges and also that funded by the FEFCE in the independent sector.
Of course, we recognise that these mechanisms are still bedding in: but the FEFCE is not complacent. It has demonstrated its responsiveness by adjustments to the recurrent funding methodology for the next academic year so that colleges will be able to claim up to £8,800 per student (and more in some cases) to cover a wide range of additional costs arising from the education of students requiring extra support.
The council has conscientiously tried to plan for the longer term through its committee on learning difficulties and/or disabilities. That committee, chaired by Professor Tomlinson of Warwick University, has been assiduous in collecting evidence from all with an interest in education and disability issues, in seeking the views of disabled students and in trying to map the true extent of need.
The FEFCE's commitment to the needs of students with learning difficulties and disabilities is clear. It builds rationally on the legislation to secure the most effective use of resources which, as we all—or at least some of us—acknowledge, are finite. We all wish to see them used to secure real gains for students with disabilities.
I turn to Amendment No. 91. Subsections (1) to (3) would place a duty on the funding councils to require individual colleges to produce, as a condition of grant, information on their facilities for education for students with disabilities. We envisage further consultation with the councils prior to prescribing the frequency and content of the statements in regulations. Information is likely to include physical access, the provision of specialist equipment, facilities which may help students with particular disabilities, admission policies, counselling and welfare arrangements.
I envisage that that amendment will highlight the good practice already in existence in many colleges in the sector and encourage other institutions to emulate it. It will also help students with disabilities to make informed choices about further education. Moreover, not only will they know what they are entitled to expect, they will also be able to seek redress from the councils on the rare occasions when provision fails to meet expectations
1992
raised by the information. Where other measures fail, the councils will have the power to demand repayment of grant from colleges which fail to meet the new legislative requirements.
Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 91 builds upon the strategic role of the further education funding councils. This will place a duty on the councils to produce an annual report to the Secretary of State on the progress made during the year in the provision of further education for students with disabilities and the councils' plans for future provision. We envisage the FEFCE drawing on existing review and planning mechanisms as well as the new information generated by the first amendment and the work of the Tomlinson Committee.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked me about the position of Scotland. Indeed, he noted that the amendments apply only to England and Wales. As regards further education in Scotland, colleges are already required by statute to submit development plans which include information on the provision made for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. This information is used by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in preparing his annual report to Parliament. Ministers propose in future to make it a condition of grant-in-aid that information on such provisions for students on special programmes and students receiving extended learning support be included in the annual reports that colleges are required to produce.
Although no one asked me, I am sure that Members of the Committee will be interested in the structures and funding mechanisms for further education in Northern Ireland. It means that the changes proposed in England and Wales cannot be applied directly in Northern Ireland. Ministers will, however, consider the proposed further education amendments when detailed legislation is being prepared for the incorporation of further education colleges in Northern Ireland. The FE and HE charters for Northern Ireland, which will be published later this year, will contain a requirement for colleges to make available information on disabled access. Existing powers will permit the Secretary of State to attach conditions to the payment of grant, and it is his intention to do so. I hope that that answers my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
In the case of higher education, subsection (5) of Amendment No. 91—and its parallel in Amendment No. 92 in the case of Scotland—strengthens, by putting a duty on the funding councils, the present position which is that the Secretaries of State give guidance to the funding councils that they should have regard to the needs of disabled students. In responding to that guidance, the funding councils have undertaken various initiatives which have been welcomed by the sector. Subsection (6) of Amendment No. 91 ensures that disabled persons and the funding councils have access to information about what provision is available.
In respect of subsections (5) and (6) of Amendment No. 91, and the points made particularly at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Beloff, I can assure Members of the Committee that we have taken very seriously the commitment we gave to consult higher education representative bodies.

1993
Those bodies saw no difficulty with subsection (5). However, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained to us, both today and at Second Reading, the ideas underlying subsection (6) caused some difficulty. It was indicated in another place that it was originally intended to give the Secretary of State an unambiguous power to require the funding councils to require disability statements. That generated much discussion.
In order for the originally intended power to be unambiguous, we concluded then that it would be necessary to qualify Section 68(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act. That is because Ministers are barred by that section from framing terms and conditions of grant with reference to courses, staff and admissions, and it might be held that requiring information about provision for disabled persons would fall foul of that. However, the representative bodies, supported eloquently by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, argued strongly that Section 68(3) should remain untouched. I gather that some Members of Committee have a special affection for that section, as I suspect that my colleague at the time suffered the same fate at the Dispatch Box as I suffered a little while ago. I appreciate that noble Lords are sensitive about their victories over Government when there are suggestions that the Government might make changes in their previous victories. Therefore we sought an alternative route.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for expressing his thanks to my noble friend Lord Lucan.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Does the Minister agree that that is the problem with the missing votes tonight?
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, that is true, I must ask about the matter. It was my writing I misread—my misfortune.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for expressing his thanks to my noble friend Lord Lucas, and the officials at the department as well as my honourable friend Tim Boswell, the Minister responsible for higher education matters at the department. We sought an alternative route and considered an amendment to Section 65 to achieve an equivalent effect through the funding councils' own powers to impose conditions of grant. We consulted further about the drafting of an amendment to Section 65, and subsection (6) of the amendment now tabled takes into account further discussions with representative bodies, as the noble Earl recognised.
The representative bodies have also sought clarification of the intended scope of the information in the statements. The noble Earl asked me about that. The intention is that the statements would assist disabled students and funding councils generally in understanding the provision available for education and research in the particular institution. The drafting of the amendment is designed to secure that. The statements would thus go wider than simply including information about physical facilities. It will be a matter for the funding councils, in consultation, to determine how to specify the information needed in the statements to achieve that in a viable and
1994
cost-effective way. I should stress that the provision of information will not ipso facto require any changes in the nature of the facilities offered by the institution.
I hope that the Committee will support these higher education amendments and the associated amendment relating to the teachers' training agency. They offer an alternative, flexible and preferable approach to including further and higher education within the ambit of Part III of the Bill rather than the amendments put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth).
Perhaps I may turn to Amendment No. 90, which I also tabled. It amends the Education Act 1993. The Government seek to build substantially on a measure which has already been widely acclaimed—the requirement on all schools to make plain their policies towards pupils with special educational needs.
One of the major themes in the Education Act 1993 was that mainstream schools should play their full part in providing for pupils with special needs at every stage; and that a school's duties should be clarified through the code of practice for the identification and assessment of such children. That has been achieved and your Lordships have received and ratified that code. Local accountability is ensured through the requirement on schools to formulate and publish information about their policy for children with special needs, keeping parents and prospective parents informed. The publication of SEN policies will help to prevent the possibility that parents could feel inclined to send their child to a special school on the basis that they did not know enough about the SEN provision in local mainstream schools.
We now want to extend and strengthen that very successful initiative. In another place, the Government listened carefully to concern about the appeals arrangements for pupils with SEN. Some appeared to feel that although the 1993 Act provided a specific appeals structure for pupils with statements it did not provide a similar safety net for those pupils without statements. I should like to make it absolutely clear at this point that the 1993 Act contains significant measures for pupils without statements. Only about 2 per cent. of children require statements of special educational need, though about 20 per cent. of children have SEN at some time. The code of practice covers all pupils with SEN, not just those with statements.
However, we have looked closely at the appeals mechanism for pupils without statements and are satisfied that we can improve the situation for those pupils and their parents through the amendment. We aim to place a duty on the face of the Bill for governors to publish information about, first, the arrangements for the admission of disabled pupils; secondly, the steps taken to prevent disabled pupils from being treated less favourably than other pupils in the school; and, thirdly, the facilities provided by the school to assist access for disabled pupils.
While we stand firm in maintaining the exclusion of education and protecting the recent legislation, we recognise the strength of feeling displayed during debates which has called for an acknowledgment that unjustifiable discrimination cannot be condoned in schools. That is why we have taken the step of making this amendment in primary legislation.

1995
Schools which are inaccessible to disabled pupils will have to admit it. The need to do so will be a spur for them to consider how they might become accessible cost effectively. We have already advised them that they may be able to do that, perhaps through flexibility in their own budgets or, if they are grant-maintained schools, by direct application for capital grant to the funding authority. Now, of course, the new schools access initiative will be able to make improvements and assist the general accessibility of all schools. The Government published a consultation paper on the initiative on 29th March and propose to make £10 million available in 1996–97 to fund imaginative and cost-effective projects to increase both physical and curriculum access to mainstream schools. It will be invaluable in helping to consolidate our recent measures in special education, including the code of practice.
Amendment No. 90 will also provide practical strengthening of parents' rights. Once a school has specified under this formulation the arrangements it has in place to avoid discrimination against disabled pupils a dissatisfied parent could make the school's non-compliance with its stated policy a central issue under the existing appeals arrangements whose autonomy and independence is ensured by the recent codes of practice and the addition of a lay member.
Amendment No. 90 will also specifically require schools to set out their policies of non-discrimination against pupils with disabilities. Schools should not merely pay lip service to the integration of disabled pupils; rather they should do everything they can to achieve genuine and full integration. I am convinced that this measure will encourage such integration, underpinned by the statutory duty to integrate pupils within mainstream schools as far as is possible.
The Committee will, I am sure, see that these are very significant measures which, without creating large burdens on schools and authorities, will do a great deal to focus creative thinking in our schools, promote a better deal for many disabled children and accelerate further the trend to greater integration in mainstream schools.
The purpose of Amendment No. 150 is simply to make the entry for the repeals schedule which is needed as a result of Amendment No. 90.
I apologise for having spoken at some length but as these are important new clauses the Committee would rightly expect me to explain them in some detail. Also, of course, it will enable Members of the Committee to read in Hansard exactly what I said, thereby allaying, I hope, any fears. I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), will accept that while I am not going for what I described to her as the "belt and braces" solution—I am not sure whether mine is the belt or the braces—I very much hope that, whichever it is, the solution is sensible and realistic in all the circumstances. I hope that she will withdraw her amendment. If perchance—who knows?—it is put to the vote, I hope that my noble friends will support me against it and that subsequently they will support me when I put my amendments to the Committee. I am pretty certain, however, that my amendments will be widely and warmly welcomed by the Committee, and I commend them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I wish to press the Minister on one aspect of his comments on his Amendment No. 90. I seek an explanation, if not tonight then at some other time, as to why, unlike all other parts of capital funding of school building projects, it is proposed in the draft setting out for consultation the expenditure of £10 million capital grant for 1996–97 that matching funding should be sought from a non-statutory source. It strikes one as unfair that funding for building needs should be met only in those schools that are able to raise funds from voluntary contributions or voluntary organisations. That does not seem equitable.
On access and the whole issue of higher and further education, I ask the Minister to consider, within presumably the coherent programme the Government seek, as opposed to what the Minister described as the piecemeal approach—I understood, though perhaps I got it wrong, that he was talking about a coherent programme—perhaps developing different facilities at different universities to allow student choice. That is fine for students who are able to leave home and students who are of standard entry age. However, an increasing percentage of students are mature students or students who have physical problems which do not allow them to leave home. Therefore it is important that all higher education institutions are adapted as quickly as possible to take the widest range.
Also, our universities and colleges are an access point for many local employers. Again, it is critically important because employers will not send people to go on short training as readily as they will send them to the local facility.
Finally, perhaps I may ask the Government to consider the fact that, by treating this area of capital funding separately from credit approvals in the normal education budget allocations that are made at budget time, they are still ducking the issue of the local priority that is given to credit approval expenditure. Current government levels for education building spending only allow basic need in the overwhelming majority of cases, and basic need is the highest priority.
But surely the situation is that for each student or pupil who is denied access it is 100 per cent. denial of access for that individual. We are not dealing with a marginal effect. For those students and pupils, the resources ought to be as available as though there were no place available for them physically within the school, because literally that is the position. Therefore, the roof over their head must include the ramp to the door as being equal and not inferior in terms of government priorities when allocating funds for school building.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken and the care with which he has responded to a long series of points. I hope that I shall not be taken to be ungracious if I press him just a little further. There are questions to which I would very much like the answers but I have not yet heard them.
First, I should like to know what is meant by the word "facilities" referred to in Amendment No. 91 (new Section (6)). Could the Minister answer that with the case of Pepper v. Hart in mind? We have no argument about physical provisions for access. That has been clear

1997
throughout the debate. But the Minister said that the Government want further information beyond that. The heart of my concern throughout has been that I have wanted to know what further information the Government want beyond that point. That is the crucial question for determining whether this will involve any intrusion—or indeed serious intrusion—into areas of academic judgment.
I must confess that I simply did not understand what the Minister said on that point. He said that the Government wanted information on physical facilities and on provision for education and research for disabled people. I believe that those were his exact words. But I cannot work out what those words mean. In putting on a course, one does not provide facilities for disabled people "full stop". One may be able to provide facilities for one kind of disabled people in one course and for another kind of disabled people in another course. One needs to know the specific course and the specific disability. Is the Minister in fact asking us to match course to disability across the field of every single course taught in every university? If he is saying that, does he realise what a burden of work he is setting for us? If he is asking something else, I should like to know what and I should like to know why.
I should also like to know what the word "research" is doing in the amendment. In my subject, the university does not provide facilities for research. The facilities for research are the British Library, the Public Record Office and the County Record Office, all provided by other authorities. Therefore one cannot require universities to provide facilities for research, least of all before one knows what research is wanted. I do not understand what the word "research" is doing in the amendment. I am sure that the Minister could put my fears to rest very quickly if he could make clear what he wants. If he can do that, there will be a great effort on our part, if we can, to give him what he wants. But we need to know what it is first.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be helpful for me to respond to the two interventions asking about some of the detail on the points I made. I can begin with the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Being reminded by the noble Earl about the case of Pepper v. Hart, I shall be a little cautious. I shall certainly make sure that I read the exchange we have had. If there is anything I feel I can add, I shall write to him and I have no doubt that the noble Earl will approach me if he thinks there is anything, on reflection, that is not quite right.
I may be repeating myself, but it is the best I can do. The intention is that the statement would assist disabled students and funding councils generally to understand the provision available for education and research in a specific institution. I imagine—I will check that I am right about this—that if a student is looking for a Ph. D course or postgraduate degree, he will need to research where it is available. That is the research we are talking about. It relates to the availability of a course in a university to a disabled student.
1998
In relation to the statement, I was asked about my remark that it would go wider than simply including information in relation to physical facilities. I said very clearly that it would be a matter for funding councils in consultation with the universities to decide together what facilities they are referring to. It will not be up to the Government. We are asking the funding councils to do that and are not expecting to do it ourselves. I am advised that the education research I quoted—perhaps I was wrong in my definition of it—comes from the existing Act. I shall check on that and write to the noble Earl if he does not mind.
Turning to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, we want the £10 million to buy as much as possible. The schools access initiative proposes that schools should harness community involvement, in part through funding, but also through co-operation in partnership. However, the consultation paper makes clear that additional funding is not essential. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness.
I hope that we will have a coherent programme; that is the object of my amendment. While at some point in the future it may be possible to reach the position where every course is available in every institution of higher education, the reality is that it will take some time to reach that situation. While I appreciate that some students are a long way from any university, the increased number of universities throughout the country—thanks to the policies of this Government—means that there will be a number of universities within easy reach of the great majority of potential students. That does not mean all of them, but the chances are that, if they have to leave home to go to university, then they will have the full range of universities to look at to find the one that most suits them from the point of view of their disability, the courses provided, and so forth.
With the increasing number of universities we have around, I do not actually think that that will be a huge problem, although I appreciate that it could be a difficult problem in certain instances. But I think we have to, dare I say, walk before we can run. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was inviting me to contemplate that whatever is demanded will be paid for. The reality of government is that that commitment can never be given. I very much hope that the higher education council, the FEFC, the schools and the £10 million will be able to progress this matter—we all want to see it progressed—as quickly as they possibly can, using the resources, which are always tight, in the most efficient manner.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I must press the Minister slightly further on this. If the Government's assumption is that this category of need is different in kind from others so that this one ought to attract community involvement, it really is unjustifiable and actually makes the case for this being a right that is included among the services rather than tacked on to the end. I was certainly not suggesting that the Government should meet all need in all ways. But it is the case that the Government accept that there is a statutory requirement to provide a roof over every child's head in order that they can have education. It must be the case, therefore, that if education were included as of right to

1999
be free from discrimination on grounds of disability the Government would have to accept that a large start could be made for little in excess of £10 million. Surely that is not too much to ask for a basic civil right for people with disabilities.
Earl Russell: I must confess to being extremely disappointed by the Minister's answer on the word "facilities". I entirely take his point that what information is asked for will be decided by the funding council. But he is here conferring vires on the funding council. He is giving it power to do something. When one creates a power one must understand what the scope of that power is so that one can say what is within it and what is beyond it. If the Minister is really telling me that he is creating vires without understanding their meaning, when we meet again on Monday I shall be questioning the vires he creates in that Bill with a great deal more care than I intended to do yesterday.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall try again. The word "facilities" was prefaced by the word "physical". Perhaps I missed out the word "physical" in my second attempt to help the noble Earl but in my first attempt to help him I hope I said "physical facilities". On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I am not entirely sure where she is coming to me from. If we are talking about the £10 million, perhaps I may say to her that I shall reflect on what she said and bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues at the Department for Education and ask them to write to her. It would be foolish if we made any suggestion to the outside world that somehow we can have unlimited resources. I am afraid we cannot. If the noble Baroness talks to her honourable friend Gordon Brown he will tell her that that is now the name of the new Labour Party.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I must come back on one point. If it is reasonable to provide a legal requirement on employers in the private sector, it might possibly be a case of what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—for the Government to accept their own liability when it comes to the provision of resources for education.
Earl Russell: I trust that I shall not be misunderstood if I thank the Minister warmly for getting "physical".
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I thank all noble Lords for contributing to this useful debate and for having given such serious consideration to my amendments. I am grateful for the strong support that I have received from all sides of the House. Although that support was particularly strong from some sides, I shall not single out any particular noble Lord.
However, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave me a priority shopping list, perhaps I may briefly answer a few of his points. He gave the examples of asbestos, financial hardship, the library and ramps. I agree absolutely that asbestos would probably be the most important. The noble Earl said that he would be happy if the other three were regarded as equal. I might be a little harder and say that the library might be more important. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is disapproving because of the answer that I gave the other
2000
day about reasonable accommodation in the Chamber. If a library was in jeopardy, I would deal with that before turning to ramps. We must remember that disabled students are students and need to read, to eat, and to have lodgings.
Who decides what is "reasonable"? We shall have to work out the answer to that. The noble Earl asked for an undertaking that nothing in the Bill would pressurise a university to change the content of a course. I should think that such a decision would be entirely for the university. However, it might be legitimate to ask a university to ask itself whether there was another way of arriving at the same course with the same content and of the same standard. We could ask universities to think about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, for whose support I am extremely grateful, said that what I was asking for did not seem too expensive. She hoped that it would not be too expensive. There are about 50,000 disabled students in higher education at the moment, with about 100,000 in further education. Those figures are guesses which may be on the high side, but we have made great progress and much has been done. We cannot predict demand, but my point is that we can contain the cost. We must do that.
The Minister will not be at all surprised that I found his reply disappointing, although I am grateful for the time that he spent on it. He said that, at a stroke, the amendments would undermine the strategic role. That is not the case. The Minister said that he was not sure whether he had applied the belt, the braces or both. I ask him to look to his buttons, seams and pockets.
The Minister was rather disparaging when I said that we could do this by regulations and by a definition of "reasonableness". He wondered whether that could be done in Clauses 13 and 14 in relation to goods and services. My point is that the Minister has created Part IIIA (on education), which gives us a whole new set of regulations and definitions. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that there has never been any trouble with the Sex Discrimination Act or the Race Relations Act in that regard. That is true. Both the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality say that the educational provisions are much more tightly drawn than others and that there has not been any trouble. I suggest that the fact that the Minister has created provisions on education now presents us with an opportunity.
The Minister has not given me anything like an open door, but I ask him whether he will not open the door a chink. I know that I said that this was a probing amendment, but perhaps it could be regarded as a prodding or a nudging amendment. Can we have a little open chink of door so that we can continue this discussion seriously outwith the Committee?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness that, whatever I say, I think that we shall have discussions outwith the Committee, so I shall give in gracefully on that. Of course, we can continue to talk and I shall continue to talk to my right honourable and honourable friends who are more

2001
involved than myself in some of these matters at departmental level. The noble Baroness may not thank me for that—
Baroness Darcy (De Knayth): I do thank the Minister for that, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell Lord Monkswell moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:
("Access to polling station
.—(1) In exercise of his functions under paragraph 25 of Schedule I to the principal Act, the returning officer shall have particular regard to the accessibility of polling stations to disabled persons.
(2) The returning officer shall carry out an annual accessibility audit of each polling station, and shall consult thereon such organisations as appear to him to be representative of disabled persons in his area.
(3) Following the audit pursuant to subsection (2) above, the returning officer shall designate such polling stations as appear to him suitable for use by disabled persons and shall publish, in at least two newspapers circulating widely in the constituency, a local radio station and otherwise as he considers fit, a list of his designations.
(4) A polling station shall not be so designated unless the returning officer intends to provide at least one wheelchair-accessible polling booth, with a ballot box being placed at a height that a person in a wheelchair can reach unaided; and it shall be the duty of the returning officer to make such provision at each designated polling station.
(5) The returning officer shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that—

(a) at least half of the polling stations for which he is responsible shall be so designated within two years of the passing of this Act; and

(b) all polling stations shall be so designated within five years of the passing of this Act.

(6) Details of the designated status (or otherwise) of a polling station shall be provided by the returning officer on all official poll cards.
(7) The Secretary of State shall by regulations require each returning officer annually to report to him the results of the review of polling districts and the suitability of access for disabled persons to polling stations made pursuant to subsection (2) above, and shall lay before Parliament a summary report of all such reviews.
(8) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for returning officers to provide equipment to facilitate access by disabled persons to designated polling stations, but no equipment shall be provided under this subsection which requires any permanent modification to the structure or fittings of the polling station without the consent of the owner or any lessee of the building.
(9) Any costs incurred under subsection (1) above shall constitute expenses incurred by a returning officer for the purposes of section 29 of the principal Act.
(10) A registered disabled person may apply to the returning officer to vote at a designated polling station not less than one week before the election and, on receipt of such an application, the returning officer shall allot that person to the nearest designated polling station in that constituency to the address at which that person is registered.
(11) In this section—
"registration officer" and "returning officer" have the same meanings as in the principal Act;
2002
"accessibility audit" means an assessment of the practicability and convenience of access and use, with particular emphasis on access and use by those who have physical or mental disabilities;
"the principal Act" means the Representation of the People Act 1983.").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee and to the Minister for not being in my place when Amendment No. 63A was scheduled to take place. One of the glories of the Chamber is that we cannot predetermine the time when matters come up. That inevitably leads to some minor disasters on all sides.
This is very much a probing amendment to try to ascertain the Government's views on the subject. The amendment would ensure that polling stations were made accessible to disabled people. It would require access audits to be carried out and the designation of those polling stations which are fully accessible, and to publicise the fact. It would also ensure that a phase-in for full accessibility was planned: half to be accessible within two years and all to be accessible within five years.
The right to vote is a fundamental expression of citizenship within a democracy. The act of voting is among the most potent expressions of the right to self-determination and freedom to choose that an individual has. However, in a country that prides itself on its democratic system, many disabled people are excluded from the democratic process, primarily because of the inaccessibility of polling stations.
Physical and other access problems are widespread. That has been highlighted by the findings of Polls Apart, which was a survey of access to polling stations conducted during the 1992 general election by the Spastics Society. The Spastics Society is now called Scope. Most polling stations are situated in public buildings such as schools, community centres and public halls. Yet the overwhelming majority proved to be inaccessible to people with mobility difficulties.
Disabled people have the right to vote, but the Bill does not help to make that right a practical reality. Polling stations are supposed to be sited, where practicable, in accessible venues; yet only 12 per cent. of polling stations were fully accessible at the last general election. Furthermore, the provisions in Part III to ensure access would not necessarily apply, because Clause 15(2) provides that adjustments have to be made or service providers can:
"provide a reasonable alternative method of making the service in question available to disabled persons".
The Government will argue that there is an alternative to voting in person which overcomes the problems of lack of access, and that is the postal or proxy vote. However, disabled people do not view postal or proxy votes as a reasonable alternative. Disabled people feel that it is important to vote in person, and that elections are an opportunity to participate in an important public activity. They want to cast their votes at the polling station and experience the excitement and sense of commitment that that involves.
Disabled people do not like the impersonal aspect of postal or proxy votes and, most important, believe that it represents yet another way in which disabled people are excluded from the mainstream of political life.
The Government provide grants towards the cost of temporary ramps to be used at parliamentary and European parliamentary elections, but not local elections. Grants are not available towards the cost of permanent ramps. It seems shortsighted to encourage the provision of temporary ramps when permanent ramps work out cheaper in the long run. There would, for example, be no storage problems between elections, and it would further our goal of providing an environment which is accessible to disabled people.
In the White Paper the Government stressed that the elimination of discrimination against disabled people cannot be realised overnight. Disabled people recognise that they must move forward with a realistic timetable and practical measures to tackle discrimination. The amendment accepts that approach. I recognise that not all polling stations can be made accessible overnight, and for that reason there is a phase-in of designated polling stations. That should be viewed as a temporary measure. The aim is to ensure full accessibility where disabled people can vote at the local polling station alongside everyone else.
The first step is to establish the number of polling stations which are accessible. That audit should be done in conjunction with disability organisations, which will be able to give practical advice about the problems which disabled people face. On the basis of that audit, the returning officer will be better placed to remedy the access problems.
Disabled access to polling stations would also prevent discrimination against disabled candidates for election. Having been a candidate, as have a number of Members of the Committee, I know that it is important to be able to go into the polling station, talk to the polling clerks, find out whether they have any problems and try to ensure that they are solved. It also reassures one's supporters that the election is being conducted fairly and everything is open and above board. Both disabled candidates and disabled electors would be helped by the measure.
Perhaps I may give an example of how the physical situation of the polling station can have a significant effect. I was a candidate in a local council ward in Manchester. After my election I noticed that at one of the polling stations the turnout was significantly less than expected. Although the polling station was situated in the middle of the area, it was on the fringe of the residential area. On the other side of that area was a Tesco's superstore and no one was living there. For some people living on the estate, voting entailed a significant walk down a difficult, dark track. Obviously that put people off going to the polling station to vote.
Following my intervention at the town hall, a polling station was sited in the middle of the estate rather than on the edge. The result was that in the subsequent election the turnout increased dramatically. I am not sure what effect that had on the result but I know that it enabled more people to contribute and be part of the electoral process. We should welcome the idea that more people can take part in the process and, on that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I understand that this is a probing amendment and that its purpose and results would be helpful on the days of parliamentary and local elections, which occur about once every two years. But I must say at the outset that I disagree with the noble Lord.
As a disabled person who was a Member of Parliament, I consider that postal voting is the answer for disabled people. My experience is that it has been extremely satisfactory. It also caters—I hope that there is not going to be laughter about a very serious subject.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. The joke, or the line, which immediately crossed our minds was the way in which the votes had been cast for the noble Lord and the governments who have followed. It was in no sense a reflection on the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I do not follow what the noble Baroness says, but I shall expand on the matter. Of course, it was more than 21 years ago that I was in the other place but my experience goes back 50 years. I was just saying that postal voting caters for the very severely disabled—those who cannot even use wheelchairs or be carried into a polling station. I am particularly concerned about those who are paralysed or completely incapacitated.
Postal voting brings the polling booth into your home. You really cannot do better than that. I can speak from personal experience because, as I said, I have been disabled for the past 50 years. That has been to different degrees. For the early part I was in a wheelchair; later, I graduated to crutches and then sticks. I had to go back to a wheelchair at times. Therefore, I have experienced the different forms of locomotion. I have always used postal voting.
I am glad to say that during the four years when I was Secretary of State for Scotland I was encouraging all the disabled people north of the Border to use postal voting as their way of voting in elections. Certainly, my constituents were glad of the advice I gave them because they knew perfectly well that I was disabled.
The important factor is whether the system of postal voting is working efficiently. In its early years—I am talking about the late 1940s and the 1950s—it did not work well but it should now be a very good system. I recommend it to disabled people.
The principle of goods and services is that if it is difficult or impossible for a disabled person to go to the normal place where they are provided they should be delivered to his dwelling. That happens now in the United States under the American legislation. That is what happens with postal voting. The voting procedure can be followed in the disabled person's own home.
In general, I urge other disabled person to concentrate on the real and implacable ways in which they are disadvantaged. I advise them not to give much time to areas where there is an adequate alternative. In this regard, there is an adequate alternative.
While I speak for myself, I believe that I speak also for other disabled people when I say that we have to plan in advance our daily lives. I have to do that every single day. For example, we must think about what we

2005
are expected to do; what we can do; and whether there will be help to put on our appliances and shoes and socks when dressing, or whether we shall need to bring with us the special devices we have for doing those things. The programme for the whole day or week must be examined. Because I am especially concerned about severely disabled people, I hope that we shall concentrate on areas where adequate alternatives do not already exist. There are a great many other fields in which we should be trying to help disabled people because there are not alternatives. But, certainly in my experience, the voting system provides an adequate alternative which, despite laughter from the Opposition Front Bench, has proved extremely satisfactory.
I accept that this is a probing amendment and that the noble Lord moved it in order to obtain a response. I have made my response absolutely clear; there will be no doubt about that. But the amendment might send—fortunately, I do not believe that it will do so at this late hour of night—the wrong message to disabled people and give them the impression that postal voting is not a satisfactory alternative. I would absolutely deplore that because in recent years it has been the basis of enabling people to vote who are extremely disabled; for example, those who could not get through the door of a polling station even if there were a ramp. It also helps others because I have not found a single disabled person who has been refused a postal vote. The system covers a whole range of disabilities. Therefore, I sincerely hope that the subject will not be pursued because there are many other matters of far more importance to disabled people.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: I support everything said by my noble friend. However, the point should also be made that voting has been made even easier for disabled people by virtue of the introduction of the continual or running proxy postal vote. It means that, at every election, you do not have to go back and request a postal vote thus going through the palaver of getting forms. Such forms automatically come to you through the post.
If my noble friend the Minister has any influence, will he please try to make that service more well known? For six years I have had to organise postal votes for my husband who is very seriously disabled. It was only during the last council election that someone tipped me off that there was such a running vote, provided that you get signed confirmation from your doctor. It is joy indeed; from now on I shall not have to do any more of that. I shall just have to make sure that the vote is sent off in the post. It is not something that is well known, but I believe that it should be.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I entirely understand what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is saying; namely, that for those people who cannot get out of their homes, or for whom transport is so difficult that they have to rely on other people, the postal vote is very valuable. However, I prefer voting in person. Last year I went to a nearby primary school. It was inaccessible because it had railings and there was a step into the school. There was a form in that respect and we filled it in. In fact,
2006
they were delighted. I am ashamed to admit that I did not get back to vote this time, so I have not checked on the situation. But I shall do so.
Very often, voting does take place in schools; indeed, it is quite a good idea to install a permanent ramp in such buildings. Again, it is reasonable accommodation. Some places may just need a wooden, temporary ramp which can be removed but which will serve its purpose at times—and not just for voting—when people seek to use those facilities. I support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As we have just dealt with an education amendment I thought for a moment or two that, if we had still been at school, I might have given the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, 100 lines for being late when the amendment was called in its proper position. I would have told him that he could not have the "sweeties" of my words of wisdom having come late to the sport. Of course, I am well aware of why he was late—
Lord Carter: I should just like to point out that the amendment has been called in its proper position.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that it was grouped with a previous amendment, which, for some mysterious reason—which I shall probably be up all night trying to work out—was withdrawn. So we are back to dealing with it.
The noble Lord's proposal is for things like an annual accessibility audit, reports to the Secretary of State, newspapers and radio adverts; and, indeed, the provision of wheelchair-accessible polling booths in every polling station, no matter how remote a possibility it might be that a wheelchair user would want the use of such facilities. The noble Lord is really asking us to take steps which are both unreasonable and unnecessary. His requirements overlook the fact that local authorities are already under a statutory duty under the Representation of the People Act 1983 to keep polling places under regular review. One of the factors that they must consider is the question of accessibility for disabled people.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) mentioned schools. Of course, polling stations are not the buildings themselves; indeed, they can be an area within the building where voting takes place. For example, a school may be designated as a polling place but the polling station may be a classroom within the school. The Spastic Society's report entitled, Polls Apart, provided an extremely valuable and critical survey of the problems faced by many disabled voters at the 1992 election. Following that report, the Home Office held a number of meetings with the Spastic Society (now Scope) and provided revised guidance to returning officers on the particular needs of disabled electors and on how to reduce the problems that they face when voting. The success of that revised guidance is apparent in the increased take-up of grants towards the purchase of temporary ramps.
The requirements of the new clause apparently ignore the statutory responsibility already placed on councils to keep under review the designation of polling places and the advice given to returning officers as to accessibility factors to be taken into account. Those factors are

2007
detailed and were drawn up in association with Scope. It is surely right that the review is carried out at local authority level and reported to the local council. It is at local level that people are best placed to consider how provisions for disabled people can most effectively be made and how discussions with interested groups can best inform that process. I can only reiterate what my noble friend Lady Blatch said in a recent debate on electoral registration initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, when she said that the Government take very seriously their responsibility towards disabled voters. We will continue to support councils and local administrators with the necessary funds, advice and guidance to meet the needs of disabled voters.
I do not believe that the new clause is in the least necessary. I want to underline the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy about the importance of postal votes. Disabled people, of course, have the right to vote and that right to vote is now accommodated via the postal vote which is an extremely useful means of getting people the vote. The idea that people are deprived of the vote because they cannot get to the polling station is, frankly, cloud cuckoo land. I certainly hope that that is not the message that goes out from this Chamber. We want to encourage people who are unable to attend a polling station on the day of a vote for any reason to vote by post and to apply for that.
I have a postal vote for those elections I am allowed to vote in because I am here and not in Glasgow. I never feel I have been deprived of my vote just because I vote for the candidate of my choice a day or two before polling day. I also have never found any difficulty in deciding who I should vote for a day or two before polling day. Having been given the opportunity to make this commercial, I am happy to say that I was among perhaps a small band of Conservative voters at the previous local government election who voted for a candidate who won a seat on the new Glasgow unitary authority.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would like the Minister to cherish that experience; it may be a fairly rare one for him!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Of course I cherish it, and I look forward to retaining my excellent councillor for many years to come. Therefore I have no great difficulty about postal votes. I think they are a good thing. They are the way for some people to vote. I underline what my noble friend Lady O'Cathain said about what I think she described as rolling postal votes. I shall certainly bring to the attention of our noble friend Lady Blatch the points she made about the need to make the availability of that service more widely known. For all these reasons I do not believe that this is a sensible amendment. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw it. Just in case he is tempted to have another little walk down the Lobbies, I trust my noble friends will support me.
Lord Monkswell: I think there is general agreement that this is a probing amendment on which the Committee will not divide. I would point out to the
2008
Minister, however, that he criticised me a little for moving the amendment. I draw his attention to the groupings list which states:
"Although every effort is made to secure agreement to these groupings, they remain informal and not binding. It is therefore open to any Peer to speak to an amendment in its place in the Marshalled List".
That is all that I have done this evening.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Take 100 lines!
Lord Monkswell: I can appreciate the comment about 100 lines. There was many an occasion at school when I had to take 100 lines, but it did not seem to change my response to things. That may say something about the Government's views on crime and punishment. I thank those Members of the Committee who have contributed to the discussion. I wish to make a few comments in response. First, I accept entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Postal and proxy votes are essential for those people who cannot get out of their own homes. As the Minister said, the extension of postal voting to a wider circle enables people who are away from home on business or holiday also to have a postal vote.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that he found them entirely satisfactory—no doubt having won elections on the basis that a majority of his electors saw fit to vote for him and he has ensured that he has a vote that is reasonable. But we need also to be aware of the wider generality of the problems of disabled people.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I would not wish him to misunderstand me. I did not say that the result was satisfactory. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland I did for disabled people what it has just been suggested the Home Office might do more of in England and Wales. Over 21 years ago there were four years in which I was able to ensure that almost all disabled people in Scotland knew that they could have a postal vote and could get a continuing one. I did not mind which way they voted.
Lord Monkswell: I shall believe the noble Lord, even though few Members of the Committee on this side of the House believe him.
The case that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, raised obviously has our sympathy. I was also very glad to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and I thank her for them.
Turning to the Minister's response, I was flabbergasted when he seemed to suggest that it was not necessary for service providers to make provision for the prevention of discrimination against disabled people unless they knew that such provision was needed. If one extended that philosophy right through the Bill there could be a very powerful argument for nothing to be done at all, because every service provider could turn round and say that they did not expect a disabled person to turn up and ask for a particular service. It is a very thin argument.

2009
The Minister has identified, quite correctly, that it is down to local authorities to make provision for the electoral system within their areas. He said that the Government make funds available. The Government do not make funds available to provide disabled access to polling stations. They provide some funds to enable temporary provision to be made, but not all access can be resolved by temporary provision. As I said in my opening remarks, it is not necessarily cost-effective to do that on a temporary basis. The Government have a responsibility nationwide to ensure that everyone has the best facilities possible to enable them to vote.
I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit even to reconsider their attitude to this issue. This is a probing amendment. We have heard the Government's response. No doubt all Members of the Committee will read the response in Hansard. In the meantime, while assuring the Minister that we may need to return to the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Circumstances in which less favourable treatment is justified]:
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
11 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 11, leave out lines 15 to 19.
The noble Baroness said: I move Amendment No. 73 in the hope that the Minister will give the assurances that we seek.
The Bill as drafted allows service providers to charge disabled people more for any goods or services adopted or adapted for their use. That could mean that a disabled person who is blind could be charged for alternative formats such as braille regarding railcards and so on. Those who are deaf could be charged for a signer. I understand that the Government assure voluntary organisations that that should not happen, that the clause covers only exceptional circumstances such as special clothing, special shoes and so on.
We are worried by the provision. We all accept that an impairment becomes disabling largely because of the physical and social circumstances in which people find themselves. We fear that some of the costs of overcoming the limitations of their physical and social environment may be offloaded on to disabled people.
We do not expect the amendment to be costly. We believe that it has major symbolic value. The provision states basically that disabled people are not a burden but full citizens with full rights, including the right to have access to services, just as their fellow citizens do. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: If the amendment were successful, it would cut right across my next amendment. That amendment suggests that on an actuarial basis more should be charged.
Lord Swinfen: I support the amendment. I believe that if the subsection were not in the Bill and the noble Baroness moved an amendment to put it into the Bill, my noble friend on the Front Bench would be likely to describe it as a wrecking amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful for the opportunity to clear up any misapprehensions about the purpose underlying this subsection. Clause 14(3) (d), which the amendment seeks to remove, is required to protect those businesses which provide special or adapted items for disabled people from accusations of unlawful discrimination where they charge more than they would charge another member of the public for a standard item. An example would be a tailor who has been asked by a disabled person to make a suit of an unusual pattern or using an unusual fabric. Such a task might take longer and require a special order for equipment and materials. It is reasonable that he should be able to charge more, just as he would charge more to any other person who wanted a special item made.
I have listened to the arguments put forward by Members of the Committee. My honourable friend the Minister of State gave a commitment that this subsection would not give businesses the opportunity to load opportunity costs on to a disabled person or allow service providers to charge more to a disabled person where they have to make their services more accessible to suit his or her disability.
In pursuance of this commitment, we have checked the drafting of this subsection very carefully. On the first of those concerns we are content that it would be unlikely to operate to allow a service provider to pass on to a disabled customer a potential loss of profit. However, we are less content that the present wording of Clause 14(3) (d) would prevent a service provider from passing on to a disabled person an amount equivalent to the expenditure he has occurred in making his service accessible to him in accordance with a duty imposed by the Act. It is certainly not our intention that, for example, a large organisation which had to produce information in an alternative format for some of its disabled customers should be able to charge them more for it.
Consequently, for the sake of clarity we shall be bringing forward an amendment at Report stage which will confirm that any increase in the cost of providing a service to a disabled person which results from compliance by a provider of services with a duty imposed on him by Section 15 shall be disregarded for the purposes of this subsection.
I hope that that allays the concern expressed by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend. I hope, too, that I have explained why it is important that the provision should not be lost from the Bill. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness and that she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am delighted with the Minister's response and we look forward to his amendment. We appreciate the moves he has made in that direction, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 11, line 20, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (4A),").
I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 together. The amendments concern the insurance industry. Clause 14 defines the circumstances in which the provider of services is justified in treating disabled people less favourably. Subsection (4) includes a recommendation making power to allow the Secretary of State to specify the circumstances other than those on the face of the Bill where such treatment would be justified. The subsection makes specific mention of providers of insurance services as being likely to need such regulations.
The amendments seek to limit the scope of the regulations as they might apply to providers of insurance in one specific sense. That is that any special circumstances in which less favourable treatment in the provision of insurance services is allowed under the Act should be justifiable on objective actuarial or other criteria. To put it more bluntly, the amendment seeks to ensure that no regulations are made which simply exempt insurers entirely from the provisions of the Act.
Why is that necessary? I am afraid that the insurance industry's record, although improving, is not good on dealing with those who are disabled, particularly through HIV or AIDS. Before my noble friend tells me that the Bill is not concerned with the rights of those with HIV but with the disabled, I hasten to remind him that HIV leads to AIDS. In the past, in order to try to identify at an early stage anyone who might be at risk of becoming an AIDS case, the industry would almost certainly have discriminated against them by demanding tests. That, of course, is no longer so. As I mentioned at an earlier stage in the Committee proceedings, the British Association of Insurers has now adopted a voluntary code under which that is not done.
I do not wish the Committee to misunderstand the issue. The amendment is limited, it does not seek to ask insurers to insure the uninsurable or to force them to take on uneconomic business. There are, however, circumstances where people with other disabilities need insurance and where a blanket exemption for the insurance industry would be unreasonable discrimination. To give the Committee a concrete example, in the past some insurers have simply refused travel insurance to people disabled with HIV. That could be understood if it were a concern about healthcare costs involved in a person becoming ill with HIV while he or she was away. But surely, most people have themselves, or know someone who has, lost a suitcase at an airport. Why should someone who has an incurable illness or a disability not be able to obtain travel insurance that excludes the conditions due to and specifically related to the illness for something such as the loss of his or her luggage?
With short-term travel insurance, even against healthcare costs, a disabled person might well find themselves to be insurable although at a higher premium than that set for other people. Premiums should be set according to objective criteria on a purely actuarial basis. I believe that the insurance industry has every
2012
right to assess the risk that it is undertaking and to determine which specific exclusion related to a precondition it would wish to impose on someone taking out a policy.
However, the clause worries me because I fear that it gives a blanket exemption. After what my noble friend said on the previous amendment, I hope that when he brings back an amendment on that matter he will also take this point into consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: I need to begin by declaring a non-pecuniary interest, in that I am chairman of MENCAP City Insurance Services. It is a company which we established precisely because people with learning disabilities and their families were finding it so difficult to get a fair deal in the existing insurance market. The creation of the company has, I think, acted as something of a goad to the insurance market elephant, making it a little more responsive to the disabled part of the market.
My contacts in the insurance industry before and since the setting up of MENCAP City Insurance have given me the realisation that in some instances discrimination is based not on actuarial tables or painful commercial experience, but on what I can only describe as prejudice and ignorance. It really is quite extraordinary how usually well-informed people can blunder into ill-informed decisions—though I suppose that I should not be totally surprised when immigration rules of certain world powers have apparently been based on the assumption that Down's syndrome is a contagious disease!
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness is inoffensively broad. It meets the Minister's point that actuarial evidence is not the only sort of reasonably objective evidence. Discrimination would, under the amendment, not be unfair where it can be justified, but would be unfair where it cannot be justified. I find it very hard to see any objections to that approach, and accordingly I support the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: I shall be very brief. As it is getting late, I shall not produce examples. I very strongly support the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Lord Addington: Very briefly, I associate myself with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I hope that a measure as reasonable as this is not needed in the Bill; but if it is, I wholeheartedly support it.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: On the subject of services and insurance, we are aware that risk is involved; that discrimination—premium setting—marks the quality of the insurer and of the underwriter. It is painfully clear that, like or not, Father Time, age and disease do not discriminate: we shall be, or are, struck by both inevitabilities.
Many disabled people, and those over the age of 75, are subject to discrimination should they wish to travel a long distance—let us say, from England to Scotland—by train, boat or air and, when they reach their destination, wish to hire a car. Although the Association of British Insurers has warned its members of the implications of the Disability Discrimination Bill, it

2013
simply cannot direct its members to adopt a common approach towards the disabled, or to those over the age of 75, who drive a car.
In mentioning cars, I beg the Committee to digest the following information from the Association of British Insurers, which I received this morning. It may be of interest to the Committee that there is a 30 per cent. chance of claim in any one year in relation to drivers aged between 17 and 24 years of age, but an 18 per cent. chance of a claim in any one year in relation to those over the age of 70. It is also of interest to note that inquiries have been made and it is understood that,
"market practice is that where an individual aged 74 or over seeks to hire a car the hirer will request clearance from the insurer".
That presumes that the person arrives during working hours, not at a weekend. Otherwise, how can a person who is over 75 be insured when hiring a car?
Whether it be on business or holiday, a disabled person is subject to discrimination when hiring a car: It may be felt reasonable by the car hire company to impose a substantial increase of premium payment or—to use a verb coined in the Committee stage on Tuesday—it may "perceive" the risk to be unacceptable.
The distance between London and Edinburgh is 378 miles. Many people travel there and to other parts of Scotland by train. Imagine how much more exhausting it is for those over the age of 75 and for those who are disabled but can drive. But Her Majesty's Government's attitude toward the rail network in the United Kingdom has put the rail services—and so the British Government—top of the pack as discriminators.
The franchising director for the rail services has had the subsidy for ScotRail reduced sufficiently to force the motor-rail services to Scotland to stop. At present, were the Government to return just £7 million of the deducted subsidy, the franchising director could include Motorail in the privatised sale package, market it more fully, make a profit margin and make disabled drivers happier.
Perhaps we should remember that the blind cannot discriminate about the colour of our skin and the deaf cannot decipher our race from our tongue. The only discrimination shown by the disabled is appreciation of the degree of help received. Let us not discriminate against that.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has gone rather wider than the amendment, which my noble friend Lady Gardner so concisely told us was limited in scope. I understand what she is aiming for. But I hope that my noble friend, in replying from the Front Bench, can dismiss any impression that the regulations will include blanket exclusions. Clearly, some people are worried about that.
I hope also that, when my noble friend replies, he will confirm my understanding that it is the intention that before regulations are drafted there will be consultation by the Government with the disabled organisations concerned and with the Association of British Insurers. This is a field in which the technical details need to be worked out in full with the Government by the disabled
2014
organisations and the insurers. One hopes that then regulations of the right kind will emerge after the Bill has been enacted.
This is a case—I mentioned it on Tuesday—where those concerned, including the disabled organisations, hope that too much will not be put into the Bill in the next two months which would prejudge all the consultations and work that they feel will have to go into the vitally important regulations which will come later.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We recognise that some areas of service provision are complex and may present particular difficulties when we try to include them in the right of access. One such area undoubtedly is insurance.
The business of the insurance industry is to calculate risks and set premiums to correspond with those risks. Insurers necessarily treat people differently on the basis of the risks that they present. They treat us differently when it comes to house insurance as regards where our houses are located and treat us differently when it comes to car insurance with regard to where we live, and therefore where the car has its overnight accommodation.
Nevertheless, we have been convinced that disabled people, when they seek insurance cover, sometimes face unfair discrimination, whether in the form of a loaded premium or a refusal to provide cover at all. We want to ensure that the treatment of disabled customers is based on a reasonable assessment of risk rather than on any prejudicial assumptions of the insurer.
Officials in my department have had discussions with a number of organisations involved in the industry. So too have representatives of groups of and for disabled people. I think it would be fair to say that all parties see the benefit of a flexible framework for eliminating unfair discrimination in insurance.
I shall spare the Committee a talk about professional actuaries. All I will say is that any actuary I know is extraordinarily clever and usually a mathematician, which by definition means that they are more than just extraordinarily clever. It is an extremely complex business. All actuaries approach it with a great deal of intellectual rigour. Members of the Committee should not play down the seriousness with which they deal with their decisions. After all, if they get them wrong and the insurer is no longer able to pay out on claims, then all those who insured would suffer. It is not a business without a major downside if actuaries are forced to make decisions which they would not make in the light of their intellectual judgments and based on the scientific and mathematical evidence they collect.
We believe that there is only one workable way to outlaw unfair and unjustifiable discrimination in the insurance industry; that is, through regulations after full consultation with the insurance industry and groups representing the interests of disabled people. We are also keen to learn from the experience of the operation of the Australian Disability Discrimination Act with regard to insurance before we ourselves regulate. We will of course ensure that guidance and codes of practice are available before the regulations come into effect so that insurers and consumers know where they stand.

2015
Regulations will also allow us to cover all eventualities. It may be that over time they need to be amended if there are practical problems in their implementation. It is in the interests of insurers and consumers for the Government to be able to make such changes. For that reason we took the decision to make regulations, which can be more easily adapted than primary legislation. The main disability groups indicated that they have no difficulty accepting regulations, yet the amendments before us this evening would restrict the flexibility of the regulation-making power.
I can assure my noble friend that we will take her anxieties and those expressed by other Members of the Committee into account when drafting the regulations. However, I do not believe that the approach of her amendment would be workable or sufficiently flexible to deal with this complex area. For that reason I cannot possibly accept it. I hope that, after hearing my explanation, my noble friend will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank all those who supported the amendment. It is an important matter. The fact that on the face of the Bill at the moment is the phrase, "for example, insurance services" drew my attention to this issue. The clause as it stands may lead one to think that insurance people will not be bound in any way by the Bill. It looks like a blanket exemption. I am therefore considerably reassured by what my noble friend said on that point; that is, that the regulations will look to see that the insurance industry does not act unreasonably. Perhaps I can discuss that with him between now and the next stage of the Bill.
I emphasise once more that my intention is not to ask the insurance companies to do something against the interests of their industry. As the noble Lord said, it treats people differently. I wrote that down. He said that it should treat people differently. I do not agree. I believe that it should treat everyone the same way on the basis of assessing each case on its merits in the full light of an honest declaration by the party of what adverse condition he or she is suffering from in terms of disability or ill health. We are aware of famous cases in America where, when word got around that HIV infection was spreading, large numbers of people immediately rushed to take out insurance. The insurance industry was badly caught. On the whole, however, if someone fails to declare a condition of which they are aware, that is fraud and invalidates the insurance. So the insurance industry is protected against fraud. I am saying that it should be able to look at each case on its actuarial merits and then assess what premium should relate to that. To that extent I believe that each person should be treated the same. He or she should be treated as a possible customer and offered insurance cover to suit his or her requirements.
This is a very important issue and one which we shall have to discuss further. The noble Lord said that he himself will be looking further into it. I shall have to persuade him of my view. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 11, line 24, at end insert:
("() Regulations may make provision as to the minimum level of adjustment required to freestanding and automated facilities which provide goods or services to comply with section 15.").
The noble Baroness said: This may seem a small point but it is easy to overlook the ever-increasing automation of services, as I mentioned at Second Reading, from cash machines to vending machines. This has led to a significant improvement in all levels of service.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that definitive regulations are drawn up under the legislation establishing clear standards for such facilities which will set the minimum that needs to be done for the life of the machine. There is a danger that if the commitment is too open-ended and further adjustments to machines can be demanded their economic viability will be drastically reduced. We need to ensure that in prescribing what businesses must do under the legislation these requirements are not counterproductive and that when regulations are drawn up consideration will be given to alternative ways of delivering the service. It would be a waste and indeed contrary to the spirit of the legislation if, as a result of a lack of clarity, there were fewer such facilities after its introduction than before. Instead we need to ensure that these facilities are as accessible as they reasonably can be and that they form part of a movement towards better services for all customers, including disabled people. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: This is a sensible amendment. The noble Baroness and the Committee will already know that British Telecom is putting automated telephones at a height that can be used by people in wheelchairs and some vending machines have already been fixed at that height. But it would be wrong to insist on adjustments to vending machines where a certain amount of pressure was not required to produce the goods they sell. If someone was to brush lightly past with their coat he could discharge vast amounts of chocolate or whatever it happened to be when no one had put in any money. As the noble Baroness said, one has to be very sensible. It is a matter of common sense. I am glad that it has been brought to the Committee's attention.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This amendment draws attention to a number of problems. As I have explained, Clause 15 is intended to apply, with very few exceptions, to service providers right across the economy. In covering such a wide range of goods, facilities and services, we are bound to encounter a few sectors which present particular problems in implementation. This is one such area. We intend to deal with such difficult areas by means of regulation after full consultation with those having a particular interest or experience of that service provision. We already have adequate regulation-making powers within the Bill to deal with this kind of difficulty.
I do not want to be drawn down the route of adding regulation-making powers to deal with each area of service provision that we anticipate might not be straightforward. I am therefore unable to accept my noble

2017
friend's amendment. However, I recognise that the issue of automated service provision is one for careful consideration, not least because vending machines and other such facilities represent an important sector of service provision. Banking services provided through ATMs are a particularly good example. I cannot remember when I last went into a bank to get money; I think that many people are in the same position. However, the issue of accessibility to automated facilities is problematic, not least because it raises the question of the manufacture of the machines. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government do not believe that the Bill can or should cover the manufacture of goods.
I have listened to the comments of both my noble friends and can assure them and the Committee that we shall take the matters raised into account when seeking to regulate in this area. I firmly believe, however, that the regulation-making power in the Bill already allows us to make provision for that area and, as I have said, I think that it would be wrong to set about introducing powers to deal specifically with each potentially difficult type of service. With that reassurance, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank my noble friend for his reassurance. I am particularly reassured by the fact that he has reminded us of the manufacturing aspect, which I think is particularly worrisome. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
11.30 p.m.
Clause 15 [Duty of providers of services to make adjustments]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 11, line 40, at end insert:
("where it is not reasonable under all the circumstances of the case for a provider to make provision under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 77, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 79 and 82. I had intended to deal with the amendments separately, but at this hour of the night and for the convenience of the Committee, perhaps it is wiser to deal with them all at once.
Amendment No. 77 is designed to ensure that an alternative means of providing a service is pursued only as a last option. The aim of the legislation must be to ensure that disabled people have similar opportunities to anybody else to take part in ordinary life. There will be occasions when the "separate-but-equal" approach is justified; for example, for a number of reasons parents may opt to educate a disabled child at a special school in preference to a mainstream school, but that should be on the basis of an informed choice, not because it is the only available option.
However, Clause 15 raises the issue in a narrower context; for example, when barriers in the built environment prevent a disabled person from getting into the premises where a service is provided. In such
2018
circumstances, provision of an alternative service must be a last resort, to be considered only when alterations to the building are unreasonably difficult.
Amendment No. 78 is a probing amendment, trying to find out the Government's intention concerning the application of the right of access created by Part III to historic buildings. Where alterations to premises are required to facilitate access for disabled people, there may in some instances be a degree of conflict with the desire to preserve the fabric of an historic building. An automatic exemption granted to all historic buildings means that many disabled people are unable to visit historic sites. It also deprives them of the use of the many public facilities operated from listed premises, which are now used as hotels, town halls, banks and theatres, for example.
There has been growing recognition in recent years that that is not a tenable position. Recent government planning advice exemplifies an important shift in attitude, stating:
"It is important in principle that disabled people should have dignified easy access to and within historic buildings. If it is treated as part of an integrated review of access requirements for all visitors or users, and a flexible and pragmatic approach is taken, it should normally be possible to plan suitable access for disabled people without compromising a building's use of spaces and may achieve the desired result without the need for damaging alterations".
The amendment would require regulations to provide guidance on that crucial issue. The value of a framework which included consultation with building users when faced with tough decisions about access cannot be over-emphasised. It enables decision-makers to avoid the passions of the competing interest groups and to emerge with a coherent set of priorities. I suggest that the essential starting point in drawing up such guidance should be an examination of the building's function. The goal should be to achieve the most dignified access consistent with the building's function. Dignified access should be integrated as far as possible and not around the back with the dustbins.
A different approach would be appropriate for historic house museums. In that case the preservation of the building is the key to the function of the site, but the visiting public are an essential strategy for maintaining the building's use.
I could continue on the amendment, but as it is late I will not. However, my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has asked me to say that he supports the amendment and that English Heritage is in favour of it. I have also had a letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, who rightly advises me that at a later stage of the Bill I shall have to include a reference to Section 52(7) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 because at the moment my amendment deals only with England, and historic buildings legislation deals with Scotland too.
The next amendment in the group introduces the concept of transitional or action plans drawn up by service providers themselves, implementing access over a number of years. As in Australia, these plans would be voluntary but could be used in defence of a claim made against the service provider. The Bill includes a duty for businesses to take reasonable steps to remove physical barriers and provide communication and other

2019
auxiliary aids. As access is one of the most fundamental causes and manifestations of discrimination against disabled people, it is a provision that needs careful planning.
Forward-looking service providers in this country are already familiar with the concept of planned access improvements and many businesses already prepare access strategies. Under the Citizen's Charter all local authorities are required to audit access provision in their buildings open to the public and some are already using these audits as a basis for planned improvement programmes.
The fourth and final amendment in the group is designed to remove the cost cap of access provision. It is a probing amendment only. Clause 15 relates to the duties of service providers to make adjustments so that disabled people have access to their services. That may be done by changing policies and procedures; improving physical access arrangements; and/or providing aids to communication and other auxiliary aids.
Subsections (8) and (9) provide for a prescribed maximum expenditure to be calculated according to the circumstances, length of time, type of service and premises and as yet unspecified criteria. The cost cap may well prove to be irrelevant to forward-looking businesses, many of which are already investing money to make their services more accessible, recognising the competitive advantage of so doing. For less enlightened service providers, the overly complex formulation for the cost cap could provide the ultimate excuse for inaction and an effective deterrent to successful negotiations for disabled people seeking access improvements.
A similar formulation for the removal of physical barriers in buildings to allow access for disabled people without a cost cap is used in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Act 1976, and in Part M of the building regulations. Neither has had a detrimental impact on businesses. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I support Amendment No. 77 and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 78. Amendment No. 77 relates to integration, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, we are trying to avoid a "ghettoisation" of facilities—an apartheid of provision. We seek within the framework of reasonable cost for the provision for disabled people to be integrated and not segregated. Perhaps I may put that at its most basic: if non-disabled people are able to enter a building through one door, we should avoid expecting disabled people to enter through another door, round the back by the dustbins and the lavatories. Their entrance should be both easy and dignified.
It is worth reminding ourselves that often in the process the benefits spill over on to a much wider group of people than those with a physical disability. For example, when one replaces a heavy internal fire door with an automatic door it is not only disabled people who enjoy better mobility within the building but it is valuable for women with children and pushchairs and for the elderly. Similarly, if a main entrance is unsuitable for disabled people we should consider
2020
whether a different entrance which is fully accessible should become the main entrance for everyone. Again that would help other people.
As regards the planning of domestic housing, if instead of only some houses being built to mobility standard, all were so built, such homes could become lifetime homes, whatever people's circumstances. Building houses to mobility standard is infinitely cheaper than subsequently adjusting and widening doorways, adding extra insulation and all the other things that are needed for disability sufferers. Amendment No. 77 has our strong support.
I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 78. It relates to a difficult topic but I believe that the difficulties recently described in the press were greatly exaggerated. I speak as a former English Heritage Commissioner and someone who has been actively involved in conservation in my own city. We all accept that when dealing with listed buildings the principles of conservation must be paramount. Planning consent for any alterations will and must be required. Listed buildings are crucial to our sense of place and to our city streetscapes. Disabled people as much as others are entitled not to have their listed buildings disfigured.
I believe that most disabled people agree that when someone in a wheelchair goes out in the countryside they do not expect to have tarmac paths because the roughness of the path is part of being in the countryside. However, the principle of conservation as found, which is the principle of modern conservation, means that one does not strip a building back to its original date of use but one accepts and reads the accretions to that building which have come as a result of adaptations and changes as society has changed. In other words, the history of a building as well as its aesthetics is part of the conservation principles that we are examining. There is no reason to believe that access is not part of the adaptation of buildings, with the fabric continually renewing itself.
It is also worth emphasising that far more can be done to make listed buildings accessible to disabled people than is often believed. The fabric of listed buildings need not be untouchable. In my city, for example, we have attached a short-rise lift to our medieval public hall, which is a Grade I listed building. Bad adaptations disfigure a building but good adaptations do not need to. Winchester Cathedral, for example, has installed a platform lift in its north transept so that wheelchair users can have access to the choir, can enjoy the ceilings and so forth. It has received the full support of English Heritage.
I could give many more examples of which I am aware where adaptations have worked within the fabric of a Grade I or Grade II listed building. As the Norwich Disability Access Officer said, there is usually a way. Too often, private owners of listed buildings believe that they will not be given planning consent for alterations when, with discussion with the conservation architects and disability access officers, they could find a way of access.
Often Tudor houses serve as museums. By definition, there is limited internal physical access. The answer may not be to try to make the physical fabric move but to make the displays move so that on a rotating basis the upstairs displays are brought downstairs, amplified

2021
with videos and the like. Everyone may then enjoy all the artefacts and objects held by the museum, even though they cannot gain full access to the fabric because it is a sensitive building.
Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was entirely right to say that, where a listed building houses a function for which public access is vitally important—for example, a housing benefit service or a post office—and that building cannot be made accessible, then that function should be transferred to another building. That is what we should seek to do in those situations.
But, of course, the sad truth is that most public listed buildings are held by local authorities as owners of the last resort and seeking a function of last resort. Again, my city owns—so to speak—something like 30 mediaeval churches, not all of which have adequate access. We have found uses for almost all of them, ranging from tea shops to scout clubs to brass rubbing centres and martial arts clubs. It is no kindness to anyone to say that because, for example, 5 per cent. of the population cannot gain access to those buildings, the other 95 per cent. should not and that the building should remain unused, fall into disrepair and possibly be vandalised.
I take a great deal of interest in these matters and I regretted very much the exaggerated response of a member of the Georgian Group in his article about this Bill published in British Archaeology. He said that it was a time bomb and gave such examples as Hadrian's Wall having to have lifts and tarmac surfaces and said he thought that the damage which would result to monuments would be devastating. That was an absurdly exaggerated response, if only for the practical reason that it is beyond reasonable cost.
The author of that article insisted that disabled access officers were too often extraordinarily doctrinaire and that the fabric of a listed building or monument would have to give way to doctrinaire access officers. I remember once visiting some early eighteenth century weavers' cottages to hand over a cheque on behalf of English Heritage. When I came to the little room which was the kitchen, in that eighteenth century weaver's cottage was a 1950s black plastic and chromium bath. I said merrily, "Well, now, with this cheque, you will be able to get rid of the bath, won't you, and use the kitchen as a tea room?" "Oh no", they said, "We're not allowed to. We have been told by the conservationists that this 1950s chromium bath is an essential part of the history and palimpsest of this building, so this 1950s chromium bath must remain in this early 18th century weaver's cottage". That was absurd, doctrinaire and equally unreasonable.
I hope and expect that both English Heritage and the Department of the Environment would issue appropriate design guidance. We want a commitment to the integrated use and enjoyment of cultural, civic and historic buildings and monuments for all people. A way usually can be found if people are sensible, respect the
2022
buildings but think imaginatively about ways in which to overcome the problems of access and internal usage. I support the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: I support these amendments. At this hour, I shall not repeat what has been said so competently by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness. However, there are a few questions as regards cost capping at which we should ask the Minister to look.
How is a business's ability to pay going to be calculated? Rateable value would not take into account the differing financial positions of a large superstore or a small village shop. Service providers are to be able to stagger their service improvements over a number of years. How will the cost cap take that into account? Will the cost cap apply only to the alteration to buildings or to every aspect of the service provision such as, for example, the production of information in an accessible format, staff training and time taken in formulating company policy? No other equal opportunities legislation—either in relation to race or gender—is subject to a cost cap. The low ceiling of a cost cap may encourage service providers to do a bit of window dressing rather than tackling what are the priority access improvements. Therefore, how will the Government ensure that the improvements will be made and how will the cost cap work?
Baroness O'Cathain: I am concerned about Amendment No. 82, which seeks to take away the prescribed maximum, or the cap, on expenditure that a provider of services must spend. That prescribed maximum is an important way of satisfying the natural concerns about overspend that businesses have. To remove subsections (8) and (9) would make it an open-ended commitment and could result in a parsimonious approach; or, indeed, looking at ways to get around it being considered by the provider of services. So I have a genuine concern in that respect.
Lord Addington: I support the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I must apologise to the noble Lord for missing the first part of his introductory speech, but I am afraid that messages have to be passed on and, when you are the only Member on the Bench, you have to leave the Committee to deal with them.
Basically the suggested provisions are very reasonable. Once again, I hope that the Government will adopt a favourable attitude. I should tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that I actually recognised one or two of the things that she described when talking about a certain church in Norwich. Indeed, I was playing quite a nice game in trying to think exactly where was the church that had become a boxing hall and the other that had become a tea-shop. I believe that Norwich has one thing right as regards using its old buildings.
Lord Ingle wood: We have had a useful and wide-ranging discussion on the amendments. While, obviously, it is getting late, I should like to take just a little time to explain the position, which I hope will satisfy a number of concerns that have been expressed.

2023
The integration of disabled people into society is an aspiration which we all share. The Disability Discrimination Bill will, over time, result in dramatic changes involving millions of people taking positive action to make that integration a reality. Although the word does not appear on the face of the legislation, it is quite right that integration is part and parcel of the duty that we owe to disabled people in creating a more accessible environment. But, as Members of the Committee will agree, the Government also have a duty to ensure that legislation allows a sufficient degree of flexibility for service providers to develop their own solutions to accessibility problems—solutions which, of course, meet the needs of disabled people but which are also practical and relevant to the business and affordable.
The key objective of the goods and services provision in Part III is to ensure that services are not impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use. Clause 15 sets out the broad framework within which that will be achieved by changing policies, practices or procedures, by supplying aids to communication or by taking steps to negate the effect of physical barriers. That is a crucial part of our policy.
Within that framework, it will be up to the service providers themselves to decide how best their services can be adapted to meet the needs of actual people as long as, by doing so, they are made reasonably accessible. In our view Amendment No. 77 runs contrary to that principle. It would mean that in many cases businesses, especially small and medium-sized businesses, would be prevented from looking at ways in which their services could be adapted to suit disabled people by delivering them in a different way.
We think that that would be too strict a limitation on business. Further, as my honourable friend, the Minister for Disabled People, has said on a number of occasions (and as was set out very clearly in the cost compliance assessment which accompanied the Bill), the legislation has been deliberately drafted in a way that ensures that sensible, low-cost accessibility solutions are encouraged wherever possible, so long as they are reasonable. The amendment could impose much unnecessary cost on businesses in situations where to contemplate expensive building work which might be considered reasonable in its own right would be to fly in the face of common sense if, as a prior option, a work-around solution could not be considered as well.
Obviously, I want to make it quite clear that there will be occasions when physical alterations will be the only reasonable solution because physical access to premises is a fundamental attribute of the service. I am thinking, for example, of restaurants, theatres, art galleries and so on.
It would clearly not be reasonable for the proprietor of a cafe to suggest that a take-away meal was a suitable alternative to making an adjustment to the layout or construction of his premises which would allow disabled people to enter. Further, the mere fact of physical access would not be enough. The means of entrance must be reasonable.
2024
It would not be reasonable—to refer to the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis—to expect a wheelchair user to have to negotiate the rubbish bins and general detritus of a back alley to be let into a restaurant via the kitchens, but there will be instances where such access is not essential to the service on offer. For example, as regards a theatre ticket office of the sort one sees in the West End, a wheelchair user may be unable to get into the shop because of a steep step at the entrance and asks whether the shopkeeper would consider purchasing a portable ramp. The ramp may cost £200 or £300; not a trifling amount but not an excessive amount of money either, and possibly a reasonable expense for the service provider to be put to. However, as an alternative, the ticket agency is prepared to provide a free phone ordering and tickets by mail service. This is an obvious and sensible solution to a practical problem which will provide the disabled person with reasonable access to the service and be of benefit to many others as well, but a solution which would be denied by this amendment.
I sympathise with those who want to see a more accessible physical environment sooner rather than later; indeed this Bill will do much to bring this about, but we have to face the fact that the building stock in this country is old, two-thirds of it being built before the turn of the century. We will not have fully accessible buildings overnight and if the Government try to force businesses to provide them that will fail. It is the businessmen of this country who will provide access to goods and services for disabled people, not politicians. We know that the great majority of service providers wish to play a part and we owe it to them to provide a sufficiently flexible regulatory framework to allow them to get on and do the job. I hope that what I have said will help satisfy and reasssure those noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have expressed concern on this point.
I now turn to Amendment No. 78. As has already been said by others, I am aware of the concern over how listed properties will be treated under the Bill. I hope to explain matters and clear up a lot of the misunderstandings and the difficulties. The Disability Discrimination Bill affords a good deal of protection for service providers and employers who occupy listed buildings. Clause 32 provides that nothing done to comply with other legislation, whether passed before or after the Bill, shall be made unlawful by the Bill. This means that if a service provider is unable to carry out works because in doing so he would be breaching other legislations, he cannot then be in breach of the disability Bill in respect of that particular act. So if, for example, listed building consent to replace a medieval archway with a pair of sliding doors was refused, the service provider who then declined to install the new doorway could not be held to have discriminated against a disabled person for whom the building remained consequently inaccessible. In other words, Clause 32 will prevent people having to act without listed building consent in order to comply with the Bill. The same principle will apply to scheduled monuments. However, I must make it clear—
Lord Swinfen: If my noble friend will allow me, I do not really want to interrupt the flow of his argument and I quite see the point that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will not override previous legislation, but what will be the position with subsequent legislation?
Midnight
Lord Ingle wood: I have covered that point. It is mentioned in Clause 32—which is a short clause—which states:
"Nothing in this Act makes unlawful any act done—in pursuance of any enactment".
It is quite clear that the provision both looks forward and back.
I wish to elaborate further so that there is no misunderstanding about what this provision means. I must make it clear that this provision does not amount to an exemption for listed buildings. In our view, it is right that material adjustments for which listed building consent would be granted will have to be considered. We are going back to the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made when she talked of some examples in Norwich. I am rather sorry that my noble friend Lord Mackay is not in his place because I am sure he would be terrified at the thought of her going to the martial arts centre with regard to the next time they face each other across the Dispatch Box.
Lord Carter: I know who would win!
Lord Inglewood: A good "big un" is always better than a good "little un". The aim must be a workable system by which the need to apply for listed building consent can be avoided in cases where it is obvious that an application will be refused. Great strides have been taken in recent years to make historic buildings which are open to the public more accessible. English Heritage and local authorities have considerable experience in advising owners how to adapt historic buildings to meet these needs without detracting from the intrinsic value for which the building is protected.
English Heritage is currently producing guidance on how to approach proposals for making historic buildings and monuments more accessible to disabled people and will be co-operating with the Centre for Accessible Environments in holding seminars later this year to bring those with responsibilities for access together with those, such as local authority conservation officers, dealing with listed buildings. That guidance could prove to be a very valuable tool to disabled people, employers, service providers and their advisers when it comes to resolving any disputes which may arise in this area. It could be that the national disability council will wish to incorporate some or all of that guidance into its codes of practice.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate why the amendment is unnecessary. I hope that my noble friend may consider withdrawing it.
Turning to Amendment No. 79, I listened with interest to the arguments in favour of transition plans and I found myself in sympathy with much of what was said. The transition plan idea is certainly worth considering. I am aware that the Australian
2026
anti-discrimination legislation contains a similar provision, and a good place to start would be to seek information from Australia on how well the scheme operates over there.
There could be difficulties. Who, for instance, would decide whether the plans were bona fide? We would want to avoid the necessity of parties having to go to court to establish that. Also, how much leeway would companies be allowed if, for example, following a downturn in the business cycle, a trader did not have sufficient resources to carry out the improvements scheduled for a particular year? And, of course, we would need to decide whether disabled people whose disabilities were not fully catered for in the plan could bring actions against the service provider.
Nevertheless, any idea which seeks to offer some incentive to business to approach accessibility in a structured way is well worth investigating, and we shall continue to look very closely at what might be done.
However, we are not yet at a stage where we could be certain about the proper form of words that would need to be put on the face of the Bill, or whether we could make use of secondary legislation. Therefore, if my noble friend and the noble Baroness whose name is also down to the amendment would consent to withdraw it, I will undertake to take the matter away and consider where the best way forward lies.
Finally, I should like to turn briefly to Amendment No. 82. The power to set a financial limit on the cost of meeting the duties to make adjustments is an essential one if businesses and service providers are to have confidence in the legislation. The Bill has been designed to ensure that the move to a more accessible environment will not place undue burdens on those who will be responsible for delivering its provisions. In forming our proposals we have taken account of the understandable concerns of the business community that the legislation should not be unrealistically ambitious. I believe that the Bill strikes a fair balance between the needs of disabled people and the perfectly respectable need of a business to make a reasonable profit.
In our view, the ability to set a financial limit is a crucial element in that balance in that it gives certainty to business. That was a point to which my noble friend Lady O'Cathain drew our attention. However, turning to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, we recognise that there are a number of ways in which a test of affordability could be fashioned: different ways in which the size or value of premises or the size or status of businesses can be assessed in order to produce a variable but easy to understand measurement. We have not as yet formed any firm views as to the best way forward. The Government will consult fully with businesses and organisations of and for disabled people alike on whether a financial cap would be helpful and, if so, how it would be calculated.
The provisions of subsections (8) and (9) inject the legislation with a crucial measure of flexibility. The limit could, for example, cater for aggregate amounts of expenditure incurred in different cases, so that a service provider could consult a local access officer, plan a series of improvements to improve access over a period of time and be reassured that, just because individual

2027
elements of that plan did not come up to the financial limit, he could not be required to make further alterations. That would account for the wide variety of modifications that might be considered: for example, installing a ramp, widening doors or perhaps removing obstructions from corridors or shopping aisles. Such a provision would be a fair way of ensuring that a service provider who planned ahead would not run the risk of having greater liabilities than a service provider who chose to delay taking any action until forced to do so by the threat of legal action.
The financial cap remains an important part of the government proposals. To prevent unwarranted burdens being placed on business we must be in a position to control the application of the legislation.
Members of the Committee having heard my explanation of the Government's position, I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Swinfen will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I hope that I have covered the points and given reassurance.
Lord Swinfen: My noble friend has given a full and interesting answer to all four amendments, providing a certain amount of encouragement. However, there is a certain amount in his reply that I am not sure I like. However, I shall read carefully what he said. It is possible that I may come back to the matter at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 12, line I, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 80, I speak briefly to Amendment No. 81. The effect of the amendment is to remove from the face of the Bill the subsection which exempts those service providers whose buildings comply with Part M of the building regulations from the requirement to make physical alterations to their premises. We have done this because, as we now believe, the provision does not wholly fulfil the Government's policy intention. But, as I shall explain, we have not abandoned our view that service providers need to be protected from double jeopardy. It may assist the Committee if I take a few minutes to explain some of the background.
For noble Lords who are unaware, Part M has operated since 1988 as that part of the building regulations which sets out what is required in the way of access for disabled people. It applies to all new non-domestic buildings and most extensions. It requires reasonable provision to be made so that disabled people can gain access to and make use of buildings including, for example, lavatories and, if relevant, audience and spectator seating. It requires facilities to be provided both for wheelchair users and for those who have impaired hearing or eyesight.
The Government take the view that service providers should be able to rely on Part M of the building regulations as representing a bona fide national standard of accessibility for disabled people. That is why we decided to include a subsection which exempts from the
2028
duty to make physical alterations any service provider whose premises have already complied with Part M. It is only natural justice that a service provider who sets up in a new building which complies with building regulations should be entitled to believe that his premises have been certified as accessible. Can it really then be reasonable for a court, in enforcing the Disability Discrimination Bill, to decide otherwise?
However, we now recognise that the subsection as drafted is something of a blunt instrument and that the problem needs to be tackled in a rather more sophisticated way. We know that there will be some buildings which complied with a version of the building regulations, perhaps as long ago as 1988 but which would no longer meet the requirements of the latest version. Those buildings might lack suitable accommodation for those with sensory impairments, provision for which did not figure in the early versions of the regulations. That could result in cases where a service provider might escape a duty to make an adjustment to cater for the real needs of a disabled person on what would be little more than a technicality.
This would not only be galling for the disabled person but also for any service providers who, in exactly similar premises, apart from the fact that they were built in, say, 1987 rather than 1988, would have to make an adaptation. Their building would pre-date the building regulations and could thus not claim the benefit of building regulations exemption. In fact, a case can be made for extending the coverage of an exemption to cover any feature of a building which comes up to some other nationally defined standard—irrespective of the age of the building and irrespective of whether it has ever had to comply with Part M. Not only would this put service providers in older buildings on the same footing as those in new ones, which would be equitable; it would also encourage more service providers to undertake accessibility improvements in advance of the commencement of the duty to make physical alterations.
There is much to consider here and we have yet to reach any definite conclusions on the matter. This is very likely to be one of the areas where, probably in the early part of next year, we shall be consulting with business and organisations of and for disabled people to hear their views on the best way forward.
But it is clear that the issue is too involved for simple treatment on the face of the Bill and that it would be better to use the regulation-making power available in Clause 15(6) of the Bill and pursue the point in secondary legislation where we shall have the latitude to do justice to the subtleties of the problem.
Perhaps I may briefly comment on Amendment No. 81 standing in the name of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. We believe it to be unnecessary both because we have given a commitment to regulate in this area and because the existing regulation—making powers in Clause 15 are sufficient for the purpose.
I very much hope that with what I said earlier I have been able to inspire a sufficient degree of trust in our intentions to persuade my noble friend that she might withdraw her amendment. Nonetheless, I beg to move Amendment No. 80.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I wish briefly to support the amendment. I believe I put it down first and was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, added his name to it. I only wish that he had managed to add his name to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. However, he cannot be perfect, I suppose.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that a building that did not conform to Part M would have been built earlier but sometimes buildings which supposedly conform to that regulation do not. In some local authority areas, officials are lax in applying the rules and in other areas they are not quite aware of what is needed. Anyway, I am delighted to support the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: Having listened to the Minister, I am prepared not to move my later amendment on the basis of the assurance he gave.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 12, line 47, 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: The concern is simply that without the requirement in the amendment, a costing figure in regulations or the formula for calculating it, which are important ways of delivering the clarity which the service providers require, could be changed arbitrarily. If it were decreased, it would be to the detriment of the disabled and if it were increased dramatically and suddenly, it would be to the detriment of business and customers, including the disabled. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: At this time of night, I hope it is sufficient reason for supporting the amendment to say that it would save a vast amount of parliamentary time.
Lord Inglewood: My noble friend's amendments seek to ensure that before issuing regulations under Clauses 15 or 19 of the Bill the Secretary of State shall consult with appropriate organisations representing employers and disabled people. A similar amendment has already been considered in relation to another part of the Bill and I can only reiterate what I said. I can assure the Committee that the Government intend to consult fully with interested parties before exercising the regulation-making powers contained in the Bill. This is likely to involve consulting with groups of and for disabled people and those representing the interests of business. However, I cannot agree that the Secretary of State should be under an obligation to consult with specified categories of people regardless of the subject of the regulations to be issued.
I believe that these amendments are unnecessary. The Government have made clear all along their intention to consult fully before using the powers in the Bill. Indeed, such consultation will be crucial to ensure that the regulations are fair and workable. I hope that that will provide some reassurance to my noble friend and that she will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: I did not think I would get far on this amendment. I have the reassurance; I still wish it had been on the face of the Bill. I should have linked Amendments Nos. 83 and 87. I shall not move Amendment No. 87. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 83.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Exemption for small dwellings]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 14, line 40, after ("person's") insert ("spouse,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 85, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 86. The amendments seek to clarify the exemption of "small dwellings" from the provisions on sale and letting of premises. The measures, including the small dwellings exemption, mirror those in sex and race discrimination legislation.
Clause 17 sets out the exemption for "small dwellings" from the provisions in Clause 16. These will make it unlawful for a person with the power to dispose of premises to discriminate against a disabled person.
In the provisions relating to the small dwellings exemption, the person with the power to dispose of the premises, or whose consent is required before premises can be disposed of, is referred to as the "relevant occupier". One of the conditions for the small dwellings exemption to operate is that the "relevant occupier", or a "near relative" of his, must actually live on the premises in question.
"Near relative" is defined in the earlier anti-discrimination legislation as including, among others, a person's "spouse". However, in recognition of those couples who live together before marrying (or who do not intend to marry), and in line with more recent legislation, the word "partner" has been added.
These two amendments define "partner" as the other member of a couple consisting of a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife. The need to identify whether someone is or is not a partner arises only if the "relevant occupier" is not actually present on the premises at the point in time when discrimination is alleged: for example, where he or she was temporarily away on business.
It might seem a contradiction for Clause 17 to talk about partners "living together" when in order for this provision to operate they would actually have to be apart, but I can assure the House that, just as we would not expect married couples to spend 24 hours a day, seven days a week in each other's company—that is certainly true of anyone coming up to London to this House, attractive though that prospect may be to some, though, I hasten to add, not to me—the same would apply to an unmarried couple temporarily separated.
These amendments clarify the small dwellings exemption from the general provisions relating to the sale or letting of premises and I commend them to the House.
12.15 a.m.
Earl Russell: In relation to Amendment No. 86, I congratulate the Minister on having removed one unnecessary regulation-making power.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 14, line 43, leave out ("has such meaning as may be prescribed") and insert ("means the other member of a couple consisting of a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Circumstances in which less favourable treatment in relation to premises is justified]:
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Validity and revision of certain agreements]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 16, line 13, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
The noble Baroness said: This is a complicated amendment. It deals with the fact that if something is "void" it cannot be made "voidable". Subsections (3) to (6) of Clause 21 provide that if such a clause is found, a person can go to court and have the provision made void; that is, removed or modified. If it is already "void", it cannot be made void. Clearly, under Clause 21(1) the provision in the contract would be void anyway. This is a legal point: something that is void cannot be made void again; it was discriminatory in the first place. This is a point of tautology, a lawyer's point. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: I suppose, as one of that species, I had better speak to this amendment. Obviously my noble friend's amendment seeks to remove from Clause 21 the ability of either a county or sheriff court to replace or modify contract terms that have been made void due to the fact that they frustrate the operation of Part III of the Bill. I have listened carefully to why my noble friend thinks that this is necessary, but I have to confess that I am not convinced by her arguments. The crucial point here is that the contract is made and it contains within it various provisions. Certain of those provisions—the terms of the contract —are void, so far as they purport to do the matters described in Clause 21(1) (a) (b) or (c). But under the latter part of the clause, it is possible for an application to be made either to the county court or to the sheriff court to have the void clauses (they still exist; they are merely void) modified so that they can take effect in a manner which is to the benefit of those who have entered into the contract.
I believe that the point made by the noble Baroness is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the contract and the way in which contract law works. Against that background, I hope that I shall be able to persuade her that these subsections are an important part of the Bill. They introduce an important and significant element of flexibility into this particular piece of
2032
legislation. I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, nods his head, which is a very encouraging sign from my point of view.
Lord Templeman: Perhaps I may be permitted to tell the noble Baroness that it is a thoroughly bad point.
Lord Inglewood: The noble and learned Lord has put it rather more bluntly and more succinctly than I should have done, but we have come to the same conclusion.
Baroness O'Cathain: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Advice and assistance]:
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Clause 22 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 90:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:

Disability Discrimination Bill

  PART IIIA EDUCATION
  Education of disabled persons
  .—(1) In section 161(5) of the Education Act 1993 (information relating to pupils with special educational needs to be included in annual report), omit the words from "and in this subsection" to the end.
  (2) After section 161(5) of that Act insert—
  "(6) The annual report for each county, voluntary or grant-maintained school shall include a report containing information as to—

  (a) the arrangements for the admission of disabled pupils;

  (b) the steps taken to prevent disabled pupils from being treated less favourably than other pupils; and

  (c) the facilities provided to assist access to the school by disabled pupils.

  (7) In this section—
  "annual report" means the report prepared under the articles of government for the school in accordance with section 30 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 or, as the case may be, paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to this Act; and
  "disabled pupils" means pupils who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995."
  (3) In section 1 of the Education Act 1994 (establishment of the Teacher Training Agency) add, at the end—
  "(4) In exercising their functions, the Teacher Training Agency shall have regard to the requirements of persons who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.—).
  The noble Lord said The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment. In doing so, I think I should go a little further than just moving it, although I am tempted just to move it and sit down. Therefore, I shall speak also—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that this amendment formed part of the group that he moved when we discussed Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, tabled by the noble Baroness.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am so sorry. I am so keen to reach the end of this evening that I had jumped that. I have already spoken to Amendment No. 90, and indeed also to Amendments Nos. 91 and 92.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 91:
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Further and higher education of disabled persons
  (".—(1) The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 is amended as follows.
  (2) In section 5 (administration of funds by further education funding councils), in subsection (6) (b), after "may" insert ", subject to subsection (7A) below,".
  (3) After section 5(7) insert—
  "(7A) Without prejudice to the power to impose conditions given by subsection (6) (b) above, the conditions subject to which a council gives financial support under this section to the governing body of an institution within the further education sector—

  (a) shall require the governing body to publish disability statements at such intervals as may be prescribed; and

  (b) may include conditions relating to the provision made, or to be made, by the institution with respect to disabled persons.

  (7B) For the purposes of subsection (7A) above—
  "disability statement" means a statement containing information of a prescribed description about the provision of facilities for education made by the institution in respect of disabled persons;
  "disabled persons" means persons who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and
  "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations."
  (4) In section 8 (supplementary functions) add, at the end—
  "(4) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of its financial year, each council shall make a written report to the Secretary of State on

  (a) the progress made during the year to which the report relates in the provision of further education for disabled students in their area; and

  (b) their plans for the future provision of further education for disabled students in their area.

  (5) In subsection (4) above—
  "disabled students" means students who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and
  "financial year" means the period of twelve months ending with 31st March 1997 and each successive period of twelve months."
  (5) In section 62 (establishment of higher education funding councils), after subsection (7) insert—
  "(7A) In exercising their functions, each council shall have regard to the requirements of disabled persons.
  (7B) In subsection (7A) "disabled persons" means persons who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995."
  (6) In section 65 (administration of funds by higher education funding councils), after subsection (4) insert—

  "(4A) Without prejudice to the power to impose conditions given by subsection (3) above, the conditions subject to which a council makes grants, loans or other payments under this section to the governing body of a higher education institution shall require the governing body to publish disability statements at such intervals as may be specified.

  (4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) above—

  "disability statement" means a statement containing information of a specified description about the provision of facilities for education and research made by the institution in respect of persons who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and
  "specified" means specified in the conditions subject to which grants, loans or other payments are made by a council under this section."").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 92:
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  ("Further and higher education of disabled persons: Scotland
  .—(1) The Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In section 37 (establishment of Scottish Higher Education Funding Council) after subsection (4) insert—

  "(4A) In exercising their functions, the Council shall have regard to the requirements of disabled persons.

  (4B) In subsection (4A) above, "disabled persons" means persons who are disabled persons for the purpose of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995."

  (3) In section 40 (administration of funds by the Council), after subsection (4) insert—
  "(5) Without prejudice to the power to impose conditions given by subsection (3) above, the conditions subject to which the Council makes grants, loans or other payments under this section to the governing body of an institution within the higher education sector shall require the governing body to publish disability statements at such intervals as may be specified.
  (6) For the purposes of subsection (5) above—
  "disability statement" means a statement containing information of a specified description about the provision of facilities for education and research made by the institution in respect of persons who are disabled persons for the purpose of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and
  "specified" means specified in the conditions subject to which grants, loans or other payments are made by the Council under this section.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 93:
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:

  Part IIIB TAXIS
  Accessibility regulations
  .—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations ("accessibility regulations") for the purpose of securing that it is possible—

  (a) for disabled persons —

  (i) to get into and out of taxis in safety;

  (ii) to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort; and

  (b) for disabled persons in wheelchairs—

  (i) to be conveyed in safety into and out of taxis while remaining in their wheelchairs; and

  (ii) to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort while remaining in their wheelchairs.

  (2) Accessibility regulations may, in particular—

  (a) require any regulated taxi to conform with provisions of the regulations as to —

  (i) the size of any door opening which is for the use of passengers;

  (ii) the floor area of the passenger compartment;

  (iii) the amount of headroom in the passenger compartment;

  (iv) the fitting of restraining devices designed to ensure the stability of a wheelchair while the taxi is moving;

  (b) require the driver of any regulated taxi which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, to comply with provisions of the regulations as to the carrying of ramps or other devices designed to facilitate the loading and unloading of wheelchairs;

  2035

  (c) require the driver of any regulated taxi in which a disabled person who is in a wheelchair is being carried (while remaining in his wheelchair) to comply with provisions of the regulations as to the position in which the wheelchair is to be secured.

  (3) The driver of a regulated taxi which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, is guilty of an offence if—

  (a) he fails to comply with any requirement imposed on him by the regulations; or

  (b) the taxi fails to conform with any provision of the regulations with which it is required to conform.

  (4) A person who is guilty of such an offence is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  (5) In this section—
  "passenger compartment" has such meaning as may be prescribed;
  "regulated taxi" means any taxi to which the regulations are expressed to apply;
  "taxi" does not include a taxi which is drawn by a horse or other animal.").
  The noble Lord said: I am now where I thought that I was a moment ago. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group (Amendments Nos. 94 to 99, 143, 144 and 147). These amendments deal with taxis. I know that this is a subject of some concern to this Committee. A number of powerful points were made on this subject during the course of the Second Reading debate.
  Over the past decade taxis have increasingly provided an invaluable form of transport to disabled people. But one can only provide quality and freedom of opportunity to disabled people in this field if all vehicles are indeed accessible. Some areas have tried to achieve accessibility through the introduction of a mixed fleet. But that is simply not sustainable in the reality of taxi licensing and operations. We have evidence from areas like Stockton on Tees, where such a system was tried and failed.
  It is therefore the Government's clear intention, as part of the package of measures covering all forms of domestic, land-based public transport, to bring before this Chamber, in the course of our deliberations on this Bill, provisions to require that, from days to be determined, taxis newly licensed must, as a condition of licence, be accessible to all disabled people, including those who use wheelchairs.
  Let me make it absolutely clear that we are not talking about a universal requirement for the current purpose-built taxi design. I make no apology for stressing the point because I feel that it has been widely misunderstood and misinterpreted by sections of the trade. It is vital to the proposals that I now want to put before the Committee that that point is understood.
  Amendment No. 93 is the first of a number of new clauses which set out the powers we propose to take to ensure both that the vehicles themselves are accessible and that the drivers of those vehicles play their part in offering a service to disabled passengers.
  Amendment No. 93 is proposed so that the Secretary of State can make regulations defining standards of access which new taxis will be required to meet and so that taxi drivers can be required to carry disabled passengers in a safe and appropriate manner. Full accessibility is an important concept. There has been
  2036
  criticism of the current models of wheelchair-accessible taxi that, while they can satisfactorily accommodate the vast majority of wheelchair users, they are difficult —or indeed impossible—for many elderly and disabled people; for example, those with arthritis who are not wheelchair users.
  This point is fundamental to the proposals I am now putting before the Committee. The regulations which will follow from this enabling power will focus clearly on the needs of all disabled people and will be drawn up in close consultation with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. We will be defining design parameters based on research and experience to provide optimum levels of accessibility. We will expect a range of manufacturers to address the market that will be created.
  The second part of this clause is simply to ensure that, once accessible vehicles are widely available, taxi drivers recognise that it is a fundamental part of their duties to carry disabled passengers using the relevant equipment in the correct and safe way. While most taxi drivers are only too willing to provide a service for disabled passengers, I am sorry to say that it is not unusual to hear reports of drivers who have refused to pick up a passenger in a wheelchair on the pretext, for example, that they are not carrying the ramps.
  The purpose of the new clause in Amendment No. 94 is to ensure an orderly transition to the new requirements without damaging the viability of the taxi trade. That, of course, is the last thing we want to do. Subsection (1) provides that a licensing authority may, after a certain date, only license taxis which comply with the construction requirements that will be set out in the regulations.
  We are also mindful of the need to protect the interests of the cab trade, much of which comprises small businesses. While it is reasonable to expect new taxis to be fully accessible, it would, I believe, be unreasonable to require someone who had recently purchased and licensed a new non-accessible vehicle to dispose of it prematurely. Subsections (2) and (3) therefore provide that, where a non-accessible vehicle is already licensed as a taxi, it may be re-licensed as such. That does not mean that we should allow non-accessible vehicles to go on indefinitely. Subsection (4) provides for the Secretary of State to set an end date beyond which no non-accessible vehicle can be re-licensed. That date will only be set after full consultation with the trade.
  The Committee will be aware that there are a number of cities and towns which have already set dates by which all taxis must be accessible—London, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Manchester. It is important, both to protect the investment already made by the trade in those areas and to safeguard the interests of disabled people, that there is no slippage from those dates. Subsection (5) provides for dates earlier than those set in regulations to be applied by orders made by the Secretary of State.
  Turning to Amendment No. 95, it is in no one's interests—least of all disabled people—to see the trade reduced or destroyed. The Government believe that the effect of this Bill will in fact be to open up significant additional new markets to the trade. We have

  2037
  nonetheless listened carefully to the trade and taken full note of its anxieties. We therefore intend to make regulations that will enable the Secretary of State to grant an order exempting an authority from the requirements that I have outlined, provided a number of clear criteria are met. Those are, first, that because of the specific circumstances of an area it would be inappropriate to impose the requirements and that to do so would result in an unacceptable reduction in the number of taxis in an area. The legislation will put the onus on any authority wishing to apply for such an exemption to carry out appropriate consultation with all sections of the local community (including, as a matter of course, disabled people and the taxi trade), to publish and make known their proposals and to consider representations made before making their application. Once the application has been made, the Secretary of State must consult his statutory advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. He may then grant or refuse the exemption on the basis of the application, subject to such terms and conditions as he thinks fit.
  This clause is a recognition of the enormously wide variations in types of area and of taxi use in this country, from a densely populated urban area with a substantial transitory as well as resident population to a very rural area where the taxi driver may in many cases be part-time.
  The strong presumption must be that, whatever the area, there will be now, or may be in the future, disabled people whose mobility would be enhanced by the availability of accessible vehicles. We must recognise and allow for the possibility, however, that the requirements set out in these clauses could jeopardise the viability of the trade in a particular area to the point at which there ceased to be taxi provision for anyone. That is not our intention.
  In Amendment No. 96, it is one thing to provide for taxis to be designed or adapted to be able to carry a passenger in a wheelchair but we need also to ensure that the drivers of those vehicles are then required to convey those passengers. The new clause, Amendment No. 96, sets out the duties which will apply to drivers of regulated taxis when they are hired by a disabled person. These duties not only extend to the carriage of disabled persons, but also to the manner in which those persons should be carried. Any driver who fails to comply with these duties will be guilty of an offence.
  For those drivers who are concerned that all of this will be a burden on taxi drivers, let me assure them that there is protection. For example, we are not proposing that the driver should be required to carry someone who is disabled in circumstances when he would not legally be required to carry any other passenger.
  We have also made provision for a licensing authority to exempt a taxi driver from these duties on either medical grounds or on the ground that his physical condition makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for him to comply with these duties. This provision is particularly important in ensuring that we do not discriminate against any disabled driver who wants to work as a taxi driver and who otherwise fulfils the
  2038
  criteria for that type of employment. We do not, of course, want this exemption provision to be abused and so we have provided a number of safeguards to that end.
  In Amendment No. 97 we are concerned not only with the needs of wheelchair users but, just as importantly, with the needs of other disabled people, including those with sensory impairments. There have been reports from across the country that blind and partially sighted people have been refused access to taxis because they are accompanied by a guide dog. The same discrimination is faced by people who use hearing dogs. Refusal may be justified where the driver has a medical condition which is aggravated by dogs—for example, some form of asthma—but for the most part there can be no justification for a taxi driver refusing to carry someone with a guide or hearing dog in circumstances when he would otherwise take other passengers.
  This clause deals with such practice by imposing duties on taxi drivers to convey a disabled person accompanied by a guide dog or hearing dog. It will affect all taxi drivers, not only those who drive regulated taxis. Drivers will have a duty to carry the passenger's guide dog or hearing dog and to allow it to remain with the passenger. The driver will not be allowed to make an additional charge for carrying the dog in his taxi. Where a driver fails to comply he will be guilty of an offence. There will be provision for licensing authorities to exempt taxi drivers on medical grounds—for example, they may be allergic to dogs—and to issue them with exemption certificates.
  On Amendment No. 98, I have already mentioned that under Clauses 22G and 22H it will be possible for licensing authorities to issue exemption certificates to drivers and exemption notices for display in the taxis concerned to the effect that the named driver is exempt from the duties imposed by those clauses. The purpose of the new clause is to safeguard against the possibility of forgery and the fraudulent use of these certificates and notices.
  In Amendment No. 99 we have the legislative provision governing taxis in Scotland which is to be contained in the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982—an Act which I remember well in its passage through another place. The framework of the Act is such that this one short clause will enable the taxi provisions in the Bill in respect of England and Wales to be introduced for disabled people in Scotland by means of regulations.
  Amendments Nos. 143 and 147 are simply provided to cover the definitions of the additional terms "accessibility regulations", "licensing authority" and "taxi" introduced under the principal amendments, Amendments Nos. 93 to 98.
  I hope that I have explained, if at a little length, the purpose of the amendments and new clauses that I am introducing which arise as a result of undertakings given in another place. I beg to move.
  Lord Gladwin of Clee: The proposals have received a somewhat lukewarm welcome from the taxi trade and organisations representing taxi drivers. They are not convinced of the practicality of the proposals and are

  2039
  concerned about the cost to them of the adaptations that will be required to provide disabled access to their vehicles. To a large extent, the trade is composed of single-owner drivers. If all licensing authorities required all taxis to be wheelchair accessible, the trade would be decimated in many provincial areas. I understand and appreciate that that is not the Government's intention, but there will be pressures on licensing authorities to require at least a percentage of taxis to be wheelchair accessible. The risk is that a number of owner-drivers would defect to the private hire sector which, of course, is not covered by this legislation.
  For a number of disabled people, a taxi is their primary and, in some cases, only means of transport. It would therefore be tragic if, as a result of this legislation, the availability of taxis was to be curtailed. In order to allay the anxieties felt by the trade, can the Minister say whether the Government will consider the following? First, as wheelchair-accessible taxis or taxis with swivel seats will become the disabled person's public service vehicle, should not they be treated in the same way as other public service vehicles—that is, as far as the level of value added tax is concerned and the rebate on fuel excise duty?
  Secondly, could regulations be issued requiring local authorities to introduce taxi-card schemes? Thirdly, will the Government think about including the private hire sector in this legislation? While there is a clear legal distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles, outside London there is considerable operational overlap. Taxis are often saloon cars, indistinguishable from those operated by private hire companies. Bookings of private hire vehicles are often made in exactly the same way as for taxis, by telephone for immediate use, and that is the way that severely disabled people and wheelchair users get their transport.
  It seems illogical to licensed taxi drivers that the private hire sector should have no responsibility for providing disabled access to their vehicles, particularly when I understand that the Government envisage that private hire companies will be granted sole concessions at stations and airports. I am told that, for instance, unless you order a taxi with wheelchair access in advance, you cannot get one off the rank at Gatwick because a private hire company has the sole concession. That position will not change in the future because private hire vehicles are not included in the legislation.
  When introducing the amendments, the Minister referred to consultation with the taxi trade. Perhaps I may ask him for an assurance that there will be consultation with the organisations that represent taxi drivers. I should be grateful if the Minister could comment either now or at a later stage on some of the concerns that I have raised.
  Lord Addington: I have already ensured that the Minister should have in front of him a list of objections to—or rather, questions about—these amendments. The questions have been raised by my noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, who cannot be present. They are questions which have been raised about these amendments by taxi operators. They sound sensible to
  2040
  me, but the people operating the service have questions and concerns. It would be helpful to the Committee if we had answers to those questions.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On these Benches broadly speaking we welcome the Government's proposals. About 4.5 million people have a mobility problem and 500,000 people are wheelchair users. In London, as we all know, we have the two extremes. We have hackney carriages (the black taxis) licensed by the police, which have ramps for wheelchair access until, as the taxi drivers tell us, they are awfully sorry, but they have been stolen. In London we also have private hire cars—the minicabs—which are unlicensed, unregulated, inaccessible and too often unsafe. In other words, in London we have the extremes.
  Outside London there are no such extremes. We have hackney carriages which, especially in the cities, are increasingly black taxis, but they can be saloon cars, which may be preferable in rural areas where one travels long distances. We have also private hire cars which are almost always saloon cars. But unlike London, as my noble friend Lord Gladwin said, because both are licensed and regulated by the local authority, the safety of the car and the character of the driver are checked. So there is considerable overlap between the two services.
  The problems inside and outside London are very different. Inside London, black taxis are safe and accessible. Minicabs are neither, but should be. Outside London, hackney carriages and private hire cars are safe but both may be inaccessible. They should be accessible.
  The Government's amendments, which recognise the difference between London, the cities, suburban areas and rural areas, are welcome, but I believe that the Minister has some questions put to him by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, which need to be answered. Until my noble friend talked about Gatwick and the minicab concession and the fact that an integral part of public transport would be outside the requirements of public transport accessibility, I was not aware that the problem existed. The Minister must come back, if he will, with some ways of solving that problem.
  As the amendments stand, we welcome the phasing in for existing operators. We welcome the agreement that, in rural areas especially, swivel seats in a saloon car may be more appropriate than running a black FX cab, although it should perhaps be remembered that the driver of a saloon car with a swivel seat may have to lift someone from a wheelchair into that swivel seat. At 16 stone, a disabled person may be too heavy for a driver. I recognise that the Minister has emphasised that taxi drivers who are themselves disabled will have some protection, but we are getting into difficult areas in which protection for the taxi driver is to some extent bought at the expense of rights of access for the disabled user. There are no easy solutions, and clearly there must be consultation. We share the Minister's concern that this is a very difficult area.
  Of those disabled people who prefer black cabs, some 30 per cent. say that they could not manage a saloon car, whereas of those who prefer a saloon car, only 3 per cent. could not manage a black cab. So it is clearly right to impose accessibility on hackney carriages. Any

  2041
  customer who prefers a saloon car can always hire one by telephone. As my noble friend Lord Gladwin said, it may be right to expect government assistance to make hackney carriages more physically accessible.
  I realise that there are difficulties, especially as the trade is seeking to maintain a distinction between hackney carriages and private hire cars. I respect those views. I realise that outside London many hackney carriage drivers with saloon cars do not want a black FX imposed upon them as new ones cost about £24,000. Even secondhand ones—a Metro, for example—cost between £8,000 and £10,000. Having a black taxi cab often stops the private owner using it for private purposes when not plying for trade.
  In my city some 10 years ago, we required all hackney carriages to become black taxis within 10 years as they were replaced. There was huge resistance from the taxi trade and a number of insults were thrown around the place. Now virtually all licensed hackney carriage drivers are delighted with the change. The reason is that when the Government deregulated the quota system for hackney carriages at places such as railway stations anyone could then buy a plate. It was not limited by the local authority estimate of the trade available. That meant that many people came in and bought a plate in order to skim off the cream of the trade in the few weeks preceding Christmas.
  However, by requiring all hackney carriage plate drivers to drive an FX we have kept out the cowboys. The trade has been "professionalised" and the existing hackney carriage drivers have substantially benefited. Most of them now welcome the change that we imposed on them, although they resisted it furiously at the time. Of course, local people retain the choice between black cabs and private saloon cars and they wish that choice to remain.
  Perhaps I may make an additional point that has not been mentioned—the need to train the taxi drivers who will be required to have vehicles which are fully accessible. Too many taxi drivers are rough, quick and impatient with disabled people. They do not know how to handle them, in an almost literal sense. Even the best intentioned face a dilemma: the longer they take and the more careful they are, the more the meter ticks up, the more the fare rises and the more displeased the disabled person will be.
  Those are the dilemmas and the Government are doing their best to tackle them. We all accept they they are delicate and difficult issues. However, we broadly welcome the amendments. We welcome the phasing, the exemptions, the timing, the flexibility and the promise to consult. We hope that with these amendments hackney carriages will become what they should become—a recognised part of public transport, networking disabled people with able-bodied people and with full access. We support the amendments.
  12.45 a.m.
  Lord Renton: I listened carefully to the noble Baroness and was most interested in what she said.
  2042
  However, I believe that her conclusion is inconsistent with her earlier arguments. We shall have a chance of considering that further at the Report stage.
  I have no objection to the new clauses under Amendments Nos. 97, 98 and 99. However, those in Amendments Nos. 93 to 96 inclusive worry me a great deal. What worries me most is that they appear to be in conflict with what was said by my noble friend Lord Mackay in reply to the debate on Second Reading. Several Members had raised the issue of taxis and accessibility to them. My noble friend said:
  "I can assure the House that there is no intention to require every new taxi to be purpose built; nor do we intend to subject taxis to all the requirements in Part III of the Bill on service providers to make reasonable modifications. I can also assure the House that, in framing the new access standards, the Government will be mindful of the problems facing taxi operators in rural areas. Coming from the West Highlands as I do, I am well aware of such difficulties".— [Official Report, 22/5/95; col. 890.]
  It is good to hear my noble friend express such understanding.
  What worries me is that because of the power being taken to lay down certain standards to achieve uniformity and, in particular under Amendment No. 96 wheelchair accessibility, we would be creating inflexibility. From correspondence and conversation which I have had with the Minister concerned, Mr. Steven Norris, I understand that the Government will use those new clauses in such a way as to ensure that at some future date all licensed taxis outside of London, like those in London, will have to be wheelchair accessible unless exemptions are granted. If that were so, it would be contrary not only to the interests of taxi operators, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, said and the noble Baroness rather suggested, but contrary to the interests of disabled people, who require all kinds of taxis to be available to them. Of course, it would also be against the interests of the public in general if we imposed obligations upon the taxi trade which led to there being fewer taxis outside London. That would be very unfortunate.
  I do not have the facts and figures, but my information is that in East Anglia a number of taxi businesses have gone out of operation, and that was without anything of this kind happening. Therefore, we must be very careful about imposing obligations on the taxi trade, not only, as I have said, in its own interests but also in the interests of disabled people and the public in general.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord said that a number of taxi businesses in East Anglia are no longer functioning. I am sure that that may be true, because quite a lot of them have been under-cut by extra vehicles in the trade. It must be said that driving is the last resort for unemployed men. When hackney carriage plates became deregulated, it was very easy to move into the taxi trade and under-cut those already in it. Has the number of taxis, as opposed to the number of taxi businesses, reduced?
  Lord Renton: I can only go on what I have been told. I am sorry that I do not have the statistics, but I have no reason to mistrust those who have informed me. Indeed, I know that in Huntingdon it is abundantly clear

  2043
  that there are now roughly two-thirds the number of taxis that there were about 10 years ago. I give that as an example within my knowledge.
  It will be for the licensing committees of councils outside London to decide whether to grant or refuse taxi cab licences. In doing so, they would have to comply with what is laid down in the regulations. It is regrettable that the Bill does not provide for the licensing authorities to have immediate power to grant exemptions. They are not allowed to grant exemptions unless regulations are made, under Amendment No. 95, by the Secretary of State and he, in making those regulations, cannot do so generally. He can do so only:
  "for the purpose of enabling any relevant licensing authority to apply to him for an order (an 'exemption order') exempting the authority from the requirements of section (New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations)".
  There are times, perhaps, when the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, but I think that that is a rather out-moded view. If I may say so, I believe that it would be far better for my noble friend the Minister not to move the amendments, especially the one from which I just quoted. The Government could then consider what has been said tonight and make sure that the undertaking that was given on Second Reading is really fulfilled. That would ensure that we do not lack that flexibility—that variety of offer of service—which is so necessary for disabled people.
  One could go on to talk about the subject for a very long time; indeed, I have a file of correspondence on the matter three inches thick which I have received over the past 18 months. I have no interest in the taxi trade, but because of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and I did under the 1985 Act when we introduced some provisions that both sides found acceptable, which ensured that the taxi trade would be fairly treated, the latter has seemed to lean on me ever since. Of course, I have been happy for the trade to do so, but, in this case, I must look to the interests of disabled people, including my own daughter. Therefore, I wish I could persuade my noble friend Lord Mackay not to move Amendments Nos. 93 to 96. It would be far better—indeed, it would save paper, time and much trouble—if he could introduce fresh amendments on Report modifying the current amendments in the light of the views expressed by the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee.
  Lord Templeman: I, too, have had representations made to me although I have no personal interest in the taxi trade. Those representations have not been made by the unemployed or people who throw disabled persons out of taxis; they have been made by long-standing taxi drivers who have large mortgages, large hire-purchase debts in relation to their cars, children at local schools and have experienced a depression over the past four years. On their behalf I would say that, notwithstanding the honeyed words of the Minister, their fears are that the effect of the amendments would be that everyone would have to buy a black taxi, which costs £24,000. Any other modifications would cost the same. Certainly, a London taxi would cost £24,000. That is the figure that I have been given. Therefore, taxi drivers believe that they would be faced with the choice of either paying £24,000 for a taxi or going out of business. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am much obliged. The noble and learned Lord is certainly right about the cost of a new London taxi; but, as far as I am aware, most of the black taxis used outside London are second-hand vehicles the going price of which is between £8,000 and £9,000. Further, I should point out that the amendments would not stipulate black taxis as the only way of holding a Hackney Carriage plate.
  Lord Templeman: In theory the amendments would not do so; but, in practice, there will only be one taxi that fulfils the requirements and that will be the black taxi which, notwithstanding its second-hand price, would cost £24,000. Taxi drivers fear that they will either have to pay that sum or go out of business. That would be an onerous burden, but one which they ought to bear on behalf of the disabled if it were necessary and if it were wanted.
  However, the trade's point is that there are a large number of disabled persons who do not like taxis. I do not say so myself; indeed, I am very happy with taxis and use them all the time. Many people find that the black taxi is not suitable for their disablement and they prefer the other kind. But, instead of having a choice which is now the case, they will have no choice: it will be a black taxi or nothing throughout the country. That will apply in rural and suburban areas and, even down in Bodmin, we shall be seeing fleets of black taxis, subject to the exemption power which is very limited. It depends on the local authority and is very limited because the Minister wants to produce that effect.
  I merely made the point that that is the effect that the trade believes will be produced and that, far from giving more choice to the disabled, it will give them less. Those are the fears of the trade.
  1 a.m.
  Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): I had not intended to intervene, but perhaps as a wheelchair user I could just say how much it has absolutely revolutionised my life and the lives of other wheelchair users to have the accessible black taxi. It makes all the difference having a larger proportion of them available already, because when they were originally introduced one had to give three days' notice if one wanted to take a taxi. Now one can be fairly sure of getting one on the street, but it would be a lot more useful to know that if one hailed a taxi it was accessible and, of course, one would get more and more wheelchair users using them if they knew they could get them.
  Lord Monkswell: I hope I may raise a concern that I have with particular reference to Amendment No. 95, whose rubric states,
  "Exemption from accessibility regulations".
  Over most of the country we shall have—over possibly a little period of time—accessible taxis, and disabled people will get used to those, and as the noble Baroness has said, it will revolutionise their lives, as it has revolutionised lives where such taxis already exist within local areas. However, what may be applicable and understood as a sort of mechanism for local provision is all very well—the implication of Amendment No. 95 is that in certain areas there will be certain conditions—but we are talking about national legislation which should apply nationally. I would hope that we would arrive, over

  2045
  time, at a situation where a disabled person can leave London and go to any part of the country and know that he or she can get an accessible taxi without any fuss or bother, as can be done in London, Manchester and other major cities.
  The concern I have about Amendment No. 95 is that it gives no timescale. I think what may be necessary here is a transitional timescale—it could be five or 10 years—which states that after this transitional period the taxis will be fully accessible. I am concerned also that we should recognise that in certain areas there will be financial difficulties. There are depressed areas, particularly some rural areas, where the trade may not be very strong and where, historically, there has not been a provision. We need to consider how we get over the economic problems of the trade to ensure that the trade is not forced into decline, but that at the same time provision is made that conforms to a national pattern which does not effectively result in some areas of the country being almost no-go areas for disabled people, or where it is more difficult for disabled people to get this provision so effectively disabled people are discriminated against in some areas. I think concern has been expressed in a number of areas about these amendments. It is the first time we have seen them and I hope that the Minister will be able to take on board some of the concerns that have been raised.
  Baroness Stedman: I support the amendments and I appreciate the fact that the Government have put them down and that we are getting somewhere with taxis for disabled people. The door-to-door public transport which taxis provide is particularly important for disabled people to enable them to get from where they are to where they want to go. I believe there has been a real misunderstanding of the Government's intention. My reading of the new clause is certainly not the same as that of my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman because, as I see it, it does not involve the complete replacement of a fleet of private saloon cars by vehicles accessible to passengers in wheelchairs.
  Much has been made of the problems in rural areas and, as I understand it, outside London it is proposed that all the hackney cabs should be capable of meeting the needs of all customers, including those who use wheelchairs and those who are ambulant but disabled. This does not mean that all the taxi drivers must have London style taxis. Indeed I understand that the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the advisory committee to the Minister, is already working out and sorting out specifications for suitable vehicles, perhaps even better than the ones that are on the market now.
  There has to be a range of vehicles which can provide suitable access for all disabled people. The private hire vehicles will still be available for those who need or prefer to use a saloon car. Indeed, I am told that there are twice as many private hire vehicles in service as there are hackney cabs. I believe that the new proposals take account of the interests of people with disabilities, whatever that disability may be, without any discrimination.
  When it comes to engaging a personal vehicle to take one on a journey, personal preference for a saloon car will continue to be met in full in future. People who have to travel in wheelchairs need a vehicle of the dimensions
  2046
  which will accommodate them. That is not one of the standard saloon cars. Their needs have not been met in full under the existing arrangements. So they are still, to some extent, victims of discrimination. The proposals before us will change all that and put an end to such discrimination.
  I hate to mention East Anglia again but my city of Peterborough has done the same as the city of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. We have black cabs on our ranks now. There was almost a riot when the city council set a time limit by which they had to be introduced, but I do not believe that one of those drivers would now go back to a saloon car.
  The changes will not happen overnight. We are not placing an undue strain on the taxi trade. No one expects new accessible vehicles to be on the roads, in the hands of all taxi drivers, on the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that we are reasonable creatures. I believe that the Government have been reasonable. We hope that in due course we shall be able to look back and say that when we brought in this legislation it was one of the best things we did for disabled people in this country. I support the amendments.
  Lord Renton: I wonder whether the noble Baroness appreciates that it is the clear intention, as expressed to me, that under the proposed regulations all taxis shall be made accessible to wheelchairs. The only other vehicles the public will be able to obtain which are wheelchair accessible, supposing they and even disabled people want as much room in a vehicle as possible for passengers, are private hire cars. Private hire cars have no obligation to wait at taxi ranks, mainly at stations where taxis are so valuable. Therefore a rigidity will result from the regulations of which the noble Baroness has spoken.
  Baroness Stedman: In many cities taxi ranks are normally adjacent to a depot or place where one can call for a private hire saloon car if one wants one. In rural areas, if there is no need for them and the local authorities are satisfied that there is a sufficiently mixed fleet to do the jot that is necessary, they can recommend to the Minister that they have a remission from doing that job, and they will receive a certificate of exemption.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate. It is impressive that Members of the Committee who would have wished long since to have been in taxis on their way home have decided to wait and debate this issue.
  I find myself in a rather unusual position in that the Opposition support me on this amendment. As a normal rule of thumb, if the Opposition support me I wonder if I am right. In this case I think that I am right. I was relieved when eventually the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, made some gentle criticisms of the amendments I have put forward. My faith in my rule of thumb was re-established.
  Perhaps I may deal with a number of the points which have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, suggested some budgetary concessions. He will not be surprised when I tell him that those are matters for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I shall go no further this evening.
  On the question of putting pressure on local authorities to introduce the taxi card scheme, the taxi working group of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee

  2047
  is drawing up guidelines for local authorities on taxi card schemes. Those guidelines will provide local authorities with valuable information about the operation of such schemes. They will be issued to every local authority in the next month or two.
  The noble Lord raised a problem regarding Gatwick. I understand that Gatwick is unusual in having a private hire concession. However, there is nothing to stop private hire firms at Gatwick having accessible vehicles. In practice, wheelchair accessible taxis are available from Crawley after a short delay.
  The noble Lord reminded me of an irritation at Glasgow Airport. Because two local authorities operate a most amazing system—both authorities of the party opposite, I may say—you can have a black cab if you travel from Glasgow to the airport, but if you travel from the airport back to Glasgow you cannot have a black cab. You must take a saloon car type licensed by Renfrew District Council. It seems the most amazing situation. But never mind. That is part and parcel of the restrictions which many people seem so happy to have in this trade.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I believe that the Minister accepts the point so well made by my noble friend Lord Gladwin of Clee about private hire cars having a monopoly of a public transport place, as appears to be the case at Gatwick, if one regards taxis as public transport. In place of those taxis we have private hire cars. The Minister has an obligation to tell the Committee how in that situation the needs of disabled people will be more adequately met.
  I do not believe that what he said regarding Crawley is good enough. Whether the answer is a mixed fleet, given the experience of authorities in Stockton and so on, I am not sure. However, he must find a better answer than the reply he gave about Gatwick. Otherwise, we shall harry him about it.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to talk to the British Airports Authority about the situation if the noble Baroness will promise to talk to her colleagues, the socialists on Renfrew District Council, about the monopoly that they have allowed on their taxi ranks outside Glasgow Airport. There is a bargain! I suspect that I may have success more quickly than the noble Baroness will have with Renfrew District Council.
  Lord Gladwin of Clee: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. However, my reference to Gatwick was as an example. I understand that the Government envisage that private hire will gain sole concession at airports and railway stations. That is my understanding of a proposal made by the Government some months ago. I cited Gatwick as an example where that is occurring.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that I can answer that point at this time of night. I sought to answer it in relation to Gatwick. I recognise that there are some problems. I was not aware of that issue, but I promise that I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends and perhaps discuss the matter with the British Airports Authority.
  Perhaps I may respond to questions raised by a number of Members of the Committee but referred to in the round by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Our policy has the
  2048
  full support of our disability advisers, the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, which is representative of a wide range of disability interests. I wish to stress again that we are not talking about taxis which are suitable only for wheelchair users—a criticism which has been levelled at the current design of the purpose built London-type taxis. As I said, we are talking about making taxis available for all disabled people.
  We envisage that the regulations will cover a wide range of design features to meet the needs of the population as a whole, including the elderly and disabled people with every kind of mobility difficulty. We shall consult fully on the detail of regulations. There are design possibilities coming in, I gather, which could indeed provide an answer to some of the problems in rural areas for a car that is perhaps less of a taxi and more of an ordinary motor car.
  The suggestion that we propose to eliminate freedom of choice between saloon cars and wheelchair accessible cars is not correct. The taxi trade works on the cab rank principle. The person at the head of the queue takes the first cab on the rank. Members of the Committee will know that any attempt to go to the nearest taxi, even if the most convenient and on a pouring wet night, is usually not totally appreciated by the taxi driver at that moment at the head of the queue. So there is difficulty if one picks and chooses. Where there is choice—and we do not wish to eliminate it—it is in the pre-booked part of the system. We believe that there the saloon car system will continue to exist.
  I said at Second Reading that it was our clear intention not to require all taxis to be purpose built. Nothing has changed. Our only difficulty may be a matter of semantics. The aim of the proposals before us tonight is to set down design parameters for accessibility which can be met in a wide range of vehicles. Some may be designed from the drawing board as taxis, others may be adaptations of existing vehicles or vehicles that are beginning to appear. I am not the greatest car expert, but in my view some of the manufacturers are bringing forward rather odd-shaped vehicles with high backs and the like, which must be fairly readily capable of adaptation.
  In either case, we are not talking about perpetuating and spreading the current design of the purpose-built London style taxis or forcing their adaptation on unwilling authorities, on the unwilling taxi drivers or unwilling consumers. I hope that that will help the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman.
  I know that there is concern about the timescales and we have no intention of introducing requirements over such a period as would undermine the viability of the taxi trade. If it would help to clarify the point, I should be pleased to consider whether an amendment to specify timescales can be brought forward at a later stage.
  My noble friend Lord Renton is particularly interested in the matter and he mentioned his concern about Huntingdon and the West Highlands. I thought for a minute that I was surrounded by the East Anglian Mafia, as one Member of the Committee after another gave me examples from East Anglia. My noble friend knows that from my background in the West Highlands I appreciate what he is talking about. On islands where the taxi trade is important, the amount of traffic is pretty limited. We

  2049
  believe that the licensing authorities are in the best position to know when they should apply to the Secretary of State for an exemption.
  I would prefer the Committee to pass the amendments tonight rather than for me to accept my noble friend's suggestion. Obviously, as I always do, I shall reflect on the points made and draw them to the attention of my honourable friend the Minister responsible for local transport. I shall discuss with him the various matters raised by the Committee and if I feel there is the need for any fine-tuning or amendment, I shall be happy and more than willing to table it at Report stage. Any other Member of the Committee who feels that I do not see the situation correctly may also put down an amendment for that stage.
  There is a difficult balance to find and we would be foolish not to recognise that. It is easy to deal with it in the large cities but I understand and fully appreciate the difficulties in the rural areas and countryside. It is essential that we realise that taxis are an important part of everyone's transport. That includes transport for disabled persons. I therefore hope that the Committee will accept that we in the Government feel that we have a reasonable balance between the interests of disabled people and the taxi trade and of all taxi users. I therefore hope that the Committee will agree with me and accept the amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  1.15 a.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 99:
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations
  (".—(1) No licensing authority shall grant a licence ("a new licence") for a taxi to ply for hire in an area unless the vehicle conforms with those provisions of the accessibility regulations with which it will be required to conform if licensed.
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a taxi if the licensing authority is renewing an existing licence for that taxi.
  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a licence is an existing licence in relation to a taxi only if it is in force immediately before the grant of the new licence with respect to that taxi.
  (4) The Secretary of State may by order provide for subsections (2) and (3) to cease to have effect on such date as may be specified in the order.
  (5) Separate orders may be made under subsection (4) with respect to different areas.").
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Exemption from accessibility regulations
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations ("exemption regulations") for the purpose of enabling any relevant licensing authority to apply to him for an order (an "exemption order") exempting the authority from the requirements of section (New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations).
  (2) Exemption regulations may, in particular, make provision requiring a licensing authority proposing to apply for an exemption order—

  (a) to carry out such consultations as may be prescribed;

  (b) to publish the proposal in the prescribed manner;

  (c) to consider any representations made to it about the proposal, before applying for the order;

  (d) to make its application in the prescribed form.

  (3) A licensing authority may apply for an exemption order only if it is satisfied—

  (a) that, having regard to the circumstances prevailing in its area, it would be inappropriate for the requirements of section (New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations) to apply; and

  (b) that the application of section (New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations) would result in an unacceptable reduction in the number of taxis in its area.

  (4) After considering any application for an exemption order and consulting the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he considers appropriate, the Secretary of State may—

  (a) make an exemption order in the terms of the application;

  (b) make an exemption order in such other terms as he considers appropriate; or

  (c) refuse to make an exemption order.

  (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations ("swivel seat regulations") make provision requiring any exempt taxi plying for hire in an area in respect of which an exemption order is in force to conform with provisions of the regulations as to the fitting and use of swivel seats.
  (6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision with respect to swivel seat regulations similar to that made by section (New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations) with respect to accessibility regulations.
  (7) In this sectionߞ
  "exempt taxi" means a taxi in relation to which section (New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations)(1) would apply if the exemption order were not in force;
  "relevant licensing authority" means a licensing authority responsible for licensing taxis in any area of England and Wales other than the area to which the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 applies; and
  "swivel seats" has such meaning as may be prescribed.").
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs
  (".—(1) This section imposes duties on the driver of a regulated taxi which has been hired—

  (a) by or for a disabled person who is in a wheelchair; or

  (b) by a person who wishes such a disabled person to accompany him in the taxi.

  (2) In this section—
  "carry" means carry in the taxi concerned;
  "the passenger" means the disabled person concerned; and
  "regulated taxi" has the same meaning as in section (Accessibility regulations).
  (3) The duties are —

  (a) to carry the passenger while he remains in his wheelchair;

  (b) not to make any additional charge for doing so;

  (c) if the passenger chooses to sit in a passenger seat, to carry the wheelchair;

  (d) to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the passenger is carried in safety and in reasonable comfort;

  (e) to give such assistance as may be reasonably required—

  (i) to enable the passenger to get into or out of the taxi;

  (ii) if the passenger wishes to remain in his wheelchair, to enable him to be conveyed into and out of the taxi while in his wheelchair;

  (iii) to load the passenger's luggage into or out of the taxi;

  (iv) if the passenger does not wish to remain in his wheelchair, to load the wheelchair into or out of the taxi.

  (4) Nothing in this section is to be taken to require the driver of any taxi—

  (a) except in the case of a taxi of a prescribed description, to carry more than one person in a wheelchair, or more than one wheelchair, on any one journey; or

  2051

  (b) to carry any person in circumstances in which it would otherwise be lawful for him to refuse to carry that person.

  (5) A driver of a regulated taxi who fails to comply with any duty imposed on him by this section is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  (6) In any proceedings for an offence under this section, it is a defence for the accused to show that, even though at the time of the alleged offence the taxi conformed with those provisions of the accessibility regulations with which it was required to conform, it would not have been possible for the wheelchair in question to be carried in safety in the taxi.
  (7) If the licensing authority is satisfied that it is appropriate to exempt a person from the duties imposed by this section—

  (a) on medical grounds, or

  (b) on the ground that his physical condition makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for him to comply with the duties imposed on drivers by this section,

  it shall issue him with a certificate of exemption.
  (8) A certificate of exemption shall be issued for such period as may be specified in the certificate.
  (9) The driver of a regulated taxi is exempt from the duties imposed by this section if—

  (a) a certificate of exemption issued to him under this section is in force; and

  (b) the prescribed notice of his exemption is exhibited on the taxi in the prescribed manner.").

  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs
  (".—(1) This section imposes duties on the driver of a taxi which has been hired—

  (a) by or for a disabled person who is accompanied by his guide dog or hearing dog, or

  (b) by a person who wishes such a person to accompany him in the taxi.

  (2) The disabled person is referred to in this section as "the passenger".
  (3) The duties are—

  (a)to carry the passenger's dog and allow it to remain with the passenger; and

  (b) not to make any additional charge for doing so.

  (4) A driver of a taxi who fails to comply with any duty imposed on him by this section is guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
  (5) If the licensing authority is satisfied that it is appropriate on medical grounds to exempt a person from the duties imposed by this section, it shall issue him with a certificate of exemption.
  (6) In determining whether to issue a certificate of exemption, the licensing authority shall, in particular, have regard to the physical characteristics of the taxi which the applicant drives or those of any kind of taxi in relation to which he requires the certificate.
  (7) A certificate of exemption shall be issued—

  (a) with respect to a specified taxi or a specified kind of taxi; and

  (b) for such period as may be specified in the certificate.

  (8) The driver of a taxi is exempt from the duties imposed by this section if—

  (a) a certificate of exemption issued to him under this section is in force with respect to the taxi; and

  (b) the prescribed notice of his exemption is exhibited on the taxi in the prescribed manner.

  (9) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of this section, prescribe any other category of dog trained to assist a disabled person who has a disability of a prescribed kind.
  (10) This section applies in relation to any such prescribed category of dog as it applies in relation to guide dogs.
  (11) In this section—
  "guide dog" means a dog which has been trained to guide a blind person; and
  2052
  "hearing dog" means a dog which has been trained to assist a deaf person.").
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  Forgery of exemption certificates
  (".—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to deceive, he—

  (a) forges, alters or uses an exemption document;

  (b) lends an exemption document to any other person;

  (c) allows an exemption document to be used by any other person;

  (d) makes or has in his possession any document which closely resembles an exemption document.

  (2) In subsection (1) "exemption document" means a certificate of exemption issued under section (Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs) or (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs) or a notice of a kind mentioned in section (Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs)(9) (b) or (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs)(8) (b).
  (3) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

  (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;

  (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.").

  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  ("Taxis: requirements as to disabled passengers in Scotland
  .—(1) Part II of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (licensing and regulation) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (4) of section 10 (suitability of vehicle for use as taxi)—

  (a) after "authority" insert "- (a)"; and

  (b) at the end add "; and

  (b) as not being so suitable if it does not so comply."
  (3) In section 20 (regulations relating to taxis etc.) after subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2) above, regulations under those subsections may make such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in relation to the carrying in taxis of disabled persons (within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995) and such provision may in particular prescribe—

  (a) requirements as to the carriage of wheelchairs, guide dogs and hearing dogs;

  (b) a date from which any such provision is to apply and the extent to which it is to apply; and

  (c) the circumstances in which an exemption from such provision may be granted in respect of any taxi or taxi driver,

  and in this subsection—
  "guide dog" means a dog which has been trained to guide a blind person; and
  "hearing dog" means a dog which has been trained to assist a deaf person.'"').
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 100:
  After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
  ("Duty of local authority to provide advice
  . It shall be the duty of local authorities to provide advice and assistance to providers of services with regard to their duties under section 15.").
  The noble Lord said: This is the last opportunity this evening for my noble friend to accept an amendment, so I hope that he will take the opportunity. He has not done so so far on the Bill. The purpose of this amendment is to require local authorities to advise providers on access provision, probably via access officers.
  As the Committee knows, Clause 18 enables the Secretary of State to make arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance with a view to promoting the settlement of disputes arising from the Bill otherwise than by recourse to the courts. Access issues are one of the most fundamental causes and manifestations of discrimination against disabled people. The advice given to businesses and service providers in relation to the provision of access is therefore crucial in the elimination of such discrimination.
  Expert advice on the provision of accessible buildings is given, and has been given for many years, by access officers employed by local authorities. The Secretary of State for the Environment, in Circular 10/82 following the Disabled Persons Act 1981 stated that,
  "local authorities may consider it desirable that they should designate one of their staff as an 'access officer' to provide a single clearly identified point of contact on questions of access for disabled people".
  The first access officer was employed by Leicester City Council in 1981, and there are now over 140 access officers employed by English local authorities.
  The duties of an access officer vary from authority to authority to suit the specific circumstances of local need, but the fundamental aim is to promote an accessible built environment to ensure that disabled people are not denied the opportunity to participate fully in all aspects of life as a result of the poor design of our streets and buildings. I beg to move.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend is certainly keen on his pound of flesh—especially after the very broad hint that we all gave him that taxis were uppermost in our minds.
  We recognise that service providers will need advice on the new requirements and how best to comply with the law. That is why we are committed to ensuring that information and advice on the right of access is available to service providers. We will ensure that information and guidance will be available well before the new right of access comes into force. There will be codes of practice offering practical advice on matters such as the duty concerning refusal to serve; the requirement to change practices, policies and procedures; the requirement to provide auxiliary aids and services, where this would facilitate access; and the duty to remove physical barriers to access.
  2054
  It is that last duty that my noble friend mentioned in particular, and I am aware of the work of local authority access officers. I believe that my noble friend envisages that his amendment would extend that work to every local authority. While I acknowledge the valuable work done, I do not agree that this would be the best approach.
  We wish to ensure that there is a wealth of information and guidance available to help service providers comply with legislation. It will be crucial to allow service providers and traders to plan for the changes that they need to bring about if we are to take service providers with us in our aim of including disabled people in all areas of life. Indeed, the guidance—and the certainty it will give service providers about their duties—will help ensure that the right of access works as intended.
  The issue of improving access for disabled people is extremely complex. On the one hand we have the diversity of disability itself: different adjustments will be required to meet the needs of people with different impairments. On the other hand, service provision itself is immensely varied. We must consider what is needed to achieve access in such areas as retailing, leisure facilities, historic buildings (discussed earlier this evening), broadcasting and telecommunications, to name a few. Each type of service will need information and advice pertaining to its own concerns. We shall be seeking the input of experts in each field in drawing up guidance and codes of practice and we shall be keen for them to have a role in the advisory process too.
  My central point is that I believe that it would be unworkable to put a statutory duty on local authorities to provide such specialist advice in each of the areas of service provision. It would be unrealistic to expect local authorities to fulfil this role. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Swinfen: I shall withdraw the amendment, but I shall also consider what my noble friend has said. It is possible that I may come back at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past one o'clock.

  China: Population Control Policies
  China: Population Control Policies
  UN World Conference on Women, Beijing: Briefing Material
  UN World Conference on Women, Beijing: Briefing Material
  Turkey: Use of Kurdish Language
  Turkey: Use of Kurdish Language
  Access to Justice: Woolf Report
  Access to Justice: Woolf Report
  Chinook Crash: Inquiry Findings
  Chinook Crash: Inquiry Findings
  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  International Investment in UK Science: Select Committee Report
  International Investment in UK Science: Select Committee Report
  Royal Parks Review Group
  Royal Parks Review Group
  Royal Parks Inquiry: Consultants' Terms of Reference
  Royal Parks Inquiry: Consultants' Terms of Reference